Judge rules citizen enforcement of Texas abortion law unconstitutional

Peeples ruled that the law unconstitutionally gave legal standing to people not injured, and was an "unlawful delegation of enforcement power to a private person."

A very powerful Christian argument against abortion: Jesus Christ

Jesus was destined to suffer horribly - publicly humiliated, tortured and crucified, perhaps words can't describe the intensity of his pain, both physical and psychological - and yet God didn't ask Mary to have an abortion.

That said, hell does make you wish you were never born!

Also, what's the deal with Christian martyrdom? The martyr's logic: I'd rather not live than <insert option but whatever it is, it's gotta be pain of some kind>.

who doesn't want to shoot a judge now and again?

A person is made from an egg and a sperm, from mother and father, not from one. — Gregory

Interesting; considering your usual religious take on things. I would have put you in for going with the one becomes two, the two becomes three, etc. Ergo, we all come from one.

yet God didn't ask Mary to have an abortion. — Agent Smith

Perhaps, but she wasn't after child support, nor was Jesus made from a weekend of fun, so perhaps not the same value attachment there eh.

Where does the soul come from? Does it exist prior to taking form in the fertilized egg? Does each parent have half a soul to share?
If the body and soul are the same, does the soul change as the body does? — DingoJones

I will throw in a theory here.

Spirit creates soul, which fills the mind, creating consciousness. The mind needs a housing and means through which to experience life, thereby increasing learning, hence the requirement of a body. The body, as housing for the soul to achieve experiential learning, is created by the biological union of the parents at the behest of the spirit wishing to incarnate in this current reality, therefore the physical union results in conception at the next available opportunity. Abortion could be interpreted as the parental unit effectively canceling that cosmic contract, unless the experiential goal of the spirit/soul union was to experience being aborted and adding that to the multitude of other death experiences.

Body and soul are not the same and therefore do not change in tandem. The body is the vessel through which the soul gathers experiential knowledge so that it may return this knowledge to the spirit.

Cool eh!

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

A very powerful Christian argument against abortion: Jesus Christ — Agent Smith

Pathetically bad.

It's already been established that the god of the old testament is a bit of a bastard.

But even supposing that there is a god who sacrificed himself for our sins, the comparison with a child who's suffering achieves nothing so dramatic, who's suffering will help no one, utterly fails.

In the XXth century alone no one was "to suffer horribly - publicly humiliated, tortured..., perhaps words can't describe the intensity of [their] pain, both physical and psychological"? And 2000 years ago, crucifixion was a common form of execution. Can you say auto-de-fe? Or trail of tears? Black Death? The list of misery seems endless. If Christ died for us, he did a poor job of it. — tim wood

What stands out is that the Christian God isn't a hypocrite. Of course being a God, ultimately meant that the Jesus' suffering doesn't carry the same weight as a human's. In fact it sounds like a farce, a scam, a fraud divine.

Pathetically bad.

It's already been established that the god of the old testament is a bit of a bastard.

But even supposing that there is a god who sacrificed himself for our sins, the comparison with a child who's suffering achieves nothing so dramatic, who's suffering will help no one, utterly fails. — Banno

:up:

Jesus had nothing to lose at all (being divine meant that he couldn't actually be hurt/killed). That's not a sacrifice is it?

Yet, I can't shake off the feeling that there's some authenticity to Jesus' suffering. The via dolorosa meant/means something. Are we not, as some Christians claim, all children of God?

yet God didn't ask Mary to have an abortion.
— Agent Smith

Perhaps, but she wasn't after child support, nor was Jesus made from a weekend of fun, so perhaps not the same value attachment there eh — Book273

These aspects of the problem seem irrelevant. The thing is Jesus was going to end up on a wooden cross somewhere in the desert after being tortured. Yet, God didn't do what most parents would've done - a life of suffering is pointless as suiciders will avouch.

Read my reply to Banno and tim wood for further clarification of my (revised) position.

Jesus had nothing to lose at all (being divine meant that he couldn't actually be hurt/killed). That's not a sacrifice is it? — Agent Smith

Well, no. He presumably did suffer. Even if "crucification is a doddle".

The point is that his suffering had a purpose, while the suffering of a child raised in poverty need not.

Well, no. He presumably did suffer. Even if "crucification is a doddle".

The point is that his suffering had a purpose, while the suffering of a child raised in poverty need not. — Banno

We're all God's children: If Jesus' suffering/death meant zilch, the same goes for us. If, on the other hand, Jesus' trials and tribulations had a purpose, so too does ours.

Not sure how the thread flopped from abortion to Jesus. Unless one is of that particular religion, that argument is inapplicable to anyone else. If one is of that religion the argument is equally useless as one would not get an abortion as it is not approved by the religion.

However, relating to the thread again, there is no point in having a high court if it won't make final decisions, might as well go to Crowley: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". Really helpful supreme court.

We're all God's children: If Jesus' suffering/death meant zilch, the same goes for us. If, on the other hand, Jesus' trials and tribulations had a purpose, so too does ours. — Agent Smith

We're talking about law here; rules for everyone, not just Christians. Your argument assumes a Christian hegemony, it assume the primacy of a Christian perspective. It lacks respect for the views of non-christians. In that regard it is immoral.

100%

We're talking about law here; rules for everyone, not just Christians. Your argument assumes a Christian hegemony, it assume the primacy of a Christian perspective. It lacks respect for the views of non-christians. In that regard it is immoral. — Banno

Here's an argument:

Imagine X wants to murder Y.

Options for X:

1. X kills Y in the now.

2. X goes back in time and kills Y's parents [Grandfather paradox of time travel]

3. X causes/induces Y's mom to abort when Y's a fetus [Abortion]

That abortion (3) appears in the list of ways X could "murder" Y. That must mean something, right?

You do realise that post is not a reply, don't you? So presumably you accepted my argument that applying Christian ethics as if it were universal is immoral. Cheers.

To your new argument, what do you think it means? Draw your conclusion. Explain how you think it helps your case.

it means that you have presented your position in this way in order to strengthen your position while using time travel as that strengthening means. I will let you process how weak that makes you initial position, that a time travel position is STRENGTHENING to it. Sheesh

1. X kills Y in the now.

2. X goes back in time and kills Y's parents [Grandfather paradox of time travel]

3. X causes/induces Y's mom to abort when Y's a fetus [Abortion]

That abortion (3) appears in the list of ways X could "murder" Y. That must mean something, right? — Agent Smith

That analogy is easily distinguished with relevant differences.

#1: Y is not living inside of X's body; illegal.
#2. Y is not living inside of X's body; illegal.
#3. Y is not living inside of X's body; illegal.

Notice how you introduced parents and mom as third parties with no consideration for them whatsoever? That's what anti-abortion people do. Let me rephrase it properly for you:

Y is living inside of X's body, X kills Y; Legal, moral, ethical.

We're talking about law here; rules for everyone, not just Christians. Your argument assumes a Christian hegemony, it assume the primacy of a Christian perspective. It lacks respect for the views of non-christians. In that regard it is immoral. — Banno

The US Constitution guarantees freedom from government-involvement in religious affairs--clear separation of Church and State. The Texas law certainly involves the state in what is primarily a religious issue (not just when life begins but when personhood begins, adult autonomy (reproductive decision making), the right to privacy, and more. The Texan government has decided in favor of extremely intrusive involvement in (what many consider) private, individual, reproductive decision-making.

However, it doesn't seem reasonable to ignore the religious makeup of Texas. "According to the Pew Research Center in 2014, Christianity was the largest religion (77%).[62][63] The following largest were the irreligious (18%), nothing in particular (13%), Judaism (1%), Islam (1%), Buddhism (1%) and Hinduism and other religions at less than 1 percent each."

The 77% of Texas Christians tilt strongly toward the conservative end of the spectrum. What percentage of belief, political views, or practice does it take to achieve hegemony? It seems like believers have it there. My congressional district in Minnesota votes about 80% Democratic-Farm-Labor. Do we have hegemony?

Just to clarify, I strongly disapprove of the Texas law on abortion, am absolutely pro-choice. I don't pray, don't believe in heaven or hell, and a divinely managed creation. Pretty much an atheist. Minnesota is somewhat less religious, and more liberal at that, than Texas, but the Lutherans and Catholics (et al) run things.

What percentage of belief, political views, or practice does it take to achieve hegemony? — Bitter Crank

Any.

Hegemony would occur when a law adopts christian values instead of secular values.

Or "Hegemony would occur when a law adopts prevailing majority social values instead of a minority dissenting views"?

According to this poll, the abortion debate is driven by the absolutists minority on both sides.

Three-quarters of Americans say they want to keep in place the landmark Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade, that made abortion legal in the United States, but a strong majority would like to see restrictions on abortion rights, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll.

What the survey found is a great deal of complexity — and sometimes contradiction among Americans — that goes well beyond the talking points of the loudest voices in the debate.

This poll shows that hegemony goes to the pro-abortion position--nationally, maybe not locally.

"Hegemony would occur when a law adopts prevailing majority social values instead of a minority dissenting views"? — Bitter Crank

The issue is that one's religious views are irrelevant to social policy. "Hegemony" was used to indicate the dominance of one religious view over others - the breach of the constitution you spoke of.

This poll shows that hegemony goes to the pro-abortion position--nationally, maybe not locally. — Bitter Crank

Eventually a woman from Texas will have to travel to get an abortion. How far, though? To Ohio?

Imagine X wants to murder Y.

Options for X:

1. X kills Y in the now.

2. X goes back in time and kills Y's parents [Grandfather paradox of time travel]

3. X causes/induces Y's mom to abort when Y's a fetus [Abortion] — Agent Smith

Now

X= Robert, 39 year old male.
Y= tapeworm, living in Robert's small intestine for the past year, now causing cramps and making Robert finally aware of Y's existence.

Your argument supports the continuation of Robert's tapeworm infestation on the ground that killing the tapeworm is immoral. Notice, you can still keep the time travel, it will change nothing.

The obvious return is that the tapeworm isn't a human, however, neither is the fetus as it is still in development. The claim that it will become a human presupposes that nothing will happen to interrupt said developmental process. This is a weak position as a great many things can interrupt this process, medical, or spontaneous, abortion being one of them.

I will also posit that the tapeworm is at least as concerned about it's continued life as is the fetus.

One thing a tape worm can do for you that a fetus can't is suppress allergy symptoms by reducing the sensitivity of the immune system. Personally, I prefer Benadryl to parasites.

Gloria Steinem said "If men could get pregnant, abortion on demand would be a sacrament."

You do realise that post is not a reply, don't you? — Banno

Yes. I thought you'd understand without me saying so that you'd made a good point.

The pro-life camp largely consists of Christians I'm told, from the Bible belt that too.

Question 1: What happened to separation of Church and State in those regions? It seems America has its own home-grown religious zealots tucked away in the deep south. An Americanistan ruled by christian sharia law. :chin: Looks like a ticking time bomb to me.

Question 2: What about Christian ethics is inappropriate? Christian ethics has been at the forefront of what I call the ethicization of science and commerce, at least in the Western world. That's a plus in my book. Without Christianity, scientists and business people would be lacking a moral compass. The consequences of that, I'm sure, you're fully aware of: Even with Christianity the situation is bad; without Christianity, it would've been much, much worse. View the Christian anti-abortion movement in this wider ethical movement, and it's not as bad as the pro-choice camp makes it out to be.

That analogy is easily distinguished with relevant differences.

#1: Y is not living inside of X's body; illegal.
#2. Y is not living inside of X's body; illegal.
#3. Y is not living inside of X's body; illegal.

Notice how you introduced parents and mom as third parties with no consideration for them whatsoever? That's what anti-abortion people do. Let me rephrase it properly for you:

Y is living inside of X's body, X kills Y; Legal, moral, ethical. — James Riley

Yes. Please don't get me wrong. I respect the rights of women. I may have been a little sexist in my youth but that's thousands of years ago, I've matured (it seems for the better).

I'm pro-choice for now but still would like the pro-life side to mount a strong opposition for the simple reason that it puts pressure on scientists/medical community to come up with a different solution, a solution that's more nuanced, that's more in keeping with our sophisticated worldview, than simply expelling a living fetus, a potential person, from the uterus.

As for my thought experiment, a simple question: If you wanted me dead, making my mom abort me when I'm a fetus is an option, no? [Terminator movie franchise]

it means that you have presented your position in this way in order to strengthen your position while using time travel as that strengthening means. I will let you process how weak that makes you initial position, that a time travel position is STRENGTHENING to it. Sheesh — Book273

Please read my reply to James Riley above.

Petitio principii. You're assuming a fetus is a parasite.

What my thought experiment is supposed to demonstrate is:

For a person out to get you,

1. You never having been born is "better" than having to kill you after. If something seems "better" to an evil person, it must be morally worse

2. Abortion provides a loophole for future time traveling murderers. All they have to do to off someone is go back in time and cause the target's mom to have an abortion. Such time traveling murderers would go scot-free as no crime would've been committed (if abortion is legal). This may already be happening. :chin: