The Enlightenment Culture and Creative Reason

Originally posted by frogstomp
Im saying the Pope and his minions dont. and neither does any other religious group have a right to tell a government to force a clearly religious matter upon anybody.

The same would apply the other way if a government ordered someone to have an abortion , it simply shouldn't have that power and that in ...[text shortened]... ight marraiges.
It's a matter of improper use of State power nothing more nothing less.

Im saying the Pope and his minions dont. and neither does any other religious group have a right to tell a government to force a clearly religious matter upon anybody.

The point is - it isn't just a religious matter. It is (quite literally) a matter of life and death.

Originally posted by bbarr
But make sure the text is backwards, 'cause we already know this.

You don't know anything, Mr. Knowitall.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Im saying the Pope and his minions dont. and neither does any other religious group have a right to tell a government to force a clearly religious matter upon anybody.

The point is - it isn't just a religious matter. It is (quite literally) a matter of life and death.[/b]

quite literally you get that from your religion's definition of life.there are other equally valid religious views that differ.
That's why its a religious issue and not one that the State is competent to resolve.
Since it must leave religious issues for the individuals to resolve for themselves it cannot intervene or it becomes a theocratic State with all the attendant suppression of the other religious groups.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You don't know anything, Mr. Knowitall.

oh jeez Mr inquisitor is here again

Originally posted by frogstomp
quite literally you get that from your religion's definition of life.there are other equally valid religious views that differ.
That's why its a religious issue and not one that the State is competent to resolve.
Since it must leave religious issues for the individuals to resolve for themselves it cannot ...[text shortened]... a theocratic State with all the attendant suppression of the other religious groups.

quite literally you get that from your religion's definition of life.there are other equally valid religious views that differ.

Of course. I can imagine there are religions out there that consider human "life" to be restricted to fair-skinned, blue-eyed, blond-haired people.

That the fetus is alive is undeniable - both philosophically and scientifically. As a person who exhibits some experience with biology, you should know that.

That's why its a religious issue and not one that the State is competent to resolve.

I believe this was what the judgement in Roe vs. Wade said. If the State is not competent to resolve the issue, then I believe it should err on the side of life. After all, most States hold the right to life to be the most important right of all.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I believe this was what the judgement in Roe vs. Wade said.

What's the status quo in the UK?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What's the status quo in the UK?

Summary of legal grounds and time limits for abortion as laid out in the 1967 Abortion Act

Up to 24 weeks two doctors must decide that the risk to a woman’s physical or mental health or the risk to her child(ren)’s physical or mental health will be greater if she continues with the pregnancy than if she ends it.

There is no time limit on abortion where two doctors agree that a woman’s health or life is gravely threatened by continuing with the pregnancy or that the fetus is likely to be born with severe physical or mental abnormalities.

In the event that an abortion must be performed as a matter of medical emergency a second doctor’s agreement does not need to be sought.
...
Providing that two doctors confirm that her need for an abortion fits the legal criteria, a woman does not need the consent of her own doctor, her partner or her family to have an abortion.

Women under 16 can have an abortion, without parental consent in some circumstances.†

---
† http://www.efc.org.uk/Foryoungpeople/Factsaboutabortion/MoreonUKabortionlaw
---

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]quite literally you get that from your religion's definition of life.there are other equally valid religious views that differ.

Of course. I can imagine there are religions out there that consider human "life" to be restricted to fair-skinned, blue-eyed, blond-haired people.

That the fetus is alive is undeniable - ...[text shortened]... de of life. After all, most States hold the right to life to be the most important right of all.[/b]

the issue in Roe v Wade was just when a fetus attained viability, and defined human life as viable during the 3rd trimester.
all the arguments presented that concerned the first 2 trimesters were religious in nature. They were then and still are.
Its again not a matter of what you or I think about a fetus , its a matter of when the fetus becomes fully human and capable of surviving birth . until then it's no more human than the woman's tonsils.

Originally posted by frogstomp
the issue in Roe v Wade was just when a fetus attained viability, and defined human life as viable during the 3rd trimester.
all the arguments presented that concerned the first 2 trimesters were religious in nature. They were then and still are.
Its again not a matter of what you or I think about a fetus , ...[text shortened]... able of surviving birth . until then it's no more human than the woman's tonsils.

its a matter of when the fetus becomes fully human and capable of surviving birth . until then it's no more human than the woman's tonsils.

A fetus is a very different organism (it is one!) from the woman's tonsils. A fetus is not genetically identical to its mother; the tonsils are. A fetus will, in the natural course of things, develop into an autonomous human being; tonsils will not.

Originally posted by frogstomp
btw that reminds me when did the RCC excommunicate herr Hitler or any other Nazi for that matter, if the RCC is so interested in the sanctity of life , one would think at least Hitler since 100 million people died in the war he was mostly responsible for.

maybe a word or two from the pope might have ...[text shortened]... s another matter altogether I doubt it many Japanese would have lstened to the pope.

Mit Brenneder Sorge

Originally posted by lucifershammer

A fetus is...

To cut a long story short, you presumably do not oppose abortion only when the mother's life or sanity is at risk, in keeping with the law in the UK?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Mit Brenneder Sorge

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
To cut a long story short, you presumably do not oppose abortion only when the mother's life or sanity is at risk, in keeping with the law in the UK?

When the mother's life is at risk - no, I do not oppose abortion (though I still think every effort should be made to save both mother and child).

Sanity is a different matter. All too often this clause is misused in terms of the kind of "mental anguish" we see in petty lawsuits. Mental illness, unless it has a physiological cause, is mostly treatable. I do not believe sanity constitutes a sufficient cause to over-rule a human being's right to life in the vast majority of cases.

If you can think of more severe cases, I'd like to hear them.

Btw, why did you ask me about UK law?

Cheers,

LH

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Btw, why did you ask me about UK law?

I can't say I know too much about sanity.

I thought you lived in the UK.