It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Religion of Abortion

page: 1
40
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+25 more 
posted on May, 8 2022 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Last week, someone leaked (illegally disseminated by the media) a first draft of a opinion written by Justice Alito of the US Supreme Court. In that draft, Justice Alito made many of the exact same arguments that have been made ever since Roe v. Wade was decided: that the so-called "right to abortion" enacted by Roe v. Wade is nowhere enumerated nor implied in the US Constitution; that without such enumeration or implication, the decision amounted to legislation by the US Supreme Court; that such legislation was the sole venue of legislators, not judges; and that the 10th Amendment required that any such legislation be reserved to the states in the absence of Constitutional mention.

The leaked opinion can be accessed in .pdf form here, as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

This is not a decision. it is a first draft. Rarely (I might venture to say "never') is an important document written in one attempt. Typically and traditionally, a draft is written, it is distributed to others who may wish to provide input and insight, and their comments are worded into subsequent drafts. The process is repeated until there are no more suggestions, and finally the document is officially released. Until such official release, the draft is meaningless. Now, this draft is being touted as close enough to what will become the final decision, but that is complete hearsay and, dare I say, panic.

However, this leak of a first draft has ignited a firestorm of controversy. Abortion has always been a touchy subject, but some of the posts I have seen since the leak have been literally over the top. Why, there's even one thread where people are calling for all unmarried men to be sterilized by the state!

OK, people feel strongly about this issue. I get that. But what I am seeing is not "people feeling strongly"... it is violent, hateful, irrational evil coming from human beings! And that is what I want to talk about in this thread: not the abortion issue itself (there are a half-dozen or more of those going on as I type), but rather one specific point that continually gets raised and now has reached a fever pitch: the religious argument.

Religion has always been a "thing." From approximately the 4th century BC, Judaism in some form or another has existed. It is possible some other religions have existed even longer; Zoroastrianism springs to mind. It's not some recent development of society. Indeed, history is rife with examples of man's inhumanity to man in the name of religion. Some religions appear to be mostly peaceful, while others appear to be quite violent. and I submit that is not the religion itself that causes this difference. Rather it is the input of various religious leaders that creates this difference. Of course, many of the more violent periods of history due to religion occurred when religion and politics merged into a single entity... witness the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, and the reign of the infamous Queen "Bloody" Mary of England. In all of those examples, and many more unspecified examples, religious zealotry turned evangelical (concerned with the behavior of others) and was given political and military power to assist in its goals.

We at one time had seemed to have learned ow badly this idea could turn; the First Amendment of the US Constitution states plainly

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
and since Article 1, Section 1 (the very first line after the Preamble) also states

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
it follows that since no government body other than Congress can make law and Congress can't make religious law, no religious law can exist in the Federal government. The Federal government cannot force people to follow a religion, nor can the Federal government forbid people from following a religion.

Seems clear enough. Some have called this "separation of church and state"; I prefer "separation of church from state." Either way, the intent is clearly worded.

I'm sure when most people read that, they think of "religion" as meaning Christianity, Islam, Judaism, perhaps Hindu, Buddism, or Sikh. Religion does include these, but it also extends farther. Most of us remember the infamous events at Jonestown, where Jim Jones erected the People's Temple and declared himself as some sort of demi-god. We all know how that turned out... all of his followers died at their own hands. Heaven's Gate is another good example; the followers killed themselves, apparently so their spirits could reach a comet that happened to be visible at the time.

Both of these cults were legal. Remember, Congress cannot enact a law forbidding them, and no one else in the Federal (or state, based on Supreme Court precedent) government can pass a law. Another such "cult" would be the Branch Davidians... which was attacked by the government due to illegality! How is that possible?

It's possible because while the religion itself must be legal, the actions of such a religion are not required to be legal. There is a gulf between law and religion, where an act may be deemed illegal if it violates the rights of another even if it is performed in the name of religion. Murder falls into this category: we have laws against murder because it involves the removal of the right to life from another. It does not matter that one of the Ten Commandments states "Thou shalt not kill." The statutes against murder stand on their own merit.

Back to the abortion issue: I have seen many arguments that claim that "pro-life" is a religious concept that is forbidden to the government, meaning any attempt to criminalize abortion must be unconstitutional. People are actually called "religious fanatics" and "lunatics" over the suggestion that abortion is the taking of a human life. However, this is not really the case. I will openly admit that I am a Christian, but my belief that an unborn child is a living person is based in science, not religion. Every child ever conceived is alive - scientific fact. Life never begins; it continues. Every unborn child is human - again, scientific fact based on the number and arrangement of chromosomes. Every unborn child is a separate instance of human life - still a scientific fact based on the unique DNA sequences that differentiate the child, from the instant of conception, from the mother.

However, I also do not deny the need for abortions. The reproductive process is quite complex and is easily given to errors. Sometimes these errors can be life-threatening to the mother, and should this happen, there should never be a prohibition nor delay of any sort on choosing the mother's life over that of the unborn. If my objection to abortion were purely religious, I would not hold such an attitude.

I am far from alone in having others make the (false) assumption that my views on abortion are purely religious; it is actually a pretty common thing. Yet, despite repeated, continuous rebuttals of this fact, the allegations still continue unabated. That is not reason nor is it even an indication of intelligence... it is an indication of religion.

>> continued >>



posted on May, 8 2022 @ 06:16 PM
link   
>> continued >>

Only in religion are all arguments discounted without thought. That is what separates religion from science/reason at the most basic level. On a religious level, that which is written in the Holy Scriptures must be taken to be true no matter what. On a scientific level, all beliefs are subject to question and consideration, especially in light of new information. Therefore, the position that abortion should be one way or another without consideration of any of the known facts surrounding the issue, and without any consideration to the opinions of others, is inherently religious. The position of believing one way or another on the abortion issue, yet still analyzing and debating the positions of others, is not inherently religious.

It appears to me, since the existence of inherent religious views by those on one side of the debate is an assumption that completely ignores any explanation by those it accuses, these accusations are indicative of a religious position in the accusers moreso than the accused.

That thought prompted me to take a deeper look into the other arguments of those who can so easily find religion in the opposing side. Another common argument is "the child is part of the woman's body." Science says different; science says that once the sperm and egg combine, new, unique DNA is created. DNA is what science uses to determine identity. However, on at least one occasion, this fact, despite being common knowledge, was disputed in itself. The new excuse was "blood transfusions do not have one's DNA; neither do donated organs." That actually set me back a bit... on the surface this appeared to be true. So how was I arguing that DNA could indicate the uniqueness of the body? And if that were true, that DNA was not unique to the individual, then how could DNA be used for identification?

Turns out, the argument was only true on the surface. Blood cells do not replicate; they are formed in the marrow. Therefore, red blood cells with different DNA would not propagate that new DNA sequence. Transplanted organs require that the body's natural immune response be negated for the life of the patient; else the new organ will be rejected by the body. In both cases, any DNA differentiation in the body is either short-termed or the body's own reaction to it must be tightly controlled. As it turns out, DNA does indeed determine individuality as science says.

But the point I wish to make is that, even in the face of direct evidence of an unborn child being unique, science itself was twisted around to try and make it say that which was not true, not for the sake of truth or the search for knowledge, but to try and maintain the end argument. That is religious dogma.

Any competent psychologist will admit that projection is a common occurrence among humans. The reasoning behind that is straightforward. As humans, we have the ability to imagine future events. We can, for instance, look at a darkening sky and understand that can mean inclement weather is approaching. We can read novels and oftentimes anticipate what the next chapter will bring. We commonly drive automobiles which move at a much higher rate of speed than nature bestowed upon us, and still manage to not crash even though other vehicles are also traveling in the same area. We do this by anticipating future positions of the various automobiles in the vicinity. This ability is so intertwined in human experience we often don't even consciously think about it.

Our ability to anticipate is based on our experiences. For example, we know how cars can move because we drive them. So we don't consider that a car will suddenly turn straight up and fly, or that a car will accelerate instantaneously from a dead start to 100 mph. We can safely ignore those anticipations. We know that a car traveling toward us is a danger, though, because most of us have at least seen a crash. So we concentrate on those things that we would expect, acknowledge those things that could happen, and ignore the impossible.

We do something similar in society. We tend to base our expectations of others' future actions on what we have seen similar people do, or what we imagine we would do in a similar situation. if someone has a history of robbery, we expect them to rob again if given the opportunity. If someone is starving, we are not surprised when they steal food because we can imagine that, in a similar situation, we would steal food. The shock and awe we see on the news surrounds stories where someone performs an act that the majority of people find surprising. School shootings, for instance, are big news not just because of the tragedy, but because the average person cannot imagine a situation where they would shoot up a school. They cannot project into the news story because their experiences and imagination do not cover such.

Another aspect, which many may be familiar with, is a spouse's constant worry over infidelity. I have seen it happen many times during my life to friends, and in every single case where a spouse constantly suspects infidelity despite any "evidence" being easily esplainable and purely circumstantial, it winds up being the accuser who is cheating. On the other hand, I have never accused my wife of infidelity, nor has she accused me. Neither of us have ever been unfaithful, because neither of us can imagine ourselves being unfaithful. We are now approaching our 35th anniversary and are still in love.

In short, we tend to project onto others, expect future actions from others, based on what we can imagine ourselves doing in similar situations. If we cannot imagine ourselves doing something, we do not expect others to do what we would not. So when someone consistently tries to attribute religion to another's position on abortion, at exclusion of all arguments to the contrary, it follows that they can imagine themselves taking a position based solely on religion. If they cannot imagine such a thing, they cannot project such a thing.

So, to summarize thus far, we have two indications of religious fervor among those who consistently attribute religion to the opposing side: fervent assumptions which discount any evidence to the contrary out of hand, and projection based on the ability to imagine themselves doing similar. I believe that is sufficient to raise some concern over the abortion issue becoming a religious cult.

Now, as stated, such an organization, despite whether it is a true cult or not, is completely legal as long as it does not violate legal rpincoples based on non-religious tenets. Religion is acceptable in this country, whether or not it is organized or even recognized as such. Thus far those who support Roe v. Wade and on-demand abortion have not broken any laws. Their opinions are valid in the public square.

Or have they?

Recall that this leaked document is a draft, not a decision. It is internal to the US Supreme Court, which is designed to operate independently from politics. The Supreme Court is charged with basing legal decisions based on legal analysis, not on political agendas; that is the very reason Justices are appointed and not elected, and why they serve for life with good behavior. The leaking of this document is obviously, even if some might call it involuntary, a political act and therefore represents a danger to the integrity and independence of the US Supreme Court.

>> continued >>



posted on May, 8 2022 @ 06:17 PM
link   
>> continued >>

Moreso, the reaction to a document that is not even official has shown indications of turning quite violent. Six Supreme Court Justices have been "doxxed" by abortion advocates and protests are scheduled outside their homes. This is an attempt to sway their votes, which is a direct violation of 18 USC §1507. In other words, it is illegal. Other protests are planned for Mother's Day (ironically the celebration of the very social institution the pro-abortionists are attacking), which would seem to be an attempt to incite violent conlict.

It does seem the pro-abortion movement is also crossing the line into illegality.

But the scariest point of all is that these same pro-abortionists are crossing this line of legality with religious zeal while attempting to use government might to enforce their agenda. Roe v. Wade established new law, via court decree rather than via legislative process, in violation of Artice 1, Section 1 of the US Constitution, in what Justice Alito called (and others have called since it was enacted) a capricious and arbitrary manner. In addition, according again to the leaked decision and in agreement with what legal scholars have claimed since its enactment, the issue itself was forbidden to the US government and reserved to the individual states by the 10th Amendment. These conditions: religious fervor, insistence on dehumanizing the oposition, and the (improper) use of government might are the exact same set of circumstances that led to the abominations I mentioned earlier. Even the circumstances leading up to World War II show similarities: the dehumanizing of the Jewish inhabitants, the improper use of legalities so the Jewish people could be imprisoned, and the use of military power to expand the Motherland.

And now, we have the beginnings of that occurring in the USA.

We have a Court ruling (NOT a law!) that has been accepted as a law and enforced as a law since 1973. An attempt may be made to correct it. In response, we have conservatives being demonized and threats of literally physically attacking those conservatives over a draft. And, in case no one has noticed, the same government that is in an uproar over the abortion issue is now assisting a country with which we have no treaty against invasion by another country with which we have no present treaty. The country being invaded has an awful lot of questionable ties to the present administration, which is spearheaded by a man with advanced dementia.

I see problems. Maybe others don't, but thus far no one has presented a reasonable argument that might assuage those fears. I don't see that changing at this point. The only thing I do see is that maybe, perhaps, someone will read this and realize that things are not right, that things are not going as they should. That is my hope anyway.

If enough people were to realize the cultish behavior we now see over a simple leaked draft, perhaps the cult will cease to exist... or at the very least, be unable to create the types of problems history has warned us about.

TheRedneck


+5 more 
posted on May, 8 2022 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Put aside the science, put aside the religious aspect (well put, by the way) what we actually have, in my most humble opinion, is a human rights issue.

The human rights aspect can be argued well with science.

History has shown, however, that religious fervor, fanatic fervor, can and has had a deleterious effect on human rights.


+4 more 
posted on May, 8 2022 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I have pretty similar views as you. Abortion is a necessary life saving medical procedure. I can't imagine of having to choose between your life or your child's.

Like you I think we must look to science, not religion. The unborn child is clearly not part of the mother like other cells, it is clearly a unique individual, and it is clearly human. DNA confirms this.



posted on May, 8 2022 @ 07:22 PM
link   
But it's so much easier for them if they can simply dismiss every objection out of hand as mere religion. Then they don't have to think about it and consider it as a serious argument with merit.



posted on May, 8 2022 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I think most rational people should be about at this point. The problem is that there are far too few rational people in the world.



posted on May, 8 2022 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I side with anabaptist theology
Effectively freewill was a gift from God and we make our own choices, good bad and suffer/reap the rewards of our labours. If a woman chooses to terminate her child its her decision, no one has the right to stop her
Having said that, its still killing a child
The question isnt to me what will happen its what can I do.
Ongoing love counsel and support to those women in their choice, support those women after their choice and be christian offering love and compassion no matter the circumstances

This is all science and politics and it seems the victims are lost, condemned and discarded, the human face is lost in science and politics



posted on May, 8 2022 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

So if I wanted to run around raping and killing women no one has the right to stop me?



posted on May, 8 2022 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I’ll just leave this little link here to cloud the issue a little more

I mean what says kill ‘em all more than an ambiguous interview with Baby Roe herself?



posted on May, 8 2022 @ 08:11 PM
link   
It was "leaked" by the Democrat leaders .
For a reason .
edit on 5/8/22 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2022 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Raggedyman

So if I wanted to run around raping and killing women no one has the right to stop me?


I think you might find civil laws frown upon those actions and a lengthy sentence would be justified. I am talking from a christian perspective and a christians roll in legislation



posted on May, 8 2022 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I think from a Christian or a Citizen's perspective we should stop people who are killing other people without cause.



posted on May, 8 2022 @ 08:41 PM
link   
More concerning to me than the abortion issue is the compromising of our country's highest court. The sanctity of the SCOTUS has been violated; where does that leave laws and Justice? Why is no one concerned about our last scared institution being defiled and/or corrupted? Where's the outcry from our elected leaders to demand the perpetrators be found and held accountable?

What good is society without laws? How can our laws been deemed just if they can't be examined without putting those lawmakers' lives in jeopardy, and causing country-wide riots before they've even been decided on?

People are constantly screaming about 'government overreach', yet when it looks like some of that decision making power will be turned over to the states, the Great Meltdown happens. We saw it happen with the 'defund the police' movement, and that didn't work out well.

Just like the border issue that has been a disaster for decades, none of our representatives will address it at the proper level and work to pass laws to fix it. If abortion is to be a law of the land, our lawmakers need to be held accountable for not properly address the issue and work on passing a law one way or the other.

Letting 'mostly peaceful' protests determine the direction of our nation is setting a precedent nobody is going to like in the near future.



posted on May, 8 2022 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

The problem is that for some reason, people want to split hairs on this and try to think that a baby in the womb is different from a human out in the open air, plain to see. It's not, and we have the medical science available to demonstrate that.

Sometimes, abortion is necessary, but far too many times, it's an act of convenience.



posted on May, 8 2022 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

For some the head of the baby is poking out and it's still not 'human' and perfectly acceptable to kill, 9 months fully developed being delivered.



posted on May, 8 2022 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


I side with anabaptist theology

That's quite the bold statement.

The anabaptist (yes this is the denomination that later morphed into the various Baptist denominations we have today) were originally considered a cult by most Christians of the time. As a matter of fact, it was considered one of the more extreme cults. Some early churches of the time actively despised them so much for being so extreme in their beliefs and actions that members were shunned publicly in society. Being raised Southern Baptist, I always chuckled at the name after I learned that little piece of trivia.

Then again, I did convert from Southern Baptist to Christian later on.


I need to point out that I do not intend to disparage the various Baptist denominations by saying all that. I just find it funny. It's all said in good fun.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 8 2022 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes, slaughtered by protestants and catholics alike
I guess the main difference is that they mostly dont support or get involved with civil authority.
Rome and her cohorts were run by catholicism and the protestant church controlled what was left, anabaptists steered clear of all politics, somewhat frowned upon in an era of theocracy
That and we dont have a pope and the bible isnt exactly considered infallible (not to say it isnt highly regarded
2 Timothy 3:16 ESV
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness).
Short of that, not much difference to nominal Protestantism

History clearly indicates theocracy never works, it was the religious who put Christ to the cross.



posted on May, 8 2022 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Raggedyman

I think from a Christian or a Citizen's perspective we should stop people who are killing other people without cause.


So, do we kill?
Hacksaw ridge was a good movie

Jesus didnt come to change the world, just a persons heart
If they dont want to listen, wipe the dust from your feet and walk away



posted on May, 8 2022 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
Thats not my argument, I fully agree with you but
I cant choose for others, God could but doesnt, who am I then

Its tricky, whats best, abortion is terrible



new topics

top topics



 
40
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join