I do realize the reasoning behind the “pro-choice” sentiment, and in some underlying ways, especially as an American, I even agree with it.
However, it would really warm my heart to hear someone who’s pro-choice admit pointedly, just once, that someone who believes that she is protecting a member of the human gene pool from being killed without any means of defense is not a fascist bigot just trying to “impose her antiquated morality on us.”
I don’t know how this woman made her arguement. It’s obviously possible that she did it illogically or rudely, but can we disregard that for a moment and just admit that the motivation to save someone from being “murdered”, no matter how much “choice” is involved on someone else’s part is not an evil motivation?
There is a little distinction here, as a religion cannot very well disavow the actions of its founder, and the Spanish Inquistition and its ilk are not the actions of the founder.
I guess a better way to state my previous post is that while it is a part of “church history”, I absolutely cut myself off from any association with it. I know it’s very hard to separate church history from the history of actions by Christians, but that’s what I’m trying to do. It’s extremely unfortunate that I have to do that.
Isn’t she being compelled to accept that others are allowed to “murder fetuses” (I assume this is the reason she’d give for opposing abortion, at any rate)? I agree that she’s in the wrong, but I do see some small level of compulsion there.
A few months back there was a fascinating (and highly non-intuitive, at least for me) thread that may or may not have something to say about this.
I felt i had to yell because the aura of ignorance around her was so thick that nothing would penetrate it, except yelling.
The thing that annoys me about arrogant christians is that they’re everywhere. Most arrogant people are only minor annoyances, but these christians are everywhere. Even my boss is one! I just think they should read what the bible says, and stop judging people.
Well, if you insists on seeing some small level of compulsion there, the question is, how can there be any less? You might say, “a rule that says there are no rules is still a rule”, but now describe a situation where there are truly zero rules. The pragmatic thing to do is to dismiss this point as unsubstantive or symbolic and stick to addressing civil rights issues on a substanitve level.
The idea of civil rights stresses the autonomy of the individual while accepting and embracing the fact that there are differences among individuals out there in society. The Religious Right ignores the latter point and tries to elevate the “right” not to be “forced to accept” to equivilance to all other rights. This is to short-circuit the whole concept of civil rights and return the situation to purely a contest of political power, where they hold a greater advantage due to the popularity of Christianity.
Grienspace:
Exactly how the girl in the OP interpreted the Bible to prohibit abortion is beside the point; it’s that she implied that laws should be based explicitly on interpretations the Bible, even (apparently) in the absence of any other logic. If she had used your logic and left the Bible out if it, her argument might have some legs.
Spooje:
Of course the girl couldn’t actually impose her will; the situation was obviously theoretical. It’s just that she would if she could. It’s called politics. People try to pool their voting power to gain victories for their agenda, while others try to persuade people not to join by arguing that the goals violate certain core principles.
Polycarp: Thanks.
The right to swing your fist stops at my face.
You have the right to do anything exept violate other people’s rights.
We’ll tolerate anything except intolerance.
But, if someone believes that the fetus is human, and also believes that it is the duty of society to suppress behavior harming others and avoid acting as regards that which does not, then the decision of a woman to have an abortion can not be her moral decision alone, because it does not affect only her own body and life, but another’s body and life, that of the fetus.
You may not agree with the premises, but if you accept those premises, as the woman in the OP seems to do, then, to act consistant with those beliefs, you’re probably going to oppose legalized abortion, because the “right to choose” you’re taking away is a false right which society can limit for the reasons above.
I can’t help but think that there just may be another message board somewhere else on the internet right now with an OP titled “Arrogant Atheists” and I’d imagine it goes something like this:
Perspective, my dear boy, perspective. FTR, fascism implies having rule over another (and forcibly getting your way), which means this girl is not a fascist since she is not forcing anything, merely debating. If she was fascist, she would be part of the government and you would be dead or in jail for supporting the crime of abortion.
That’s pretty good, but the thing in that kids story would be that he is shocked at not everyone beleiving in the bible. That’s just plain ignorance right there.
No, i was just trying to tell her why opposing her will on others was wrong. I wasn’t trying to impose anything i thought on her, i was just telling her the truth.
Of course every other group does this. My point is that this is how people have power. That it is unacceptable to use power to pass laws based solely on the Bible or other religious belief systems is pretty much what’s being asserted in the OP.
Nice point, tomndeb, but a little obscure for our man.
ssj_man2k:
Not to throw some more fuel on the fire, but substitute the word “nigger” for “Christian(s)” in the above paragraph of yours and try to see how offensive your tone and manner of address may be to some people. If you carry this aura with you through the Internet, is it altogether possible that you’re also projecting this hostility in some manner in the real world as well?
I can substitute the word “Sarah Brady” in the above paragraph to sum up my opposition as well, but that doesn’t grant me or my position any greater validity by implication.
IOW: if you’re going to debate, then debate. If you’re going to rant, then rant. In The Pit, please. As Freyr pointed out, and I will agree, I’ve met quite a few atheists who were just as arrogant in their non-beliefs (and arrogantly condescending toward any and all religious-types for their adherence to “primitive superstitions”) as any fundamentalists I’ve also met.
The real thrust of your jib is her cloying to her beliefs in the opposition of yours, and your resorting to force (yelling is a form of force) to quell her. You’re a real tough guy, aren’t you?
Arrogance in the form of judgment comes in many forms, my friend. Try looking into a mirror and seeing if you see any in there before you blow your top again.
And i never said i was a “tough guy.” I was just trying to get her to listen. I was respectful enough to listen to her, so she could of at least done the same.
