Oldmangamer_73 :
You must also realize and accept the truth that Islam in particular is not just a religion but a governing ideology. In Islam, you can NOT separate church and state. They are one and the same.
Many organized religions are like that- a belief system plus a system of government that uses the belief system to control the subjects. Look at Catholicism- the Pope is a single person who is the head of the religion and also a head of state (albeit a tiny tiny state.) That is exactly analogous to the Ayatollahs, mullahs, etc. in some Muslim countries. Religion is not necessarily a government, but organized religion surely is.
Crush3d :
Many people in the United States can't even grasp the concept of seperation of church and state.. the obvious example is Christianity.
There is a very strong separation of church and state in the U.S. There is no state religion and today even any implied support of a Christian religion by a publicly-funded group is very much prohibited (witness the whole banning of student prayer in schools fiascos that have occurred in the past 10-15 years.) Using religious principles in concluding that an embryo is a human life and therefore interpreting existing law to stating that abortion is murder and should be illegal is NOT establishing a state religion. Fining people for not attending a Lutheran church on Sunday would be- and that is highly illegal in the U.S.
Many arguments against gay rights, abortion, stem cell research, etc. end up with religion being a major driving force behind the opposition to these things.
They are active controversies without any real proof as to what is really going on. What makes gay people gay? Is it a normal variant or a disease process? We don't know, so the argument is going to be 100% opinion and conjecture. Ditto with "when does life really start?" No real answers, so it's all opinion. These arguments fall into the exact same category as "are bailouts good or bad?" There is no way to do a controlled trial so it essentially boils down to if you are a statist, you say yes and if you are an individualist you say no. Same with the stem cell/abortion and homosexual issues.
The "tolerant" people here can't get it and people expect a group that some consider "less tolerant" to understand?
The truth is that most of the so-called "tolerant" people are just as intolerant or even MORE intolerant than the sol-called "intolerant" people. "Progressives" are tolerant as long as you agree with them, if not, they'll seek to use every means possible to silence you and make your actions illegal. "Hate speech" and the "fairness doctrine" are the hallmarks of these folks. Individualists and libertarians are often viewed as being intolerant because they are opinionated. They'll tell you that you are evil/wrong/suck but- and this is a BIG "but"- they nearly always will grit their teeth and let you do it because they don't want to set a precedent of having the government trample individual rights lest you use it against them. Funny, huh?
riser :
Religion matters more today than it did 200 years ago because the moral compass has changed. On top of that, Religion plays a huge factor in decision making. While Gov't should be held distant from Religions, the person making the decision is not.
Religion has gone from being a major influence in the U.S. to being basically a non-player. Roe v. Wade, the striking down of virtually all blue laws, church attendance declining by leaps and bounds...religion is on the decline in the U.S. like it is in most of Europe.
Regarding abortion, the issue is not life/death, it is the money. Remove the money from the situation and the argument is pointless. The gov't funding people to have abortions upsets a lot of people because it is something they do not believe in. Remove the money, the issue goes away.
The issue is really about POWER. Most Democrats want to give federal funding for abortion because they think it will get them more votes, and consequently, more Democrats elected to give them more votes in Congress and a "mandate" to ram through legislation the general public does not like (e.g. Obamacare.) The Dems also want more things to be under the federal purview to increase the size, scope, and ultimate power of the government they control. The Republicans oppose federal funding for abortion because some Republicans are against it based on Constitutional reasons (the government has no role in this area), some are against it on semi-religious reasons, and many are against it because Democrats are for it. Providing an opposition is popular and can win you votes. Remove the money and this will NOT go away because it is a votes/power issue.
Reynod :
But your not a woman and not pregnant ... therefore its not your decision to judge a woman's right to carry or terminate her child.
Its individual choice and the woman lives with the consequences.
Such a simplistic explanation.
- The person who really has to live with the consequences of an unintended/unwanted pregnancy where at least one of the parents considered an abortion is the
child! It is going to be a less than ideal upbringing for them to say the least and often downright bad. Single parent, didn't really want the kid, how is that kid going to be taken care of? Generally poorly. I've seen it far too many times. The KID is the one that really suffers, not the sperm donor or sperm receptacle.
- It takes two people to have a child. The law also says that two people are financially and legally responsible for that child. Thus both "live with the consequences." However only one person gets a say as to whether an abortion or adoption is an option or not. How is that fair in the least?
You can't have your freedom of speech and right to bear arms then restrict the rights of half your population in a similar way ... can you?
That is a non sequitur.
The whole argument about the legality of abortion really revolves around how far along an embryo/fetus needs to be before it is considered to be alive. We have all agreed that a child who is born cannot have its life terminated. Killing a neonate would clearly be murder and illegal. Okay, what if that baby was born a day earlier? Would it have lived? Nearly certainly if the mother was anywhere near term. So the fetus must be alive the day before it was delivered if that is the case. So when do you consider the fetus to be alive? When docs can keep it alive in the NICU after an extremely preterm delivery- so about 24 weeks gestation? That number is not fixed and constantly keeps creeping earlier and earlier- babies born before about 34 weeks 100 years ago generally died shortly after birth but now that number is less than 24 weeks. What about when that number gets down to the point where all we need is a single-cell fertilized zygote and we can grow a viable baby outside of a uterus? We could take an 8 week embryo out of a uterus at that point and easily grow a baby. Would abortion be legal then because any embryo would be a viable pregnancy and likely to end up in a live baby? I am in no way shape or form religious but absolutely agree that an embryo/fetus is alive because it will unquestionably be alive if not disturbed. The real question is should be is killing allowable in some circumstances? That's the real question and a much tougher nut to crack as it gets into euthanasia (which abortion really is a kind of), which is why the issue is never framed that way.
The only restriction that I really see is the complete elimination of the rights of the father to have any say at all in what happens during the pregnancy of a child which is 50% his genetics and 50% his legal and financial responsibility.
Can you see the hypocracy in that?
Damn right I do.
) 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram