Adventures in Homeschooling in Southern Indiana

Monday, January 5, 2009

Loooong post to Anon. Please skip if it's not your thing!

1. On religious vs. non religious – Sociologists and the courts generally hold that any strongly held belief is religious in nature. That’s why pretty much ANYONE can get a religious exemption from vaccines these days, even if their reason is “I believe they cause Autism.” Even atheism is a belief that is religious in nature, since God’s non-existence not provable by direct observation.

Since, as you laid it out here, you support your position based on anecdotal evidence, hypothetical situations, and strong statements that you didn’t back up with science or logic, I think your position still fits under the legal/sociological definition of ‘religious,’ even if you don’t belong to an organized religion that shares those same beliefs. (If you DO have scientific/logical reasons why you hold your views, please feel free to argue them here—I’m just going on your comments to my posts, and since you’re Anon, I can’t really know what larger philosophy lead to your current position!)

I’d also argue that just because a religion teaches something doesn’t mean that everyone who believes the same thing is religious.

For instance, Judeo-Christian tradition teaches that the Sun and Stars existed before life began. But everyone who believes in the order “First Sun, then Life” is not subscribing to a religious belief. Most people’s belief in the idea that the sun came first is based on scientific observation, either their own, or that of others.

(Note: I know some philosophers of science have argued that all science is inherently religious too, and that there is no truth that is actually knowable. They’re nuts.)

Anyway, on to your second point:

I don’t think my religious opinion should be given more weight than yours in the political process.

I DO believe that my position on abortion is the right one, and so I’ll try to persuade other people that they should vote pro-life.

Trying to influence the political process by persuading people to change their minds is NOT the same thing as asking Congress to give more respect to a view because it’s religious. It’s asking Congress to give more respect to a view because more people hold it. (After all, that’s how the Born Alive and Partial Birth acts passed. Because MOST Americans agreed that there should be at least some regulation of abortion.)

I would argue that Roe and Doe actually short-circuited this normal process. Abortion IS a very divisive issue at the national level, but states were working out their own compromises at the time.

By having courts decide to either totally permit or totally ban abortion, you’ll have a large percentage of Americans living under a law they find abhorrent. However, there are large REGIONAL differences in abortion politics. So if Roe and Doe were overturned and abortion went back to the state legislatures you’d have local abortion laws that more closely matched local opinions. Also, that would mean that parties at the national level wouldn’t have to address abortion anymore, and I think it would do good things to our political process.

OK. Major Digression Ahead.
By declaring at the national level that Abortion is a constitutional right, the court elevated it to the level of Free Speech…..

I’d also like to point out that if FOCA passes, it will actually elevate Abortion to a place ABOVE free speech--- Because with free speech, I have to let everyone speak their mind, but I don’t have to listen to them or act on their words.

With FOCA, people who are opposed to abortions would be forced to PERFORM them, or lose their jobs. And religious hospitals would be forced top provide them or close.

FOCA would push Abortion from a RIGHT to a necessity—which is creepily “Brave New Worldish” or Orwellian, if you ask me.

Also, it would mean that, from a legal perspective, our guiding principles would change from “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness plus the Bill of Rights” to “ABORTION UBER ALLLES!!!”

Even if you see abortion as a tragic necessity that helps some women, can you really support forcing people to kill and dismember what they believe is a baby? Especially when they’re the same people who, on other days, work so hard to save tiny lives of the same gestational age? From my perspective, as someone who believes that human life begins before birth, it seems tantamount to forcing a doctor to help Mengele in his experiments.

No comments: