tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13493347.post115231244542780343..comments2023-05-13T07:18:11.347-05:00Comments on Jane says...: Righteous angerJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18444821722273498946noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13493347.post-1152493528894887242006-07-09T20:05:00.000-05:002006-07-09T20:05:00.000-05:00True: the State does tell us what kind of behavior...True: the State does tell us what kind of behavior is right and wrong. The difference here is that in the instances you cite, the behavior in question is wrong because it has a negative impact on *another person* (slavery, murder, etc.). These are crimes that victimize another person. So, in point of fact, the State is attempting to ensure the welfare of its citizens by making their murder illegal. Murder, drunk driving, child abuse, etc. deprive certain citizens (the victims) of their right to life. <BR/><BR/>However, to the best of my knowledge, gay marriage (which, by the way, was the *topic* of this post, not abortion) does not hurt or endanger anyone. (Unless, of course, they are in an abusive relationship, which is much more common among heterosexual marriages than gay marriages.) Who is the victim when two people who love each other get married? Nobody, it would seem. So, in this case, the State is not attempting to ensure the welfare of its citizens, since nobody is at risk from the behavior in question. What they *are* trying to do is deprive certain members of the population of their inalienable rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that's not okay with me.<BR/><BR/>As to the "moral" question of abortion - I said plainly that "if the Catholic Church wants to forbid its members to get abortions, MORE POWER TO THEM. That is within their rights as a private organization." However, when the State gets involved in making these decisions, that's unfairly biased. Not everyone holds with the theory that life begins at conception, or that an unborn child's life is equally as valuable as the mother's life. Those who feel that way should be free to act according to their own personal value system. If you don't agree with abortion - don't get one. (If you don't like the taste of bratwurst, Don't Eat It!) But don't tell someone else she can't, just because it violates your own personal moral code. <BR/><BR/>::sidebar::<BR/>I wasn't really intending to delve into the abortion issue here at all. I merely mentioned it as one example of what a religious organization may freely tell its members not to do (along with gay marriage, birth control, polygamy, etc.). Membership in religious groups is voluntary and subject to choice - you can choose, if you want, the religion that fits you best, and follow its dictates as closely or loosely as you like. But, last time I checked, I couldn't just "choose" to become a citizen of whatever country happens to share my moral values, and I don't have much choice about which laws I want to follow or not (unless I want to suffer the consequences.)Janehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18444821722273498946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13493347.post-1152422670030154342006-07-09T00:24:00.000-05:002006-07-09T00:24:00.000-05:00The State "imposes" lots of morals: murder is wro...The State "imposes" lots of morals: murder is wrong, public drunkness is wrong, stealing wrong, prostitution wrong, slavery worng, child abuse wrong, and endangering others through reckless actions (eg drunk driving, speeding, etc)- also wrong. The fact that the State has selectively singled out unborn children as unworthy of human rights protections based on a case that was largely decided on racism and 'unfairness' is actually unusual (In Roe v. Wade, Jane Roe's attorneys claimed she had been gang raped by black men. In fact, she had been promiscuous, but not raped at all and there were apparently no black men involved). <BR/>Also, truthfully, the fact is that when babies can survive at earlier and earlier gestations (like nearing the beginning of the third trimester), it really highlights that abortion is more a case of convenience than necessity. The reality that the Catholic Church (and some others) can and do say, "this is immoral" is less a case of religiousity gone wild and more a case of "water is wet" common sense. <BR/>No one can ever say having sex will not produce children. Abortion has made this an acceptable risk. How different it is when (equally immoral law) women are faced with their own death if they choose promiscuity or are simply accused of it (eg in sharia countries). Rightfully there is an outcry, though largely for the wrong reason (like the freedom of sexual expression). If only we placed a higher value on life itself, rather than on the quality of our own experience and convenience. <BR/>You should know I say this as a woman who has had an abortion and not as a mere commenter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com