Abortion and Marriage

[jcrawford]

What if abortions were kept legal within the reproductive and privacy rights granted in marriage only, and then only with consent of both spouses? If singles want either a child or an abortion, they would have to get parental consent or married, or would be considered married by the state, in either eventuality.

This way, all reproductive decisions would be made privately, by the parties concerned, and would be no one's else's business at all.

How would that play out in different scenarios, from a Christian or non-Christian POV?

[jcrawford]

I haven't changed the subject, since having the right to ask someone their religious affiliation implies the right to know it. You may have the right to personally withhold that information from me if you choose, but you can't stop me from making further enquires from other people or doing some other research in order to find out and know what your religion or religious affiliation is, and broadcast it to the world if I have the means.

You have as much right to their private information as they do to yours. If you don't mind them making inquiries about any information you might find private and personal, sure, go right ahead. Be a boorish ass.

Better a boor than a, whoa... !

[jcrawford]

Third parties, the woman's parents, siblings, lovers, spouse, ex-spouse, children, mullah, priest, pastor, grocer and hairdresser have no rights to interfere with her choices.

That's debatable.

The point that jcrawford is harping on is as far as I can see quite moot. How likely is it that the single daughter of a church elder who is pregnant and seeking an abortion, to ask at the clinic for a practitioner who shares her religion and will provide appropriate last rites for the aborted fetus? Can you imagine that the wife of a fundamentalist Muslim, who cannot bear to have another child and seeks an abortion, would want or care that the abortionist would be Islamic? Frankly, I just don't see what he is driving at.

I'm less concerned with the woman's will here, than with the father's, the spouse's, the families, and the rest of the religious community. It's one thing to know that all abortionists are secularists catering to a woman's desire and will, but something entirely different to know that some of them are masculine athiests, secular Jews, Hindus, Buddhists or Muslims who are killing Catholic and Protestant babies indiscriminately in America. We know that no Orthodox Jews and Catholics are killing anyone's babies.

That's why we need to identify all abortionists in America by religion or religious affiliation.

[jcrawford]

I'm sure that if the wives or daughters of Christian, Jewish and Islamic men cared about the religion of the person performing their abortion, they'd ask. Most likely, as you point out, they couldn't care less, but jcrawford doesn't like that, he wants to mandate that everyone act the way he wants them to act.

No. Jcrawford just wants to re-claim, re-establish, re-assert and reinforce equal (not special) rights for all US Christian, Jewish and Muslim men.

[McCulloch]

Jcrawford just wants to re-claim, re-establish, re-assert and reinforce equal (not special) rights for all US Christian, Jewish and Muslim men.

Equal to whom? Right now US Christian, Jewish and Muslim men have equal rights to all other men in the US.

[McCulloch]

Third parties, the woman's parents, siblings, lovers, spouse, ex-spouse, children, mullah, priest, pastor, grocer and hairdresser have no rights to interfere with her choices.

That's debatable.

Says you. As far as current laws are concerned I have made a true statement. If you believe that these rights should be recognized, please provide some reasoning and evidence.

I'm less concerned with the woman's will here, than with the father's, the spouse's, the families, and the rest of the religious community. It's one thing to know that all abortionists are secularists catering to a woman's desire and will, but something entirely different to know that some of them are masculine athiests, secular Jews, Hindus, Buddhists or Muslims who are killing Catholic and Protestant babies indiscriminately in America. We know that no Orthodox Jews and Catholics are killing anyone's babies.

That's why we need to identify all abortionists in America by religion or religious affiliation.

Lets get to that point as soon as you demonstrate that all of these other people have a legal and moral interest in the medical and moral choices of the pregnant woman.
If abortion is wrong, if it is a crime then it is equally a crime if done by a Catholic or an atheist. If abortion is allowed, then what difference does it make if the abortionist is Protestant or Buddhist?

[jcrawford]

Jcrawford just wants to re-claim, re-establish, re-assert and reinforce equal (not special) rights for all US Christian, Jewish and Muslim men.

Equal to whom? Right now US Christian, Jewish and Muslim men have equal rights to all other men in the US.

Not to secular women in public schools or in reproductive rights in marriage though.

[jcrawford]

That's why we need to identify all abortionists in America by religion or religious affiliation.

Lets get to that point as soon as you demonstrate that all of these other people have a legal and moral interest in the medical and moral choices of the pregnant woman.

It's just a religious claim on my part, McCulloch, on behalf of religious communities.

If abortion is wrong, if it is a crime then it is equally a crime if done by a Catholic or an atheist.

Abortion isn't a crime, McCulloch, except in South Dakota. I would only make it a crime for Jews to abort Catholic and Protestant babies and vice-versa. Just for the historical record, you know, and for the sake of future inter-religious harmony in the US.

If abortion is allowed, then what difference does it make if the abortionist is Protestant or Buddhist?

Really, McCulloch. Have you no religious sensitivities at all?

[McCulloch]

It's just a religious claim on my part, McCulloch, on behalf of religious communities.

Good, then government should keep their noses out of it.

Abortion isn't a crime, McCulloch, except in South Dakota. I would only make it a crime for Jews to abort Catholic and Protestant babies and vice-versa.

Applying the law differently based on the person's religion (or lack). Actually, it appears as if you wish to apply the law based on the person's husband's religion. I still don't see how that is fair.

If abortion is allowed, then what difference does it make if the abortionist is Protestant or Buddhist?

Really, McCulloch. Have you no religious sensitivities at all?

Apparently not.

[jcrawford]

Really, McCulloch. Have you no religious sensitivities at all?

Apparently not.

Too bad. That's why there's not much hope for the future of secularism in the US or Canada.

[McCulloch]

Really, McCulloch. Have you no religious sensitivities at all?

Apparently not.

Too bad. That's why there's not much hope for the future of secularism in the US or Canada.

Back in the real world, have you noticed any ground-swell of support for your idea of religious abortions? My quick survey of opinions published by religious groups on the topic of abortion deal with the ethical dilemmas and moral issues regarding when life begins or whether anyone should be compelled to carry a pregnancy to term. For most religious groups I can identify, that have a public position on the issue of abortion, it is either abortion is wrong or abortion can be allowed in certain circumstances. I did not find any recognized religious group wishing to be directly involved in the abortion process, administering rites and such.

Now, if the religions were really advocating for the right to do these things, I would be sensitive to that need. Why not?