In the Same Boat
- Print print this page
- Discuss 33 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
I am responding to Andrew Soboeiro’s column “Should Americans Feel Comfortable With a Theocracy?” (Oct. 7). I would like to offer the following observations.
Andrew’s writing indicates he is well-educated. I posit that, unless he was home-schooled or attended fully private schools, his education was at least in part paid for with taxpayer funds.
My wife and I have had no children in public or private schools for 35 years, yet we are by law required to pay for others’ education.
This legislation is the same for us as it is for Andrew when he writes, “I have to follow the laws and pay for their enforcement.”
My religion opposes abortion, but part of my taxes pay for it. So, Andrew, don’t complain that atheists are being unfairly treated. All religions are in the same boat, one way or another.
Bill Gleeson
Aberdeen
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
AndrewSoboeiro 7 months, 1 week ago
I cannot agree with this; all religions are not treated equally. In this country, Christianity is clearly given preferential treatment by the government. Laws against gay marriage, public funding for religious charities and schools, and laws against atheists running for public office in six states (including North Carolina) all clearly demonstrate that the state favours Christianity and/or penalizes atheists.
The fact that the state allows, and in some cases funds, abortions does not constitute government opposition to Christianity. There is no clear Christian teaching on abortion: the Bible says nothing explicit about it (despite the fact that it was widely practiced at the time), and American Christians have mixed views on the subject. ( http://www.everydaychristian.com/blogs/post/7449/ ). You, as a Christian, may personally oppose abortion, but Christianity is not clearly opposed to it.
AndrewSoboeiro 7 months, 1 week ago
To be clear, I certainly accept that the government forces people to fund things that they oppose other than religion. There are many government initiatives that I find morally abhorrent that have nothing to do with religion. That is why I am a libertarian: government by definition forces people to support things without their consent, and should be opposed wherever it is not absolutely necessary.
That being said, the state clearly privileges Christianity above other religions and above the lack of religion (i.e.- atheism). This is wrong, and should be pointed out as an example of how the state forces people to do things against their will.
Courseaire 7 months, 1 week ago
There is no clear Christian teaching on abortion: the Bible says nothing explicit about it Really? Thou shall not kill.
JimHeim 7 months, 1 week ago
Courseaire, I regard your posts highly, but on this I must disagree. Most scholars translate the commandment as 'Thou shall not murder,' a different thing. Otherwise war would be unbiblical and our nation's economic base would be cratered.
Abortion was common in Jesus' time and he had ample opportunity to tackle the subject. He didn't.
Any debate about abortion beyond viability is necessarily based on religion and, as such, has no place in civil law. If you don't support abortion, don't have one. It's as simple as that.
Courseaire 7 months, 1 week ago
JHeim - There were no Christians in Jesus' time, they came later.
JD 7 months, 1 week ago
My wife and I have had no children in public or private schools for 35 years, yet we are by law required to pay for others’ education.
Author lost credibility with this line." Waaah I don't have kids in school, why should I pay for school waaah."
And Couseaire I won't use an antiquated book to determine old jews views on abortion. In their day abortion was just killing your mistress while she was pregnant. A bit different than what we have nowadays. It's not like abortions are legal throughout the 9 months of pregnancy there is a cut off time to have an abortion unless the life of the mother is at stake and the family makes that decision. Why interfere in someone else's personal decision, what happened to freedom in 'murrika?
by JD
Courseaire 7 months, 1 week ago
JD - I don't have a problem with your illustration, however, none of those you show are fertilized. You show an egg and a sperm, not a developing human. Show a picture of a developing human in the womb and it's a completely different situation. I also think it is a personal decision and does not belong in politics or the government and since it is a personal decision, it shouldn't be paid for by government.
JD 7 months, 1 week ago
does not belong in politics or the government and since it is a personal decision, it shouldn't be paid for by government.
I am ok with this. Problem is when it is politicized they talk about outlawing it. Because remember Rowe v. Wade wasn't the start of women having abortions, it was to stop women from dying from back alley abortions.
early development by JD
cgi representation by JD
Show a picture of a developing human in the womb and it's a completely different situation. Looks so human at the stage where abortion is legal. A good site to read about the issue by the Hastings Center.
Courseaire 7 months, 1 week ago
Come on JD, you can do better. Show the one where there are arms, legs, fingers & toes.
teufelhunden 7 months, 1 week ago
So, Andrew, do you have a soul?
teufelhunden 7 months, 1 week ago
AS-"This is wrong, and should be pointed out as an example of how the state forces people to do things against their will."
The author's point.
teufelhunden 7 months, 1 week ago
I applaud your ability to engage in intellectual arguments Andrew, but you seem rather flat and you are apparently just spinning your wheels. Why should you care about anything?
JD 7 months, 1 week ago
Abortions are legal Coursaire until 14 weeks. Late term abortion which is the most controversial is 20 weeks. Can you do better Courseaire? What you got with some science behind it and not fairy tale interpretations?
Edit click the link for embryonic stages of development based on weeks. Cheers! http://thepilot.com/users/photos/2012...
Why should you care about anything? Isn't that Existential Nihilism?
AndrewSoboeiro 7 months, 1 week ago
@teufelhunden:
"do you have a soul?"
I don't see how this is relevant. We're not debating the nature of my philosophical/metaphysical beliefs. We're debating whether religion should be given public sanction.
"Why should you care about anything?"
I don't know how to interpret this question. Why should I care about anything? I dunno.. because this is the only life I have, and I want to make the most of it?
Why do you care about anything?
Courseaire 7 months, 1 week ago
JD - Despite, the legal wranglings which are documented in the cases above, in a practical sense, very little has changed in the way of abortion law since Roe was first decided. Abortion is still legal in all 50 states. The definition of "health" (which justifies late-term abortions) is still broadly defined, and there are no significant barriers in place to keep a woman from aborting. So far, Roe has carried the day.
skylinefirepest 7 months, 1 week ago
You got to remember people that it's only murder to a Democrat after it's born....and to some of them, not even then!
JD 7 months, 1 week ago
So far, Roe has carried the day.
Indeed and I hope to keep it that way. Did you check the link. It had fingers and toes after 20 weeks by the way.
JimHeim 7 months, 1 week ago
Abortion law has changed dramatically in the past couple of years as tea baggers push through draconian requirements imposed on no other practice of medicine. If these kinds of laws were written to limit gun rights, the NRA would go ballistic.
The reality is that the 'pro-life' people have no interest in fetuses or abortions. They are only interested in making life difficult for women who have the temerity to engage in sex. How do I know? Take a look at how they regard the kinds of activities that have been shown to reduce the incidence of abortion, like contraception and age-appropriate comprehensive sex education in schools. They oppose them.
My position remains: Don't like abortion? Don't have one.Otherwise it's none of your business. It is something between women and their doctors.
Thatcher 7 months, 1 week ago
JimHeim-- That was your "best" post in the last 10 minutes. Keep it up! Cheers!
skylinefirepest 7 months, 1 week ago
Jimmy, as long as we're at it again let me remind you that abortion the way the liberals look at it is not simply between a woman and her doctor....you dems want everybody to share in paying for it...or contraception...or in other words you want to have your fun on my dime. Shame on you, big spender!
fugitiveguy 7 months, 1 week ago
It is stunning how the left is so eager to snuff out the lives of the most innocent of us all. How could anyone with the slightest belief in God and an afterlife support democratic candidates. Its so clear cut for them, its just another "choice".
JimHeim 7 months, 1 week ago
Just as health insurance covers insulin for diabetics and beta blockers for those with high blood pressure, so to it should provide contraceptives for sexually active women who request it and others for whom the hormones can save their lives. While the right is happy to let women die in often vain attempts to save their fetus, we see no reason for such heartless actions. Pregnancies kill more women than contraceptives. Let's save some lives.
Unwilling to do the things that reduce the need and number of abortions, conservatives rely on prohibition which worked so well with alcohol and marijuana. Do not think that the end of Roe will help your cause. I was arranging abortions for my friend's girlfriends and wives before Roe, and I'll do it again if the laws become too strict.
Courseaire 7 months, 1 week ago
JimHeim admits it here 1st that he engaged in felonious activities.
teufelhunden 7 months, 1 week ago
That sounds like a lot. Did they use birth control? Condoms?
JimHeim 7 months, 1 week ago
Courseaire - Were it not for the statute of limitations I'd be a felon in a number of states. Not a problem for me. Legislatures can pass all of the sex laws they want. I don't regard any that restrict consensual, adult activities to apply to me.
Contraception in the sixties wasn't as reliable as it's become. Too, sex education was spotty and incomplete. Some things are hard to change.
nothingspecial 7 months, 1 week ago
There you go again, Jim with your prejudice. Any Republican or Conservative who is against abortion must also be against birth control too.
Speaking of being out of touch with voters and real people, did you happen to see the results of the survey about abstinence training in schools that found that both Democrat and Republican parents overwhelmingly support it, as the President works to remove abstinence training in schools? Look it up via this link if you need proof. If it were up to American Democrats, if you watch their social efforts closely, America would be "adults only" soon, in more ways than one.
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38885
JimHeim 7 months, 1 week ago
Parents may well support it but every study I've seen shows it is ineffective. Parents need more scientifically accurate information.
Every time right-to-lifers are asked to support comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education or contraceptive information and birth control pills/devices, they express opposition. Feel free to tell me which of the anti-abortion groups are promoting those measures.
moonchild7 7 months, 1 week ago
The Federal Government will only help pay for a womans abortion if she is the victim of incest, rape or her life is in danger because of her pregnancy. That's called HEALTH CARE guys, as in the WOMAN'S HEALTH CARE. It's not about "snuffing out a life" at all, fugitiveguy. It's about HELPING the woman's life both mentally and physically with what she needs. HER NEEDS. So, you have it completely wrong as do most conservatives. My taxes are helping to pay for a WAR MACHINE that is KILLING people every day. Why aren't you conservatives also sick about that? That's called hypocricy. When I was a Social Worker any woman who was applying for Federal Funding for an abortion had to have a "Counseling Session" beforehand. It was quite intense and many of the women who I counseled then decided AGAINST having the abortion. So many of you writing here are just clueless, unforgiving, and cruel.
fugitiveguy 7 months, 1 week ago
Jim, does your auto insurance cover oil changes and tires, what about wiper blades?
AndrewSoboeiro 7 months, 1 week ago
@fugitiveguy:
"It is stunning how the left is so eager to snuff out the lives of the most innocent of us all. How could anyone with the slightest belief in God and an afterlife support democratic candidates"
Actually, the Judeo-Christian god frequently kills innocents, including children. The two examples that come immediately to mind are Exodus 11:4-6 and 2 Samuel 12:15-18.
fugitiveguy 7 months ago
"Actually, the Judeo-Christian god frequently kills innocents, including children. The two examples that come immediately to mind are Exodus 11:4-6 and 2 Samuel 12:15-18."
I was speaking about modern times, the last century or so, I thought that would go without saying, My previous point is valid. I saw a bumper sticker years ago. "American abortion, Hitler would have loved it" and he would have loved it .
JimHeim 7 months ago
Will car insurance buy you a new engine when your old one wears out? Will it cover the cost of replacing a faulty fuel pump? Maybe the terms are inexact.
Auto insurance and health care insurance are very different things. It's not really insurance in the traditional sense. Born as a way to reward employees in a time of wage controls, it's primarily another form or worker compensation. Medicare and Medicaid are government forms of the same system.
When we have Medicare For All, the distinction will be less important.
AndrewSoboeiro 7 months ago
@fugitiveguy:
"I was speaking about modern times, the last century"
What does that have to do with it? The point is that, according to the Bible, the Judeo-Christian God frequently condemns the killing of innocents; does it really matter at what points in history he did this? Indeed, if you believe your God is timeless, isn't the distinction between "modern day" and the past illusory?
The point that I'm making is that whether one believes in God or an afterlife has nothing to do with whether one is willing to kill innocent people. There are plenty of atheists and agnostics who live perfectly peaceful lives, and there are plenty of Christians, Muslims, and Hindus who kill many people and use their faith to justify it. Historically speaking, a person's morality has almost nothing to do with her religion.
Abortion is not murder, and comparing it to the holocaust is completely specious. Even if we accept that life begins at conception (which is hardly a given), women have a right to sovereignty over their bodies. That means they can choose to expel someone from their bodies if they don't want that person there. For more information, check out this article by Roderick T. Long; he makes this point much more eloquently than I can:
http://praxeology.net/RTL-Abortion.htm