gut;1292746 wrote:The problem with framing abortion as an issue of morality is that is deeply rooted in religion, which requires forcing your religious view on many people that are either atheists or not particularly devout.

Eh....politics in general is all about the attempt to force one's views on other people.

Like it or not religion or more accurately spiritual and moral beliefs (or lack thereof) has always played a major role in political and historical events. Attempting to downplay or reduce the relevance of morality in political discourse is an exercise in futility.

believer;1293005 wrote:Eh....politics in general is all about the attempt to force one's views on other people.

I disagree in principle, though I agree it often ends up that way in practice.

believer;1293005 wrote:Like it or not religion or more accurately spiritual and moral beliefs (or lack thereof) has always played a major role in political and historical events. Attempting to downplay or reduce the relevance of morality in political discourse is an exercise in futility.

The relevance is only a necessity because is used as a tool to influence the voters. Beyond that, while commonplace, it isn't a requirement.

I am against abortion. I just can't get behind the life starts at conception concept. I also can't call someone immoral if they support abortion since there is no consensus on when life begins. Now partial birth and late term is another story. Even pro life people disagree on when life begins ( heartbeat, brain activity, conception)

pmoney25;1293013 wrote:Even pro life people disagree on when life begins ( heartbeat, brain activity, conception)

Reps for making this distinction.

One thing that gets on my nerves from the pro choice group is the total disregard for the Father in this scenario.

pmoney25;1293278 wrote:One thing that gets on my nerves from the pro choice group is the total disregard for the Father in this scenario.

The man's role is to donate sperm and provide financing. Dumbass

O-Trap;1293010 wrote:I disagree in principle, though I agree it often ends up that way in practice.



The relevance is only a necessity because is used as a tool to influence the voters. Beyond that, while commonplace, it isn't a requirement.

Respectfully, I'm going to disagree with all of that, and agree wholeheartedly with believer. Politics is always about getting your viewpoint, or most of your viewpoints, incorporated into laws or governmental practices. Compromise is possible and often practiced, but never is capitulation done altruistically.

Religion and morality are extremely relevant in political discourse because it is the foundation of culture... and that is as clear as it is written on stone tablets. Moreover, the influence of religion and cultural morality is evident in every society, and laws and practices vary country to country because of it.

HitsRus;1293432 wrote:Respectfully, I'm going to disagree with all of that, and agree wholeheartedly with believer. Politics is always about getting your viewpoint, or most of your viewpoints, incorporated into laws or governmental practices. Compromise is possible and often practiced, but never is capitulation done altruistically.

I suppose if you also include the notion that it shouldn't be permitted as a "view," then sure, but I'd suggest that campaigning AGAINST such a practice is not only possible, but exercised in certain aspects of most people's political worldview.

HitsRus;1293432 wrote:Religion and morality are extremely relevant in political discourse because it is the foundation of culture...

Whether or not this is true (Code of Hammurabi might have had religious influence, but it's not clearly so), the relevance assumes that culture would not have arisen apart from it. Potentially, I can see the case made that morality is typically the motivation for the initial creation of a law code, but that could easily be the end of it, and any politics going forward simply being about what candidate would be best for the enforcement of the rules already established.

Politicians insist on campaigning for change, but that doesn't mean it's necessary.

HitsRus;1293432 wrote:... and that is as clear as it is written on stone tablets. Moreover, the influence of religion and cultural morality is evident in every society, and laws and practices vary country to country because of it.

Actually, there have existed sensate cultures ... devoid of any religious nuances, that still functioned in cultures. They've not traditionally existed for very long in that state (as Pitirim Sorokin pointed out), but they have indeed done so with laws that seemed to just be those necessary to keep people from being able to harm someone else, whether by physical attack or theft.

while i am against abortion i am all for people to choose for themselves

I can see the case made that morality is typically the motivation for the initial creation of a law code, but that could easily be the end of it, and any politics going forward simply being about what candidate would be best for the enforcement of the rules already established.

But still the established rules originated from morality. As you say...their have been may have been some societies that 'briefly' existed that originated independent of religious influences...but you are talking exception to the rule. Moreover, even if you take religion out of the formula, some degree of 'right and wrong' is going to develop if a society endures long enough...and that is going to work into the political arena.

HitsRus;1293432 wrote:Respectfully, I'm going to disagree with all of that, and agree wholeheartedly with believer. Politics is always about getting your viewpoint, or most of your viewpoints, incorporated into laws or governmental practices. Compromise is possible and often practiced, but never is capitulation done altruistically.

Religion and morality are extremely relevant in political discourse because it is the foundation of culture... and that is as clear as it is written on stone tablets. Moreover, the influence of religion and cultural morality is evident in every society, and laws and practices vary country to country because of it.

This is correct. The statement "Religion and morality have no place in public discourse" is in its essence a moral statement.

O-Trap;1293443 wrote:Actually, there have existed sensate cultures ... devoid of any religious nuances, that still functioned in cultures. They've not traditionally existed for very long in that state (as Pitirim Sorokin pointed out), but they have indeed done so with laws that seemed to just be those necessary to keep people from being able to harm someone else, whether by physical attack or theft.

In other words, it's immoral to harm someone and moral to help/not harm someone. You can remove the religious element but not the moral element, IMO.