Forcing your view: Everyone does it

It’s understandable that most people don’t want someone else’s vision of morality or personal political views forced upon them.  If you are vocal on what you believe to be moral or political issues, there’s no doubt that you’ve heard someone tell you that you shouldn’t try to force your vision on them — especially through the process of enacting laws.  Well, aside from this being a self-defeating position, it’s also unavoidable.  Someone’s vision of how things should be will be forced.

Putting aside legalities because legal is not a synonym for moral, consider two examples:

Abortion — The abortion-choice defender objects when it appears that the pro-life advocate lobbies for pro-life legislation which will limit abortion. They don’t want the pro-life view to be forced on mothers who might want to abort their children.  However, allowing elective abortion to remain legal does force the pro-abortion choice moral view of abortion on the pro-life advocate.  How?  If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one, right?  It’s not that simple.  The pro-life view is that from the moment of conception, a new human being has come to be.  From this biological fact, the pro-life view is that elective abortion is morally wrong no matter who chooses it.  So it’s not a matter of if you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.  It’s more like, stand down and be OK with some mothers choosing to kill their pre-born children.  It’s almost like saying if you don’t like the idea of drowning puppies, don’t drown them.  The pro-abortion choice defender is trying to push their morality in the same vein.  Their view is that you should adopt their vision that abortion should be permissible to anyone who desires it

Religion — This “Don’t push your…” is usually directed toward those who would evangelize.  Here is something you may not have considered.  If you are someone who believes people should not evangelize because it is an attempt to impose their religious views upon you, and you voice that conviction to someone, you are guilty of your own complaint!  Christians, for example, have been commanded by Jesus to evangelize (the great commission).  Given this command to evangelize, Christians have a religious obligation to “share their faith” (whether or not they fulfill this obligation irrelevant to their duty to do so).  So when you attempt to silence an evangelist, you are also attempting to impose your view of evangelism upon the evangelist.  In saying don’t force your religion on me, you’re actually saying, “give up your view on evangelism (that you should) and adopt my view on evangelism (that you should not)”.  Any attempt to silence evangelism is an imposition of an opposite religious view (since evangelism is a religious issue).  Opposing evangelism because it is an attempt to impose a religious view is self-defeating.

Regardless of the issue there is no position of neutrality, someone’s vision will win out.  There are people like me who know they are trying to push a view,  but then there are those who just believe their view is the natural neutral point from which all else deviates.  They’re wrong.

Comments

  1. “It’s almost like saying if you don’t like the idea of drowning puppies, don’t drown them.”

    I totally understand with this point of view.

    I disagree with it. But I understand completely why people hold it, and it is internally consistent.

    “Opposing evangelism because it is an attempt to impose a religious view is self-defeating.”

    I don’t oppose evangelism.

    I oppose evangelism by the government, on captive audiences.

  2. humanity777 says:

    The one verse, humanity never remembers is this:

    “If I decide to keep this one alive, until I return, WHAT IS THAT TO YOU? YOU MUST FOLLOW ME.”

    What others do, is absolutely non of our business; for another person’s choices, are between them and our God!

    God does not force His Will, onto anyone………John

  3. How can those earliest cells be a human being if it requires an umbilical cord and a uterus? The premise that a human being is formed at the moment of conception is flatly wrong. A human being is an autonomous entity, not requiring the mothers organs to survive.

    The fact that the evangelical/puritanical right continues to hang their collective hats on this is baffling. It is tactically the wrong message as well.

    The bible in Genesis 2:7(?) says that life begins when god breathes life into “its” nostrils.
    In Exodus 21ish? there is an instance in which a pregnant woman is killed and the perpetrator must pay a fine for the dead fetus. Aren’t there 3-4 passages in the bible that state that it becomes at least just property at 1 month old?

    And how do you view the plethora of examples in the bible where it is very clearly stated that the newly conceived entity is “not” a person? And what of the instances in which god himself uses abortion, Numbers and Hosea come to mind?

    And why disobey the word of god in Romans where it seems to clearly state “obey the government”? Unless there is some slippery apologetics on that matter that am missing.

    • Nash, that a new human being is created at conception is a medical fact. Scientifically speaking, its inarguable. You’re uninformed.

      • R. Nash says:

        So to be clear John you are saying that the coming together of cells at conception is the same as you in your form right now? In spite of your not needing a uterus, placenta and in spite of what the inerrant word of god has to say?

        Also the SC absolutely disagrees with you along with my biology books.

        Please show with references, that are at least trying to be objective, where conception is a human being. Where is this stated as being a medical fact? I know my brother who just finished med school at Cornell was not taught what you believe to be true. Are you maybe thinking of the biology/embryology course at Liberty Univ. as being your source?

        • Cmon Nash, i am not the same form, I am a mature human being, a fertilized egg is just begining its maturing process. But we are of the same kind of being.

          I provided 2 links. One of them is to a post which cites multiple medical sources, even medical testimony to the US Senate.

          • R. Nash says:

            Well this is where this discourse leads. We disagree. Your sources are merely subjective sources that back up your premise. Your orthodox dogma makes it impossible to entertain any other finding. This detail is an important one. I am talking about the coming together of cells and you are telling us it is a human being, not something in between. What it is, is a biological process that can lead to a human being existing outside the womb.

            And why gloss over the biblical citations?

            And just for the record just because any given testimony was given to Congress does not make it it factually accurate…….Reagan and North come to mind.

            • So then Nash, you dismiss the embryology text book citations? On what grounds, that they support my position? That’s nonsense. If know of medical literature which contradicts those I provided, please do bring them up. But as it stands you offer no reason other than you don’t want to concede, to disbelieve textbooks on this very issue.

              Also, the purpose of the testimony to the Senate was to show that this medical fact has been around for some time, its not some new invention of the Prolife movement.

              We can discuss biblical passages if you wish, but I’m not sure what that would do since you believe it holds no authority or truth. Therefore anything in it which you believe discredits me must be false, making my argument, that a new living human being is created at conception, is true. You lose on both fronts.

  4. Good piece. The “if you don’t like it, don’t do it” line implies that the choice only affects the one choosing. It’s clearly borne of the belief that the mother, in the case of abortion, is the only person involved. As you point out, that is not the view of pro-lifers, and therefore, someone else’s views are being imposed on them.

    In the case of abortion (as with any other issue), what is true about the subject needs to be determined before we talk about imposing a view.

    But, yes. We must impose certain views on people in law.

  5. “that a new human being”

    No.

    The potential for a human being is created at conception. The genes are there. The human being is not there, quite yet.

    • According to embryologists and text books, you and your pretend wife are wrong

      • I’ll have to tell my wife that she’s pretend now. Maybe then she’ll stop making me clean the litter box.

        Your interpretation of what embryologists and text books have said is wrong. But I’m not surprised a Christian has a wrong interpretation of what books say.

    • In one of the links in this post goes to a post I wrote citing textbooks and doctors. Please interpret the information for me.

      Also you hint at me misinterpreting the bible (?), provide the parts I have misinterpreted and tell me the proper understanding. That is, unless you’re just spouting off. I guarantee you provide nothing in your next comment.

  6. Why are Christians always so angry?

    “Please interpret the information for me.”

    Sure. At conception, a clump of cells is alive and made of human material. Much like a sperm. You seem to think that it’s alive and made of human material makes it a human being. Even some doctors think that.

    I see no good reason to believe that, given the available evidence. Something without a brain, or organs, or nerves, is not a human being. It might be one day…but it isn’t at that point.

    “Also you hint at me misinterpreting the bible”

    I hint at all Christians misinterpreting the bible. All I need to do is find other Christians who say they are. Or Jews.

    • I’m not angry. And no you didn’t interpret anything. The statements claim that at the moment of conception a new living human begging begins to exist. Now interpret those statements for me.

  7. “The statements claim that at the moment of conception a new living human begging begins to exist.”

    And whoever said that is wrong, in my humble opinion. And there are doctors and scientists who disagree with that statement.

  8. wow, interesting article, while Jehovah does’t force anyone to serve him (obey his moral laws) he does eventually hold an accounting, also we still suffer penalities for our actions or inactions regardless of what we believe in, physical and moral laws cannot be altered. jump off a cliff without a parachute or rope and die, even tho you don’t believe in gravity, or plant weeds and believe they are corn and you get weeds not corn. anyway finding a balance between offering people new ideas and forcing them is a fine line, but using the government to force them on you is a no no. that is why we live under such a matrix of rules and unjust laws and forced compliance with them. as long as you dont violate the rights of another, there is no reason for gov intervention or police for that matter. but when you start to tread those rights the gov has a right to step in and protect innocent parties, however the problem seems to be who decides what those rights are? even rulers and experts can’t agree on what that is. that is where love of God comes into play, if we love him above anyone and everything we will look to him for guidance on what the moral laws are, and if we love our neighbor as we do ourselves (hopfully you do love yourself otherwise your in trouble) then violation of rights should be few and far between without need for laws. these laws are easily read in the bible, it is jammed pack full of principles and moral teachings and laws no one should ever walk away from reading it and not know at least basic moral law.

  9. Not a scientist, what is a human being, if not a collection of living human cells at various points in time? And haven’t we all been younger human beings? And haven’t all of us (those of us who know we’re human beings and can articulate it) been mere fetuses and zygotes? What were those fetuses, if not us? Can we not call an apple an apple until it’s ripe? You may say that we can’t call it a ripe apple, but before that, is it not an “apple being”?

    Do you not understand the concept of a things beginning? A human being is at every stage a thing that can only become an older human being. Does that not describe a human zygote? What other thing or substance is there that can become an older human being? Nothing. Only a human being can. A sperm cell cannot become an older human being on its own. Neither can an egg. But, once they have become a cell that can become an older human being, that person’s life has BEGUN. That’s how your life began.

    You sound ridiculous. “Thing, thing, thing, thing, HUMAN BEING!”. How in the hell did this thing that is not a human being suddenly become a human being, as if that’s even possible?

    Don’t get me wrong. Life begins suddenly. Within 40 minutes of a sperm’s first contact with an egg, DNA synthesis begins. That’s all that’s needed for that thing you call “not a human being” to become a doctor, for example. But THAT is the first thing that must happen.

    After that, a new human being exists. And whether or not it depends on someone else’s bodily function can’t determine its status as a human being. An infant depends on someone else being alive to care for it. I don’t think you doubt that a defenseless 6 mint old is a human being. Do you?

    Of all the arguments for abortion, “It’s not a human being yet” is the least logical, and the most assinine. It is completely devoid of reason.

  10. I have looked at at least a half dozen different Bibles (KJV, NIV, NAS, etc.,) and have yet to find one that shows Gen 2:7 saying that God breathed in to “it’s” nostrils. They all say “his”. More to the point, I’ve seen this very specious and incredibly desperate argument before, that says because God formed Adam as a fully formed adult and then “breathed” life into him, that this can somehow be used as a rebuttal argument against aborting the human being that exists in the womb. But then, I guess it isn’t as lame and desperate an argument as any other that seeks to question personhood beginning at conception.

  11. TerranceH says:

    NotAScientist,

    I totally understand with this point of view…I disagree with it.

    To disagree would be to accept relativism, something inconsistent with every moral and ethical code by which human beings live, survive, and thrive.

    R. Nash,

    A human being is an autonomous entity, not requiring the mothers organs to survive.

    By your definition, those unfortunate souls using pacemakers, breathing and dialysis machines are not human beings either. How can they be if they are not fully autonomous?

    

Do you even read the nonsense you write, R. Nash? Absurdities, fallacies, and simple stupidity seems to cascade out of you, coalescing into one truly pathetic bother. Your arbitrary definition of humanity is totally inconsistent with the nature of humanity itself. You make it sound as though humanity is attained. It’s not. Humanity is a static state of being. One either is or isn’t.

    The premise that a human being is formed at the moment of conception is flatly wrong.

    Why is your arbitrary definition of humanity any better than mine or John’s? I could produce an arbitrary definition that excludes you from humanity. John could create one that excludes both of us, et cetera…This is why we look at the issue from a scientific rather than philosophical standpoint.

    
And what does science say on the matter?

    Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primoridum, of a human being.

    Moore, Keith L. Essentians of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p. 2 

    How about another?

    The development of a human beings with fertilization  a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.

    Sadler, T.W. Langman’s Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p.3 

    And another.

    Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.

    Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New Yorkl McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3 

    And another…

    Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.

    O’Rahilly, Ronan and Muler, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, p. 8. 

    And another…

    Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm  represents the beginning of a human being.The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote. 

    Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1

    You are NOT allowed to outright deny scientific facts for political reasons. 

Support abortion if you so choose, but do it for another reason. You have NO RIGHT to deny scientific facts. You have NO RIGHT to debase the discussion by calling into question that which is abundantly clear: unborn children, from the moment of conception, are human beings. Period. End of story. 


    To debate this further would be akin to debating a drunkard over whether the sky is blue or pink polka-dotted. I’m not going to do it. Science has spoken. NotAScientist and R. Nash are – how did he say it? – “flatly wrong.”

  12. TerranceH says:

    Conservative2Cents has, by himself, shattered your argument. One needn’t bother with the scientific mumbo-jumbo I posted. Conservative attacked your position for its completely flawed logic. Excellent.

  13. Classic. Then the question remains. Why do evangelical christians, who are in the technical, scientific and legal minority, have a different definition of when a human being is formed? “Becoming” a human being is “not” a human being. This is the same mightily successful rehashing of the premise put forward for Roe v. Wade. So a tire is a car? Nitrogen from potash in my garden is a tomato plant? Nope. Hence, those cells are not afforded the same rights as a fetus that is, say, 32 weeks along. Even your conservative SC disagrees with you.

    So in spite of all of your bloviated high sense of pride and arrogance, all of your name calling still doesn’t make you right. Not even in Arkansas.

    And your grasping at straws when you equate someone on dialysis to prop up your non position. Too many desperate talking points from AFR. If I am so flatly wrong then how and why is abortion legal?

    The fact that none of you can even address what the bible says on the matter is very telling. Nice of all of you to skip over all of the harder details that dont support your zealot take on the issue that I posted above. Harping on the issue of “it’s”, who cares? If I had said his/her, would that satisfy you?

    So when your god aborts a bunch of fetuses via miscarriage/stillbirth how do you feel about that? Let me guess, it’s mysterious and not for us to know?

    If your god so mightily disagrees with abortion, then why does he use it as a tool of revenge and punishment? Why did he allow there to be abortion to begin with? I mean in Genesis they burn a pregnant woman for being unmarried. How in a “christian” nation founded by zealots did abortion get it’s legal mandates from the SC?

    You belong to one of the most disgusting and immoral cults in the history of humanity and your ignorant arrogance and lack of humility perpetuate that stereotype on this list everyday. Enjoy your last gasping, desperate breath as you fade from absurdity to obscurity.

  14. TerranceH says:

    R. Nash,

    You’re so ignorant it’s becoming a bore just conversing with you. The definitions I provided come directly from embryology textbooks that are used in medical schools across the county. You’re merely scrambling now, trying to save a little pride.

    “Becoming” a human being is “not” a human being.

    Yet again R. Nash fails to understand the nature of humanity itself. Being human is not something which is attained; it is a static state. One either is or isn’t a human being. “Adulthood,” “Infancy,” and “Pubescence,” are attained; humanity itself is not.

    So a tire is a car?

    No. And neither is a liver a human being.

    Nitrogen from potash in my garden is a tomato plant?

    No. And neither is a stem a tomato plant.

    Hence, those cells are not afforded the same rights as a fetus that is, say, 32 weeks along.

    So you’re argument is that since the Supreme Court refused to classify unborn children as human beings, that means something? So are black people three-fifths a person? The Supreme Court once took that opinion.

    So in spite of all of your bloviated high sense of pride and arrogance, all of your name calling still doesn’t make you right. Not even in Arkansas.

    I’m right because the facts are on my side – in Arkansas, Michigan, and every other place on this planent.

    And your grasping at straws when you equate someone on dialysis to prop up your non position.

    Pity you didn’t bother to elaborate…But let me guess, since the person on dialysis is already born, he or she cannot be compared to unborn children…Right? Is that about what you were thinking?

    Well, you argued that non-autonomous entities do not qualify as human beings. Clearly that is a subjective and arbitrary definition that cannot stand.

    If I am so flatly wrong then how and why is abortion legal?

    One Word: Slavery…

    Another Word: Holocaust…

    All “flatly wrong,” yet all legal in their respective time and country. The legality of a thing says nothing about its morality or ethics.

    The fact that none of you can even address what the bible says on the matter is very telling.

    It would be inappropriate for me to discuss religion in the context of criminalizing abortion. Wouldn’t it? There is a First Amendment and “wall of separation between church & state.” Is there not?

    • R. Nash says:

      Still not going to cover the places within in your own religious texts that support abortion? And now onto your vapid excuse making. Your last paragraph is pathetically telling. If I was a religious person I would pray for your lost soul.
      The moment of conception is not a person. Those cells do not have rights. You will never have the right to dictate to any woman what she can do with or to her body or those cells. Suck it up and take the loss like a man.

      • *sigh* the bible does not support abortion.

        • R. Nash says:

          John, please refute the passages I have been mentioning then.

          And terrance, you are in the minority as far as your generation goes. And please clarify why you are skipping over the biblical passages as well.
          BTW organs are either donated or not. It is a choice. And why not cover the argument made by embryologists that specifies in roe v wade in which there is a clear distinction made. This seems to be a confusing point for you. Those cells can also become a million different unserviceable and often times fatal set of birth defects. That clump of cells is a human being? Get bent.

  15. TerranceH says:

    R. Nash,

    I don’t operate a religious blog. I’m not a priest, pastor, nun, or Christian apologist. I am a Christian, plain and simple. But that has nothing to do with my secular arguments against abortion. I don’t inject my religious convictions into social issues. I held the same position on abortion when I was an atheist. One has nothing to do with the other.

    As I have shown, the moment of conception is the moment a new, genetically distinct human individual comes into existence and begins its lifelong process of development. Once conception happens, there is a linear progression of development that does not end until natural death. That alone proves that conception creates a new human being.

    Besides that, I’ve proven it via quotes from embryology textbooks. You cannot refute the point scientifically. If you wish to pursue some sort of philosophical objection, fine. Let’s hear it. But scientifically, a new human being comes into existence the moment of conception. This has been proven.

    You will never have the right to dictate to any woman what she can do with or to her body…

    Legally, one cannot sell his or her organs for profit or commit suicide. Therefore, clearly, there is no absolute right do with your body what you wish.

    Abortion will one day be illegal. No generation is as pro-life as my own. Once we start getting elected to office, perhaps twenty or thirty years in the future, you’ll see a change. Trust me.

  16. TerranceH says:

    R. Nash,

    And terrance, you are in the minority as far as your generation goes.

    Do you ever tire of spouting off ignorance?

    And please clarify why you are skipping over the biblical passages as well.

    Please explain why you continue to deny the scientific literature I provided which clearly debunks your nonsensical belief?

    BTW organs are either donated or not. It is a choice.

    Sure. But the point remains: You are not allowed to sell your organs or commit suicide, therefore, legally, you have no right to do with your body what you wish. Precisely the reason “it’s a woman’s body” is a pitiful argument that will always fail. Bodily autonomy is neither morally or legally absolute. Pity you didn’t understand.

    And why not cover the argument made by embryologists that specifies in roe v wade in which there is a clear distinction made.

    What are you talking about? The Supreme Court simply refused to define when life began. They didn’t give an opinion on the matter. And any medical testimony is irrelevant in today’s world. Technology and our understanding of human development has advanced since that time. We know, beyond all doubt, that life begins at conception. I’ve proven with five quotes from five different textbooks. You’ve offered nothing but your own subjective, arbitrary opinion.

    Those cells can also become a million different unserviceable and often times fatal set of birth defects.

    So what? All sorts of diseases and defects can attack human beings once they’re out of the womb.

    That clump of cells is a human being?

    Yes.

    Get bent.

    Get educated.

  17. TerranceH says:

    And you have to love how these people always say, “Oh, it’s just a clump of a cells, not a human being,” as though every single abortion takes place immediately after conception or something. Absurd.

    Abortions take place, in Michigan at least, up until the baby is 24 weeks along. Nobody in their right mind would suggest that even a 12 week old unborn child is only a “clump of cells” or “doesn’t look human.” Of course, then again, nobody in their right mind would argue with five different embryology textbooks, and simple logic.

  18. I, too, am eager to hear which passages from Scripture support abortion in any way.

  19. I’d just like to say that, in the context of the original topic, legal abortion in America is forcing an obviously false view of what the unborn are: not human beings. “You can’t murder a person that doesn’t exist”, they say. “The beginning of life happens sometime after conception”, they say.

    Shouldn’t laws be made on some understanding of actual reality?

  20. Exactly. The pro-abortion sound bite, like nearly all of them, ignores the human being killed in the procedure. Someone is obviously forcing their morality on her as they crush her skull and rip her limbs off.

    One of my favorite things to do when people play the phony, “You’re forcing your religious views on me!!” card is to ask them to point me to anywhere on the great big Interwebs where they have been equally strident in opposing the religious Left. After all, if “forcing religious views” was such a horrible thing, they should be actively protesting the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, all the fake denominations pushing abortion and oxymoronic “same-sex marriage,” increased taxes, etc.

    I’ve yet to get anything besides crickets chirping in response.

Trackbacks

  1. […] Forcing your view: Everyone does it – Nice job by John pointing out how the “forcing your view” argument is meaningless.  […]

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: