spacecase-daydream-ohyeah asked you:This is true,we don’t see eye to eye,but I’m thankful for your clarifications. However,I hope you’re also aware that those who oppose of religion and pro-life ideals seem to have the license to force their views on us. Does that seem fair? They’re the ones who angrily protest us when we have peaceful pro life marches and also want to take our rights to practice our religion freely. (See the HHS mandate for example?) Scientifically, human life begins at conception. ahh, but we won’t agree. Oh well.
You see, no one is really trying to force secular views on anyone. Both of the samples you site are examples of people refusing to allow the views of some to force their views onto others.
For example, there’s nothing wrong with being “pro-life” per-se, at least not in reference to one’s own choices. Many people who are pro-choice would never chose an abortion for themselves. The problems is that people who are “pro life” want their views mandated, which is why it is more accurate to describe the pro-life movement as the “anti-choice” movement. This is taking taking their opinion and forcing it on others, which is, again, violates other people’s human rights. And angry protests against this kind of thing should be expected.
And as for the HHS mandate, this is, again, a case of religion trying to force their moral judgments on those who do not agree with them. Everyone has the right to believe that contraception is immoral for themselves; they can choose to take it or not. But if you are an employee you have no right to say that you will not cover contraception to those you employ who almost certainly do not share your non-logical views on the subject. The employer has no right to impose their strictly religious judgments on those they employ (there is no sound secular argument against contraception whatsoever), which is exactly what forcing employees to pay for their own contraception does.
And it is beyond question that a zygote in a human being is undoubtedly a human zygote. It is, however, quite a leap to grant something far, far less complex and sentient than a blade of grass and fully dependent on someone who is unquestionably a human being full human rights. You may chose to grant this potential human being full human rights, but that is unscientifically backed opinion, and I don’t believe that unscientifically backed opinion should be forced on others.
So, do I see this as fair? Yup.
Steve, being awesome as always. I’m sure most of y’all already follow Steve @ religiousragings, but I need this on my blog too! ~JJ