So, consensus based on shared values. That would mean that Naziism and the gassing of millions of innocent Jews was morally right?Or the millions killed in communist China under Mao. After all most of the German population were proud supporters of the Nazi party and believed they were on a righteous course to world domination with 1 race. At one point in time most of the world supported slavery also. So your 'shared values' argument pretty much falls apart there.
Hitler identified as a Christian. Most Germans of that era also identified as Christian. I would say that the majority of Germans weren't proud as much as they were either passive or afraid. That doesn't excuse their collusion, but as we're seeing today, this is what people are like. And of course it is not possible to have political consensus when you are living under a dictatorship, which is what the Nazi regine rapidly became.
The same applies to China. I would argue that China under Mao was living under a cult of personality, much as North Korea is now. And again, China is a dictatorship where no consensus is possible because the vast majority of the population do not have a voice.
On slavery, you can't argue relligious morality is superior, because as pointed out by a pp, there were Christians on both side of the debate.
Lastly, you appear to think that consensus and moraliy are static things. They really aren't. Societies evolve. Not that long ago, women couldn't vote. Now it's the norm that women have the vote. Consensus changes as people are confronted with change around them. Nevertheless, shared values are required for societies to be effective. Allowing religion to dictate what morals are lands you with the likes of Afghanistan and the current US.
Hardly any women die during childbirth nowadays it is so uncommon, so to use that as an argument for abortion as a means of best survival chances is either ill thought through or intellectually dishonest. This only works if you can debate in 'good faith'. The reason millions of women terminate the babies growing inside of them is largely for their own convenience be it financial or other form of instability, it has nothing to do with their own lives being in danger otherwise I'd be open to thinking that would be a fair reason to do so. This is not to mention the softened language we use around the subject. Most peoples reaction to the act of killing one's own baby is horror and disgust, so it's easier to compartmentalise the truth by using softer language so we can pretend it's some other thing like a medical procedure such as a cut to the hand.
OK, so you are clearly a hardline forced birth advocate. You're allowed to hold that view, of course; just don't expect me to respect it.
Survival is not just about survival of an unborn baby or an individual woman. It is also about the survival and functioning of a family unit. You think that the majority of women terminate for entirely frivolous reasons - what is frivolous to you is very serious to someone else. A very large percentage of women who have abortions already have children. The welfare of those other children must also be considered. Financial matters are also to be seriously considered. Poverty has major adverse effects on children, as I hope you are aware. Women turn to abortion for many different reasons, most of them not in the least frivolous. It speaks of your contempt for women that you think this way.
Of course in an ideal world, there would be no abortion. As someone who is fervently pro choice, I would love to see such a world. However, to achieve that we would have to have the following in place:
- 100% effective, side effect free contraception which would be free or affordable for everyone
- No-one to commit rape ever
- No pregnancy to go wrong in terms of serious birth defects ever
- Men to take responsibility for their fertility when in committed relationships, i.e. following through on promises to have vasectomies
- Women to be allowed to have free sterilisation when they feel they have had enough children - this is currently not possible, as women of childbearing age are infantilised and refused this treatment 'in case they change their minds'
- The morning after pill to be available free, and pharmacists not allowed to refuse to dispense it
Since we do not have all of this in place, we need safe legal abortion as a fallback option - unless you are happy to see women forced to deliver babies with anencephaly and similar. Having safe, legal abortion allows women to survive within a family unit. It allows them to leave an abusive relationship without being tied to their abuser via a child. It allows women to have a backstop in case contraception goes wrong in a situation where raising an additional child is not realistic.
It's not that countries have moved away from religious laws by opening marriage for everyone. You're missing the point whike inadvertently proving it. Marriage itself is the religious sentiment and the holy union at the core of the debate. The differentiations of verious types of marriage is just semantics. I don't think it was very well thought through however, opening marriage up for same sex partners, and it's not something the churches are happy about as it devalues it. A sexual preference should never be a proponant of a marriage. Some people have a sexual preference for animals but that doesn't mean it's progressive or a good for society to allow a marriage between a woman and a pig. That's not a marriage.
How does same sex couples being allowed to marry devalue marriage? I've never yet had a convincing answer to this question, so I'd be interested to hear it. Just don't come out with the one about having children, because it's basically a colander:
- same sex couples have and raise children very successfully. All the reputable research suggests that children raised in a family involving a stable same sex relationship do as well as or better than children raised by opposite sex parents.
- If you're going to go with the children argument then by that logic, nobody past the age of childbearing should be allowed to marry either.
- And nor should anyone found to be infertile.
So outside of the children argument, what exactly is your objection? I'm straight. I married a man. I didn't feel my marriage was lesser when same sex marriage came in - so perhaps this is all in the heads of the religious.
Oh, the Bible isn't an argument either. It's a book, written by people, for people, with the purpose of controlling people. It's been translated a zillion times and worldwide, scholars disagree wildly on its interpretation. Nobody can prove that their interpretation is the correct one; all they have is belief. And belief should never be used to control what other people do.
Other than that your attitude towards marriage equality isn't a strawman, so I apoligise for using that word. Your comparison between same sex marriages and bestiality is bigoted. So I'll use that word instead. Nobody has ever suggested legalising bestiality, because animals cannot consent. It's a bit like child marriage - oh, that's legal in quite a few very religious places, including parts of the US. But I suppose it's fine if the partners are opposite sex. Me, I'd rather have two same sex consenting adults getting married instead.
Of course historically marriage has been more about lands, money and political alliances than about any religious sentiment. It's not for nothing that until relatively recently, marriage was the preserve of the wealthy who had lands and titles to preserve. And of course the church has always supported the establishment.
However, you can't say 'the churches' are not happy about same sex marriage - because quite a few of them are supportive of it these days.
Essentially your entire argument consists of 'you can't have good morals without religion'. And it simply isn't so.