You should know that Voltaire never said it. Evelyn Beatrice Hall was the one that wrote the quote.

Sorry, it's the political science in me.:D

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, I studied political science too and I've heard that quote 9 million times, always attributed to Voltaire.

Nope, the quote was from a book called Friends of Voltaire by Evelyn Beatrice Hall about Voltaire. The book was published in 1906. Hall was paraphrasing "Not only is it extremely cruel to persecute in this brief life those who do not think the way we do, but I do not know if it might be too presumptuous to declare their eternal damnation," which Voltaire said in his "Treatise on Toleration."

I study political science right now and used my Google-Fu to come up with http://www.classroomtools.com/voltaire.htm

0.) Read snopes.com - the voltaire quote . . . not him, although it's a near-miss (not to be a nit)

Anyway here's the logic, and here's what I meant:

1.) America was founded on strong principles, principles that were truly revolutoinary for their time (and which still carry that weight today).

2.) One key premise of our founders, and the reason why we colonized this continent, was religious freedom. A necessary element of religious freedom is a government free from 'state religion'

3.) Our nation operates under a fairly strict separation of church and state (and yes, this is in the constitution for you tin foil hatters - snopes.com that one too, guys), as a result of these lofty principles

4.) Arguments for laws restricted abortion rights are usually drawn along religious lines. The reason, at the root, for this is the concept of a 'soul' - since it is impossible to dictate at what point a fertilized egg becomes a fetus becomes a human life without resorting to some sort of 'soul' concept.

therefore . . . .

5.) Laws to restrict abortion generally should be viewed as imposing a religious morality on something that doesn't carry this morality in everyone's views (religious or otherwise), and thus violate church/state separation.

So here are the alternatives:

-Impose your religious morality on others, thus pissing on the high-minded ideals of the founding of the United States of America

or

-Keep the laws like they are, then don't have an abortion if it falls outside of your morality zone.

It's pretty clear that only the second is fair, lawful, just, and intellectually sound.

Bottom line: you might be vehemently anti-abortion, and I might be vehemently anti-abortion, but there is no rational reason to impose those feelings onto others by law.

-RC
--out.

I knew that Voltaire didn't really say it, but I didn't know where the mistake originated. Thanks for the info.

Exactly.
Keep the 'consequences' of abortion up to religion. If you believe that abortion is a sin, then let God deal with them rather then the Government.

This is why RC wins at GC. You remind me of one of my old Philosophy professors. You know the bastard, he can argue any point for any stance on any given topic and always win.

Not to confuse RC with the bastard though, he just wins at GC...

Or to keep it even more simple: Don't believe in abortion... don't get one.

It's your choice.

i was wondering how long it was gonna take for you to tell me how silly i am! i do what i can, KSig RC, to be as endearing to you as possible. ;)

maybe i just don't understand what GP is talking about :(.....b/c it seemed ol' norma was saying something different than what GP was saying she was saying. did that make sense or was it too many pronouns???? she was sayin she was sayin....was sayin. i understood GP to say that roe was teaching fear by saying she couldn't look God in the face, whereas i took that as just acknowledging she was participating in something wrong in the eyes of God. nothing wrong with that in my book....shows one has a conscience. not trying to be "self-righteous" in any way... did i even state my personal relationship other than the denomination i was raised in? jussayin my opinion....am i the only one on here who can't be snippy?! :( boo! i thought i had been here long enough.......... :cool:

as far as the 2nd part of your post.....i've thought about what "choice" really means. after all, God gives us a choice to do what we will with our lives. however, i just can't honestly in my heart of hearts believe that i should just be "ok, choose what to do with your body" b/c to me, it's more than the woman's body/sin......it's about protecting those who can't protect themselves. your "proud american" comment is nice in theory, but like my posts at times ;), is too generalizing/off-handed to be taken seriously to some ppl. as for explaining in depth your logic (which is all very clear and i totally understand--i just saw that post), i still can't personally agree to it with a clear mind. it should not be legal b/c it is the taking of an innocent life and it is wrong. abortion=murder. murder=bad. roe v. wade is wrong and should be done away with. it won't be, though, so this is really a non-issue, but there ya have it. my .02. love it, hate it, think i'm a dumbass, whatever. it's all ok and i may even add you to my drunk list just b/c. :D

-sigh-

I'm sorry, I was not talking consequence of sin, I'm talking about the consequence of actions when you are unprepared to have a baby.

While you believe that life begins at conception, there are other religions (and people) who believe that life does not begin until birth. The term "life" is far too complex.

There is also a term called potential for life.

-Rudey

I wasn't referring to your post in mine.

DOH!!! Ok :p