durangodawood
Dis Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 23,602
- 15,761
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Thats exactly what we want. I can hardly believe you have to ask....Surely, we don't believe that one religion should force its beliefs on others using the state to enforce those beliefs.....
That view is widely disputed in way totally unlike for a born child....which should tell us something.Missing is the fact that a human child exists at the time of conception and killing a human without legal justification is murder. If it is ok to kill a child before it is born why would it not be ok to kill a child at any time them become inconvenient? If one condition of age can be justified then any condition of age can also be justified. AND yet we a appalled at the concept of child sacrifice, or starving children, or children killed in war, or children killed at schools. What exactly are our values?
This is incorrect. A child after it is born still needs support from the mother. Not doing so is murder. It's no less murder when the child is inside of her body.
Good point but, The 4th Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated". The SCOTUS has upheld the right to privacy, which often protects rights to bodily integrity.
The Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion via penumbras located in the founding text.
It's not a religious issue. It's a moral issue.Since the status of the life in the womb from conception to birth is judged differently based on one's religion, why would we want the state regulating it?
"... a number of religious groups, including the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the two largest American Jewish movements – Reform and Conservative Judaism – favor a woman’s right to have an abortion with few or no exceptions.
Many of the nation’s largest mainline Protestant denominations – including the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Methodists – also support abortion rights,
Where major religious groups stand on abortion
The recent ruling seems to me to be a violation of freedom of religion. It imposes the religious beliefs of those churches that oppose abortion (in fact seeing it as murder) on everyone including those who do not hold that belief.
What am I missing? Let churches ban it but not the government.
Since the status of the life in the womb from conception to birth is judged differently based on one's religion, why would we want the state regulating it?
"... a number of religious groups, including the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the two largest American Jewish movements – Reform and Conservative Judaism – favor a woman’s right to have an abortion with few or no exceptions.
Many of the nation’s largest mainline Protestant denominations – including the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Methodists – also support abortion rights,
Where major religious groups stand on abortion
The recent ruling seems to me to be a violation of freedom of religion. It imposes the religious beliefs of those churches that oppose abortion (in fact seeing it as murder) on everyone including those who do not hold that belief.
What am I missing? Let churches ban it but not the government.
Ok, you got me there. We don't issue driving permits and voter registration to blastocysts. But the religious argument being made is that a fertilized egg has just as much right to live as a 20 year old woman because it is a human being.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-
In the US, an embryo becomes a person at birth, when God breathes life into flesh.
I mean "we" in the larger sense. Im not so into that, personally. I'd rather we avoid inflicting our various religions upon others.
I miss your point, unless you think that "men" can apply to an embryo/fetus.
Actually, it is equal protection that Ginsburg thought was the correct reason to affirm Roe (rather than privacy).
Perhaps you think it the pursuit of happiness to force a woman to give birth to a child after rape or incest?
Here we go again with the "it's a child/person/it has a soul/heartbeat!!!11" argument. It's completely irrelevant whether what we're talking about is a "person" or a "human" or anything else.
The state cannot compel a person (an actual unambiguously living, breathing, thinking person) to use any part of their body, including body fluids that can be replenished, to keep another person at any stage of development alive without their express consent. Not even after they are dead.
This is literally the only argument needed to justify respecting the right of women to make medical choices about their own bodies. The baby's body or status as a person is irrelevant.
So you would be ok with something like Sharia law in the U.S?Thats exactly what we want. I can hardly believe you have to ask.
.
Issues can be both moral and religious. What distinguishes those that are not both?It's not a religious issue. It's a moral issue.
I clarified in post 51.So you would be ok with something like Sharia law in the U.S?
in 51, what do you mean by "we in the larger sense"?I clarified in post 51.
The baby’s status is completely relevant to determine whether or not murder is being committed. Let’s just get the facts on the table here. Less than 1% of abortions occur as a result of rape or incest. 1-3% occur due to medical complications. So the other 96% occur because people are just being irresponsible and would rather kill an unwanted child rather than face the consequences for their actions. So no that option needs to be eliminated to protect the child’s right to live as opposed to the inconvenience the irresponsible mother has to endure as a consequence for her poor choices and judgment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?