emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
I'm glad you feel that way since, as already stated, they didn't rule on religious beliefs.And the Supreme Court ruled on neither. So much for your diatribe. Nor did the Supreme Court rule on religious beliefs.Wrong again FaunActually, that's really simple to address ... religious beliefs play no role in ruling on Constitutional issues other than in cases where someone is suing over infringement of their religious beliefs, which are also Constitutionally protected. In terms of abortion, religion has nothing to do with a woman's right to have an abortion up until the point of viability. Abortion is a personal choice women make for themselves, regardless of their own personal beliefs. The day our judicial branch starts ruling based on religion is the day we are governed by the Taliban.Again Faun by the First Amendment, Fourteenth and Civil rights laws against discrimination by creed, the Courts also cannot make laws favoring one sides' beliefs over another.
The shortfall of our current system is our inability to address Political Beliefs that cannot be separated from Govt so easily as with Religious Beliefs.
The two ways that conflicts over beliefs can be resolved constitutionally is either
(1) to reach a consensus on law so that all beliefs are represented protected and included equally
(2) to remove the policy in conflict from govt and separate it so people of different beliefs can fund and support their own programs
Since we have neither achieved 1 or 2, we do the best we can.
The best the court can do is rule in favor of prochoice and try to leave it open to both prochoice and prolife to pursue their own beliefs. The govt cannot fix this problem, so it is really up to people to resolve it.
This is still favoring abortion to be protected and governed by public institutions, which is still against the prolife beliefs that oppose this as sanctioning murder they don't believe should be endorsed by govt at all!
So we still do not have a perfectly constitutional solution and that is why people continue to protest.
it takes as much belief to believe that life begins at or before conception,
as it does to believe that life begins at birth.
Both are faith based, neither proven by science ie nobody has ever proven at what point does the SOUL/WILL of the person enter the body.
.......
Dear Faun the Supreme Court should not be ruling on religious beliefs. That is up to the people to respect those equally and quit dragging conflicts to govt to try to "decide for us." We the people are the ones to decide how to deal with our own beliefs and conflicts between them. The govt is not authorized to make such decisions for the people,
and it is an abuse of govt to keep forcing that on govt!
When Protestants and Catholics don't agree on rites of communion, they don't go and sue through govt to force their ways on others.
They separate congregations and conduct rituals and programs by their own beliefs. Why can't we show and practice the same respect for beliefs, and fund and manage our own programs without imposing these on others who don't share those same beliefs?
Where we disagree Faun is you don't treat prochoice
as a political BELIEF where right to life is equally a BELIEF.
I find this disparity causes "unintended" discrimination against people of prolife beliefs.