Well, there was a day when some people owned slaves, and other people objected to that, saying it was wrong.
And the people who owned slaves said, "Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but it's none of YOUR BUSINESS because these slaves are MY PROPERTY."
And abortion is the same as that, and the same kind of people are involved, those who make it their business to do evil, and those who butt into other people's business to stop a wrong.
Dear
Blackrook
Yes and no.
The common factor here would be if it were argued
"Is this federal jurisdiction or states' rights to pass laws on
[slavery or abortion]"
In that case the common factor is "does federal govt have the
right to intervene and tell states what to do"
In the case of slavery, an AMENDMENT had to be passed outlawing slavery as 'involuntary servitude'; in the case of abortion, just the federal govt striking down bans as unconstitutional is not the same as the states passing laws on abortion, which they still continue to rewrite and revise to find a constitutional way to regulate it.
If you say the issue of slavery is equally faith based as the issue of abortion,
such as saying does the owner have property rights that the person as property does not have, or does the woman have privacy rights or right to choose that the unborn child does not have,
the difference is in the case of slavery the person acting as property CAN SPEAK AND REPRESENT
THEMSELVES AS A PERSON AND THUS PROVE THAT THIS PERSON DOES NOT CONSENT.
So that doesn't count as faith based, but recognized as a person under law.
Since the unborn child cannot be proven to have conscious awareness or consent
as the born person, this principle that the human will begins at conception remains faith based.
Blackrook even if it is TRUE, this cannot be proven any more than you can prove when the
universe began because we cannot see or hear it, we cannot prove when the soul of the person
becomes manifest in the physical body, it is on a SPIRITUAL level that this is occurring.
And it is not the job of govt to determine and define such a SPIRITUAL process that remains faith based.
What I will say,
Blackrook, is that even though this remains FAITH BASED,
that FAITH that BELIEF that life begins at conception IS protected under Free Exercise of Religion,
and as a Creed, people of this Belief cannot be Discriminated against in Govt policy.
So I will tell you the same thing as I say about people who hold LGBT beliefs to be truth:
those beliefs are also FAITH based, and are protected under Religious Freedom,
but neither beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity nor beliefs that human will begins at conception
can be established NOR PROHIBITED by govt.
And this is not the same as slavery where those people subject to slavery
can represent their own consent and prove their consent, due process and and liberty is violated.
The real issue BTW of why abortion laws never get anywhere:
As long as the govt can only intervene after pregnancy has already occurred, any such laws regulating
abortion at that point AFFECT WOMEN MORE THAN MEN WHO ARE NOT EQUALLY LEGALLY HELD RESPONSIBLE.
This is a SEPARATE complication with laws apart totally from whether the baby has rights, human will
begins at conception, whether abortion is murder etc. Because all that can be unlawful
AND LAWS POLICING ABORTION AFTER THE POINT OF PREGNANCY STILL AFFECT WOMEN MORE THAN MEN.
So if you don't address that problem with the laws,
even if all the other points are true that abortion is murder and human will begins at conception and the
unborn baby has rights being violated aren't going to change
the problem with laws that regulate and punish the women more than the men who
are equally responsible for the decision to have sex, if not the men being MORE responsible in the
case of rape, incest, coercion or other abuse where the woman didn't consent to sex or to get pregnant but were forced.
So until you address THAT problem with the laws
Blackrook, we can't even GET to the other issues no matter how wrong these problems are!
If you are going to compare right to life beliefs with something on the left,
I'd compare it to the right to health care, where the left IS saying it is more
important to save lives "by govt regulating right to health care" than it is to respect free choice. That is a more fair comparison.
Donald J. Trump Verified account @realDonaldTrump
