Liberals say that viability determines personhood. That's hardly adults. More like defective morlocks.
Well, the law of the land says viability, so there's also that. The only thing you have that says otherwise is an irrational, badly written law that contradicts itself within the language of the very law you want to use as evidence of the rationality of your position, and should not exist. It's kind of like fake conservative moralists - should not exist, but we have to tolerate.
Dear
Czernobog where the contradiction in law begins is pushing laws biased by beliefs into govt. Both sides have beliefs about abortion life and govt authority. If both sides don't agree, as you yourself don't agree here, that means lines were crossed between beliefs and public policy or church and state. That's where the contradiction is. Technically no laws should be passed or enforced at all that touch on beliefs unless there is a public consensus. Or else you are right there is a contradiction with laws, on religious freedom and equal protection of laws from discrimination by creed.
It goes both ways though, for laws to be fully constitutional they could not be biased toward or against either for or against legalized abortion. Prochoice seeks to allow free choice of either, but as long as prolife advocates don't agree but argue that laws are still biased then that's still infringing. Same with the laws you are contesting as infringing. Until and unless there is consensus then any objections by either side shows that law is biased does not represent all sides beliefs equally and is technically establishing an unconstitutional bias by belief.
Do you agree that laws involving beliefs should be resolved by consensus to protect all citizens equally instead of pushing one sides beliefs over the other thru govt?
Which is what I have been shouting for years. look. I don't want to tell the moralists what they
have to believe, or how they have to behave, in regards to a fetus, life, personhood, etc., in their personal lives However, I also don't want them trying to use the law to tell anyone else, either.
Here's the irony.
I am anti-abortion. I am a pagan, and therefore do have my personal believes about the soul, spiritual migration, and reincarnation. I believe that every soul migrates to a new life at conception. But did you notice the phrase I used?
My. Personal. Believes. The last thing I
ever want to do is to use the government to legislate that other people be required to behave in accordance with
my. Personal. Beliefs. So, I am politically
Pro-Choice. Why? Because my personal beliefs should never interfere with the individual decisions of another person.
I argue very similarly to you
Czernobog. The challenge is including and defending prolife beliefs to the same degree as prochoice. What about ppl who don't want govt endorsing or supporting any abortion at all, similar to only tolerating gay marriage in private but not thru govt which is public.
But that's just it,
emilynghiem, government taking the position that abortion is a personal, private matter, and passing no laws is not the same as government endorsing a decision. For example, I have told my teen-aged son that if he chooses to go to a party where there will be drinking, that will be his decision. However, if that party is "raided', then his going to jail will be his consequences. Now, am I
endorsing him going to parties? Absolutely not,. I am endorsing him making his own decisions, while understanding that, by allowing him to do so, that means he may well make a decision with which I, personally, may disagree. Allowing for individual choice, is not synonymous with endorsement of the choice made.
This is where I argue ppl need to make a choice and take financial responsibility for those choices. If you really believe or don't believe in something, then why not fund it yourself such as through your own party similar to a religious organization that funds its own agenda and beliefs (about abortion, marriage, benefits and health care, genders and bathrooms). Neither side of these issues should push policies thru govt that ppl of other beliefs are objecting to as biased against their beliefs. If we separate religious beliefs from govt. What about secular or political beliefs?
The difference is that we,
specifically, have a constitutional proscription against government endorsing, or supporting theological positions. We have no such proscription against ideological positions. The law that is the subject of this particular thread, however, speaks directly to your point. There is currently a perfectly reasonable process involved in disposal of the waste from an abortion. Since the moralists want the waste disposed of in a manner more fitting a
person's remains, that's fine. Then let them pay for that more expensive process.
Sure it's a lot of work to separate beliefs by party, but either way we'd be fair and have peace. Either agree to fund it federally or keep it localized if ppl don't agree and can't resolve conflicts of beliefs any other way. One or the other. Either agree what to use the shared bank account for and only use it for that, or agree to have separate bank accounts that don't involve the other party's finances, instead of fighting constantly over whose money goes where.
You're talking about what many of the moralists are now moving to: that this is, and ought to be, a "State" issue. But it isn't, and shouldn't be. Question: other than a question of size, how is a federally authoritarian intrusion on individual choice any different from a State level authoritarian intrusion on individual choice?
Now, the moralists would say that it is a matter of the "will of the people". But, here's the thing. We have already agreed, through the federal constitution, and the Supreme Court that "the people" (as in the mob of the majority) does not have the authority to impede the right of individual choice, so long as that choice is not affecting the rights of another person. Now, again, they will insist - using those horribly written, self-contradictory irrational fetal homicide laws - that a fetus is a person. Unfortunately, that is simply not established law, which is why there have been so many failed attempts at personhood amendments. So, it doesn't matter if it is federal level authoritarian intrusion on individual liberty, or a state level authoritarian intrusion on individual liberty, the result is the same - an authoritarian intrusion on individual liberty. That is something I will never endorse, and, based on 40 years of case law, neither will the Supreme Court.
