Why is it so hard for Republicans to stay out of people's personal business? Even if this law manages to pass, which I doubt, the state will then end up spending tens of thousands of dollars failing to defend it from court challenges. This issue was settled in 1973. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
So many problems in the US and the world, including the over populating of the world, and people are out there trying to put their religion onto other people.
What the hell does religion have to do with when a life begins biologically and with what our Constitution says a person's rights are to the protections of our laws?
These are not religious endeavors.
Let's try this.
Life. What a wonderful thing, let's protect it.
Wait, those pro-lifers are going around eating cow and pigs and sheep and chickens and fish all over the place. So it's not about LIFE then is it?
Our Constitution does not say that all likf is entitled to the equal protections of our laws. It says that all PERSONS are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.
It's a beautifully written document. You should read it sometime.
It's about HUMAN LIFE and this is a religious issue.
I disagree. I don't need God or religion to know the biological facts on how a child's life begins and I don't need God or religion to know what the Constitution says about the right to due process and the equal protections of our laws either.
Are you really not aware of any atheists, agnostics or secularists who oppose abortion?
Many religions feel the need to protect human life in some way, at least at the beginning. Why? Probably because these religions are from a time when people had lots of children and many of those would die in childhood or early adulthood, so you needed a lot of them to work the fields and make your old age as comfortable as possible.
I have no doubt that many religious people have strong religious views on the subject of abortion. However, the 1st Amendment forbids the making of laws to establish or to mandate those religious views. And, as I said above, religion is not needed for our courts to determine personhood anyway.
Religion was not used as the basis for our fetal homicide laws and religion will not be necessary for the same precedent to be set in arguments against Roe.
Things have changed, you might have noticed. It's not necessary any more to protect human life as much as it was. We're producing like horny rabbits, 7 billion people on this planet is TOO MANY PEOPLE.
Even if those / your claims and arguments had any merit at all (and I disagree that they do) - Our Constitution still says what it says about the equal rights and equal protections for all.
Constitutionally, we (the people) do not have the right to make exceptions to that language without making a Constitutional Amendment.
So, it's about religion, it's about saving souls (you might have noticed that a soul is just a belief system, you can't see or feel a soul) and souls are all about religion.
I think the Supreme Court will agree that it is the living body of a human being that qualifies it for protections and rights established in our Constitution. Not something which may not even exist - like souls.
That's what it's got to do with religion. Most people who are anti-abortion will be religious.
Like I said, I do not deny the reality that people with strong religious views have strong views on abortion.
They clearly do.
There are areas where the secular lines of argument and reasoning might parallel, support and intersect those religious beliefs too. . . But so what? Are we to abandon those secular lines of reasoning just because those arguments too closely support the religious conclusions of others?
I for one don't agree that would be a wise thing to do.
