you are wrong about science 3 times in a week... who took over piezoe's account... I do not know you you are... but you are a fool. Please return this account to the previous piezoe.
I am against it. In fact, I despise it. I can not believe we treat people like this. We have a purposely sub optimal system and I can't stand the politicians who let it continue.... it is inhumane. And don't come back with this leftist bullshit... why didn't you not speak before. a. you brought it up. b. I have consistently been against the vast majority of our legal and illegal immigration policies since Bush... and before that.
I've been discussing the facts. I've never indicated that I was pro or anti abortion. Is a woman's period equivalent to the death of a human life? I don't think so. Is aborting an 8 month pregnancy equivalent to the death of a human life? I think so. So where is the line? Where/When does 'human' life begin? I don't know. Can that line be overridden because the healthy human fetus/life was the result of rape/incest? I don't see how that matters to the human life in question, if the above mentioned 'line' was crossed. Should it be up to the woman, period? I don't know. Being a man, I've personally never sanctioned any abortions; and likely would never do so, because I'd personally rather error on the side of caution.
It is not written into the Constitution as such. This issue has always revolved around the question of whether a fetus which is a part of the mother's body is a human being. Human beings have specific rights under the Constitution. There is general agreement that biologically, before a baby is born it does not have a life independent of the mother. The idea that human life begins at conception is a religious concept. Secular society has accepted that at some point between conception and birth there is a transition from fetus to human being even though that human being may not yet be independent of it's mother. The point at which this occurs can not be precisely determined in actual practice. Therefore the Court has accepted that the determining factor is that point in a pregnancy before which no birth has resulted in a child that could survive outside it's mother's womb. To the majority of people this criterion is logical and acceptable, and no abortions are therefore legal, except in extraordinary cases (vide infra), after the time at which birth can result in a surviving human being. An exception is drawn where there arises a conflict between the Mother's life and the life of what could potentially become a surviving neonate. Here it has been decided that the mother's life is superior to the potential neonate. This is, as I understand it, the law as it stands. Law's are subject to change however. The U.S. Constitution Reads : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is generally referred to as the "Establishment Clause." Much should depend, I would think, on how the Court interprets : "...Respecting an establishment of Religion." One particular meaning, there has never been any controversy over, viz., Congress shall not establish any particular religion as the Nation's Religion, as in a theocracy, for example. But other readings are not as clear. Here, in part, is what the Cornell Law School say about the Establishment clause: "The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but [it] also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. Although some government action implicating religion is permissible, and indeed unavoidable, it is not clear just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates. In the past, the Supreme Court has permitted religious invocations to open legislative session, public funds to be used for private religious school bussing and textbooks, and university funds to be used to print and publish student religious groups' publications. Conversely, the Court has ruled against some overtly religious displays at courthouses, state funding supplementing teacher salaries at religious schools, and some overly religious holiday decorations on public land." These actions described above and implicating religion do not unduly burden a non-religious person, and the Courts have allowed them as a part of our right to free exercise of religion. When it comes to the matter of abortion, however, it seems the Court, will be repeatedly asked to unduly prefer religion over non-religion and to substantially burden non-religious individuals, despite the Court having already definitively ruled on the Abortion Issue in Roe v Wade! Now that the Court has already ruled on the matter of abortion, the issue of whether States can further restrict the right of women to abort a pregnancy has raised its head. This should be decided on Supremacy Clause grounds, or on other Constitutional issues with regard to specific State laws. The Court's previous decision was decided in part on scientific and medical grounds. With the protection of the rights of the non-religious in mind, religious beliefs should not be allowed to enter into a court's decision. Allowing abortions according to scientific and medical facts in no way tramples on anyone's right to free exercise of their religion, as no person is required to abort a pregnancy. What those who would choose religious over secular answers would do, is prevent others from exercising their rights. Freedom from religion is an inalienable right under our U.S. Constitution. We are born with that right. What is particularly unfortunate is that the present uproar over abortion rights has been instigated for political reasons. It is hard to accept that those who are creating State laws with prima facie absurd provisions can be doing so with genuine interest in either women's or children's welfare, or for that matter a genuine interest in the unborn. Rather it seems the only interest is in holding on to the religious right's vote.
I appreciate the points you just made... This is what I responding to.... it was the sub-headline in the article you posted.. The Justice Department Strikes Back Since the DOJ cannot force Texas Republicans to magically become decent people, its smart lawsuit against the state’s abortion ban is the next best thing.
what a bunch of sophistry that was...religion does not have to be implicated at all. Straight up, legalized abortion is judgement call... Til what gestational age may moms kill their babies. a. if plants are alive scientifically speaking we know life begins at conception. Argue all you want... if plants are alive babies are alive. So since we now know the science is settled... What we are really deciding is a philosophical and legal question... not a religious one. Til what age should our societly allow moms to have a right to terminate their pregnancy (kill their baby) if we allow it at all. b. if you want to protect a baby when it can survive outside the womb.. the science has changed... its now 22 weeks. Yeah.. in the 70s the supreme court made some arbitrary calls related to trimesters and viability. Science changes. .
The legal and philosophical question as already been decided, largely on scientific and medical grounds. What the court will be asked now is to decide the Constitutionality of the newly passed State laws. If you want to argue on rational grounds then you will have to avoid editorializing with such rhetorical questions as "Til what gestational age may moms kill their babies." You're not going to get anywhere with that. It's an irrational appeal to emotion rather than reason. Have you ever argued a case in court? Let's hope not!