This is an example of convoluted logic.
Congratulations, you took freedom away…
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
This is an example of convoluted logic.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
this is what's freaking out a lot of folk, because that legal buffoon Thomas alludes to applying such "logic" to other cases down the line. I find it fascinating that our resident right wing wonks and MAGA minions don't see the threat of a Iron Heel forming over their necks.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Science - until a developing human leaves the womb and breathes on it's own, it is NOT a person nor has it been "born". Anything before 9 months is called "premature birth", and depending upon when that happens, all sorts of intensive medical procedures are needed to keep that baby alive and developing.
Religion - life begins at cell conception conception and is comparable to a 9 month baby.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW REMOVING A LAW THAT PROTECTS CHOICE (a cornerstone of Freedom, the Constitution and The Bill Of Rights) is in step with what America is about.
If it is murder I don't think any doctors are going to perform the abortion. The women would go to those states where it is legal. I don't think any abortion laws punish the mother.
Jim Crow violated the 14th amendment equal protection clause (if imposed by the government). That makes it unconstitutional regardless of the reasons behind the law.
If a person opposes abortion for religious reasons, that does not matter as long as the law itself does not violate the guidelines for establishment cases.
Theft violates the religious beliefs of Christians and Jews. That does not mean we can't have laws against theft because they are based on religion.
Pro abortion people just need to base their arguments on the merits of abortion itself. Trying to claim any religious beliefs cause a constitutional problem is not rational.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Explain how the removal of personal choice regarding one's body is in step with the freedom granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I'll wait.
Yes they are going to perform the abortion. They did when abortion was illegal. See Jane Collective. And yes there are laws that punish the mother. Those mothers will be forced to carry fetuses to term, even if they're 11-12 and victims of rape and incest. I wonder if you really are keeping up with the news. I am not so sure if you do.
And yet slavery was legal.
It matters to citizens, especially the Jews.
Laws against theft are not based on religious beliefs. But nice try though.
There are no such thing as pro abortion people. That's a straw man.
I favor legal abortion. However, there is no "law" but an interpretation of the Constitution. If that constitutional interpretation was wrong, then it should be changed and the fight should go to the states.
Constitutional law is not based on science or religion or what is rational or good but about what the Constitution allows. It does not seem the decision will stop most abortions. Even the Dobbs case in MS prohibits abortion after 15 weeks. 96% of abortions are performed before 15 weeks. Therefore, even women in MS have the choice to have an abortion.
You and I favor keeping abortion legal. Those who oppose it don't think killing the unborn is what American is about. I respect their opinion even though I disagree with it. I don't have any tolerance for hating those we disagree with politically.
Yes, I am aware of those things--which ones do you think I am not aware of? I follow the law very closely. Those doctors who performed illegal abortions were not committing murder--I think they would be a little more reluctant. Many abortion clinics have already shut down. Which state has a law that punishes the mother (other than carrying the baby)?
No, Jim Crow was after slavery ended.
It matters to citizens, especially the Jews.[/QUOTE]
It does not matter from a constitutional perspective. There is nothing about abortion laws that have anything to do with being unconstitutional because those who favor the laws do so for religious reasons.
It is one of the 10 commandments. Do you mean Jews and Christians don't accept the Biblical command about theft? So, it is based on religion as much as abortion it. Both are irrelevant when determining the constitutionality of theft or abortion laws.
Sure there are. I am pro-abortion meaning I want government laws to keep abortion legal. Pro-choice is an individual decision, but you can't make that choice unless government chooses to make abortion legal. Government laws are pro-abortion--they permit it.
No they would not be more reluctant. They swore to the Hippocratic Oath. That means it does not matter what the laws of the land there are.
Yes I realized that.
It matters to the citizens. Abortion being illegal violates the Jewish belief.
So? Ever heard of the Hammurabi's code? Many of our laws were founded from that. Nothing to do with religion.
No one is pro abortion. They are PRO CHOICE. That means leave the choice to women. Government and Christofascists need to keep their fucking hands off women's bodies.
The point is laws against abortion have nothing to do with violating the establishment of religion--so that reason to object to laws prohibiting abortion are nonsense.
It violates certain faiths.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Nearly 90 per cent of abortions in England and Wales were chemically induced, 2 per cent higher than in 2020 and 40 per cent up on 2011.
https://www.christian.org.uk/news/abortions-hit-another-record-high-in-england-and-wales/
Last edited:
The Hippocratic Oath does not require a doctor to violate criminal laws.
Then those citizens should fight to have their abortion views made into law in their state. You can't please all the citizens.
That was my point. If the Hammurabi code prohibited abortion and my personal religious beliefs oppose abortion, that does not mean laws against abortion are based only on religion.
Women don't have a choice unless the government law is pro-abortion (it is legal).
So? A person does not have a right to have governmental policy agree with his political/religious beliefs. I'm sure many governmental policies violate the faiths of many different religious groups.
If it violates your freedom of religion you can challenge the policy in court like the just announced case about Maine giving money to parents in areas where no public schools existed. They could use the money to attend private schools but not church related. The Supreme Court ruled that violated their freedom of religion.
Yes it does. Do you really want to go that route? Okay using your logic those doctors were not allowed to treat the Jews because it's against the law.
They should not have to fight for their religious freedom in a secular country.
The Hammurabi code does not forbid abortion.
Yes they do have a choice, regardless of the law. The underground abortion clinics are being formed as we speak. So Christofascists can't win. They can fuck off.
It violates Jewish faith. There are Representatives and Senators who are Jews. It violates their faith.
Again, they should not have to challenge the policy. America is ALL ABOUT religious freedom.
We have no protection against having our faith violated. Christians can't claim allowing abortion violates their religious faith--there is no constitutional remedy for such situations.
Senators and Representatives have no more rights than anybody else.
Religious freedom is a constitutional (legal) right. You have to prove the government is violating your religious freedom. You can't just make that claim and do whatever you want.
The court can rule you can't violate a secular law just because it is against your religious beliefs (like speeding); or, it can exempt you (and your group) if there is no harm if you don't follow the law (required school pledge).
Illegal abortion violates Jewish faith.