Discussion for article #232370
This is an interesting argument, but ultimately weak. To summarize the article: the definition of person-hood is religious, and therefore protected by the first amendment.
I would argue, however, that society as a whole sets a set of rights and norms that should inform this conversation. We decide, for example, to extend the full privileges and rights only to adults in this country. Even then, we restrict some rights until age 21. This restrictions are not religious in nature. We have made these decisions as a society, based on cultural norms, not religion, or really, science. When we then decide what rights and privileges to extend to non-viable children, we do so in a context were such decisions have historically been made by consensus and law.
I would agree with the premise that whether or not a soul is possessed by a fetus is a religious argument, and has no place in government discussions. However, whether or not a fetus has the right to not be killed, is a much more difficult ethical question that law must actually be allowed to answer.
I personally believe that we cannot ethically ignore the rights of the fetus. However, in all cases, I believe we need to value the rights of the mother more. Practically, the state can not, and should not, tell any human what he or she can do to his/her own body. The right over self is a fundamental part of the social contract, and all restrictions should be reviewed with the highest level of scrutiny. Restricting abortion based purely on the rights of the fetus puts the state in a position of valuing the potential life over the rights of an existing life. It puts the state in a position of dictating what happens inside a woman’s body.
In short, I think that there are several ways to argue for the rights of the unborn without reference to religion. A far better approach for those of us who wish to defend the rights of women is to do this by defending the rights of women. To try to undermine the argument on the person-hood side on first ammendment grounds will only serve to harden opposition. You will never convince someone who believes that all rights of the born should be extended to the unborn by telling them their opinion is religious, so doesn’t count. You might convince them that even if that is true, that the state has no right to force a woman to eat well, sleep well, and follow all state orders during pregnancy. You might convince them that the state cannot require a woman’s body to be used in the way they want. Hey, it worked for me.
I don’t know what monkey god those who want to force Sharia Law on America worship, but every Christian knows that God permits and condones abortions.
Numbers 5 documents a Bronze Age abortion, where a woman is given a potion to induce a miscarriage if her husband thinks that the fetus is not his.
Furthermore, my tax dollars were used to fund wars of choice, against my religious beliefs. These heathen’s tax dollars should now fund abortions. Their heathen tax dollars are no more sacred than my Christian tax dollars.
The right question is how do we defeat Republicans. Everywhere and always. Republicans are the party of judging people. The judgement of the day is to accuse someone of disability fraud for parking in the handicapped space while looking somewhat attractive and not using a wheelchair, but the judgment of women for their sexual behavior has never gone away.
1 Like
Also, Exodus 21:22 states that causing the death of an unborn fetus, even through an act of violence rather than by choice, is not equivalent to murder.