Roe v Wade is on deck

[ZiprHead]

Abortion is a religiously protected right

This is a good case. It has the chance of reversing many state anti-abortion laws on the grounds of religious freedom.

I like that it was Mike Pence that signed the law they are using.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Abortion is a religiously protected right

This is a good case. It has the chance of reversing many state anti-abortion laws on the grounds of religious freedom.

Huh? Where's the religious right they're trying to protect? I see the point about religion not blocking it, but how does that translate into it being a religious right to have one?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Abortion is a religiously protected right

This is a good case. It has the chance of reversing many state anti-abortion laws on the grounds of religious freedom.

Huh? Where's the religious right they're trying to protect? I see the point about religion not blocking it, but how does that translate into it being a religious right to have one?

If you read the article the argument is about when precisely human personhood begins. For many people that is a religious question. Freedom of religion therefore requires that laws such as Pence's Indiana statute which restrict abortion after so many weeks violate a person's religious beliefs. The suit was brought by multiple persons, women, with obvious standing.

 

[Toni]

Abortion is a religiously protected right

This is a good case. It has the chance of reversing many state anti-abortion laws on the grounds of religious freedom.

Huh? Where's the religious right they're trying to protect? I see the point about religion not blocking it, but how does that translate into it being a religious right to have one?

Some religions do not prohibit abortion. In Judaism, for example, abortion is considered necessary when it is to preserve the life of the mother. A fetus is considered part of the mother’s body without its own life until birth begins.

Some Christian denominations have more relaxed beliefs about abortion, depending on denomination, with exceptions to preserve the mother’s health and life or because of rape and other exceptions.

Prohibiting abortion prevents a woman from exercising g her religious right/duty to preserve her health or life.

 

[Metaphor]

Abortion is a religiously protected right

This is a good case. It has the chance of reversing many state anti-abortion laws on the grounds of religious freedom.

Huh? Where's the religious right they're trying to protect? I see the point about religion not blocking it, but how does that translate into it being a religious right to have one?

If you read the article the argument is about when precisely human personhood begins. For many people that is a religious question. Freedom of religion therefore requires that laws such as Pence's Indiana statute which restrict abortion after so many weeks violate a person's religious beliefs. The suit was brought by multiple persons, women, with obvious standing.

That doesn't make any sense. What if you think personhood begins at 12?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Abortion is a religiously protected right

This is a good case. It has the chance of reversing many state anti-abortion laws on the grounds of religious freedom.

Huh? Where's the religious right they're trying to protect? I see the point about religion not blocking it, but how does that translate into it being a religious right to have one?

If you read the article the argument is about when precisely human personhood begins. For many people that is a religious question. Freedom of religion therefore requires that laws such as Pence's Indiana statute which restrict abortion after so many weeks violate a person's religious beliefs. The suit was brought by multiple persons, women, with obvious standing.

Just because they don't believe personhood has begun at that point doesn't make a reason that it can't be prohibited. I don't believe animals are people, yet I think we should have animal cruelty laws.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Abortion is a religiously protected right

This is a good case. It has the chance of reversing many state anti-abortion laws on the grounds of religious freedom.

Huh? Where's the religious right they're trying to protect? I see the point about religion not blocking it, but how does that translate into it being a religious right to have one?

If you read the article the argument is about when precisely human personhood begins. For many people that is a religious question. Freedom of religion therefore requires that laws such as Pence's Indiana statute which restrict abortion after so many weeks violate a person's religious beliefs. The suit was brought by multiple persons, women, with obvious standing.

Just because they don't believe personhood has begun at that point doesn't make a reason that it can't be prohibited. I don't believe animals are people, yet I think we should have animal cruelty laws.

You are failing to appreciate the religious significance. Did you read the linked article?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Abortion is a religiously protected right

This is a good case. It has the chance of reversing many state anti-abortion laws on the grounds of religious freedom.

Huh? Where's the religious right they're trying to protect? I see the point about religion not blocking it, but how does that translate into it being a religious right to have one?

If you read the article the argument is about when precisely human personhood begins. For many people that is a religious question. Freedom of religion therefore requires that laws such as Pence's Indiana statute which restrict abortion after so many weeks violate a person's religious beliefs. The suit was brought by multiple persons, women, with obvious standing.

That doesn't make any sense. What if you think personhood begins at 12?

Which religion are you referring to?

 

[Elixir]

That doesn't make any sense. What if you think personhood begins at 12?

Simple. Get an abortion if you like. But don't violate your friendly local murder statues. Nobody is arguing that a person who is living and breathing autonomously should be subject to having their life capriciously terminated.

The case allows an individual to conform one's own religious belief, and argues that this should be permitted under the laws enacted by the religious right - as usual, enacted without any forethought for anyone not toeing the Christian fundy line.
Now the chickens are coming home to roost, and we shall see what set of mental and emotional contortions the right brings to bear to make THEIR religious beliefs and practices apply to everyone else.

 

[Rhea]

If you think personhood begins at 12, then you would be allowed to remove that entity from your uterus.

 

[Metaphor]

Abortion is a religiously protected right

This is a good case. It has the chance of reversing many state anti-abortion laws on the grounds of religious freedom.

Huh? Where's the religious right they're trying to protect? I see the point about religion not blocking it, but how does that translate into it being a religious right to have one?

If you read the article the argument is about when precisely human personhood begins. For many people that is a religious question. Freedom of religion therefore requires that laws such as Pence's Indiana statute which restrict abortion after so many weeks violate a person's religious beliefs. The suit was brought by multiple persons, women, with obvious standing.

That doesn't make any sense. What if you think personhood begins at 12?

Which religion are you referring to?

None in particular. Your religion, or your sincerely held religious belief, could be that personhood begins at 12 and up until then God wants you to monitor your child and decide whether they will make it to the age of personhood.

The article says:

Facts about the process of human zygotic, embryonic, and fetal development do not answer the question of when life begins. The “personhood” status of a zygote, embryo, or fetus cannot be stated as matters of fact. For many individuals, such as the Plaintiffs, questions such as the beginning of life or when personhood begins cannot be stated without reference to moral, ethical, spiritual, and religious beliefs.

I know it's about abortions and not murdering 11 year old children, but hingeing the right to an abortion prohibition exception on a religious belief does not make sense to me. The State is hardly going to allow someone to murder their own children just because they have a religious reason to do so. The State has already decided (anyone's religious opinion be damned) that personhood has definitely begun at birth.

 

[Metaphor]

If you think personhood begins at 12, then you would be allowed to remove that entity from your uterus.

A law about abortion does not apply to children outside the womb, I agree, but I do not like the idea of hingeing exceptions to a law based on sincere religious belief. Abraham had a sincere religious belief that God wanted him to kill his son Isaac--but none of us would dream of providing a religious exception to murder charges.

 

[Metaphor]

That doesn't make any sense. What if you think personhood begins at 12?

Simple. Get an abortion if you like. But don't violate your friendly local murder statues. Nobody is arguing that a person who is living and breathing autonomously should be subject to having their life capriciously terminated.

I understand that, but it is arbitrary. It is precisely because the State would never allow a religious exception to murder of your own children that the argument seems incoherent to me. The State has decided that, at least by the time of birth, a baby has personhood (hence the prohibition on murder), and no religious belief will override that.

The case allows an individual to conform one's own religious belief, and argues that this should be permitted under the laws enacted by the religious right - as usual, enacted without any forethought for anyone not toeing the Christian fundy line.
Now the chickens are coming home to roost, and we shall see what set of mental and emotional contortions the right brings to bear to make THEIR religious beliefs and practices apply to everyone else.

 

[Rhea]

I know it's about abortions and not murdering 11 year old children, but hingeing the right to an abortion prohibition exception on a religious belief does not make sense to me. The State is hardly going to allow someone to murder their own children just because they have a religious reason to do so. The State has already decided (anyone's religious opinion be damned) that personhood has definitely begun at birth.

You know so little about America.

State laws vary on religious exemptions
State law determines whether denying a child medical care because of religious reasons is legally considered neglect, sometimes known as medical neglect.

Oregon is one of a handful of states that doesn’t allow religious exemptions from criminal or civil charges for medical neglect of children.

As of last year, though, 43 states had some level of exemption for parents who withhold medical care from their children on religious grounds, according to CHILD USA.

In those states, if a parent refuses medical care for a child and opts instead for only spiritual treatment, the child won’t be considered “neglected” under the law, even if they’re harmed or die.

 

[Rhea]

If you think personhood begins at 12, then you would be allowed to remove that entity from your uterus.

A law about abortion does not apply to children outside the womb, I agree, but I do not like the idea of hingeing exceptions to a law based on sincere religious belief. Abraham had a sincere religious belief that God wanted him to kill his son Isaac--but none of us would dream of providing a religious exception to murder charges.

The argument that makes abortion different and not arbitrary is that is about a human being being required to do something with their own body against their will. It is about the right to end a pregnancy.

Murdering 11 year olds, or any person who is not actively using your body against your will is not related in any way.

 

[Metaphor]

I know it's about abortions and not murdering 11 year old children, but hingeing the right to an abortion prohibition exception on a religious belief does not make sense to me. The State is hardly going to allow someone to murder their own children just because they have a religious reason to do so. The State has already decided (anyone's religious opinion be damned) that personhood has definitely begun at birth.

You know so little about America.

Neglect is not murder, but why should there be religious exemptions to seeking exemptions from 'medical neglect'? Religious exemptions to laws make the laws hypocritical and favour the irrationalities of established faiths.

State laws vary on religious exemptions
State law determines whether denying a child medical care because of religious reasons is legally considered neglect, sometimes known as medical neglect.

Oregon is one of a handful of states that doesn’t allow religious exemptions from criminal or civil charges for medical neglect of children.

As of last year, though, 43 states had some level of exemption for parents who withhold medical care from their children on religious grounds, according to CHILD USA.

In those states, if a parent refuses medical care for a child and opts instead for only spiritual treatment, the child won’t be considered “neglected” under the law, even if they’re harmed or die.

It's funny. In parts of Australia, it's illegal to have organised prayer in order to convert a gay child into a straight one, yet it seems like the same people might be able to get away with having the child die due to untreated medical conditions.

 

[Metaphor]

If you think personhood begins at 12, then you would be allowed to remove that entity from your uterus.

A law about abortion does not apply to children outside the womb, I agree, but I do not like the idea of hingeing exceptions to a law based on sincere religious belief. Abraham had a sincere religious belief that God wanted him to kill his son Isaac--but none of us would dream of providing a religious exception to murder charges.

The argument that makes abortion different and not arbitrary is that is about a human being being required to do something with their own body against their will. It is about the right to end a pregnancy.

Murdering 11 year olds, or any person who is not actively using your body against your will is not related in any way.

The link that was posted was talking about personhood and the different ideas about where it starts. The State has decided that, by the time of a child's birth, or at the latest, at the time of the child's birth, personhood has begun, which is why it is illegal to murder someone.

A religious exemption to an abortion law makes no sense. You can kill this this entity before it is born, as long as you religiously believe it isn't a person. But if you do believe it is a person or you can't prove your belief is religious, killing the entity is a crime.

Exemptions for secular reasons make sense. Exemptions for religious reasons do not.

 

[Toni]

I know it's about abortions and not murdering 11 year old children, but hingeing the right to an abortion prohibition exception on a religious belief does not make sense to me. The State is hardly going to allow someone to murder their own children just because they have a religious reason to do so. The State has already decided (anyone's religious opinion be damned) that personhood has definitely begun at birth.

You know so little about America.

Neglect is not murder, but why should there be religious exemptions to seeking exemptions from 'medical neglect'? Religious exemptions to laws make the laws hypocritical and favour the irrationalities of established faiths.

State laws vary on religious exemptions
State law determines whether denying a child medical care because of religious reasons is legally considered neglect, sometimes known as medical neglect.

Oregon is one of a handful of states that doesn’t allow religious exemptions from criminal or civil charges for medical neglect of children.

As of last year, though, 43 states had some level of exemption for parents who withhold medical care from their children on religious grounds, according to CHILD USA.

In those states, if a parent refuses medical care for a child and opts instead for only spiritual treatment, the child won’t be considered “neglected” under the law, even if they’re harmed or die.

It's funny. In parts of Australia, it's illegal to have organised prayer in order to convert a gay child into a straight one, yet it seems like the same people might be able to get away with having the child die due to untreated medical conditions.

Neglect can, in some instances, be tantamount to murder. Refusing to intervene while a domestic partner batters your child, says abuse resulting in the death of the child can make you legally culpable for the death of the child as well. Leaving your young child alone at night while you go off to work or to drink in a bar and the house burns down will get you charged in the child’s death

It gets dicier when it comes to what constitutes food and what constitutes medical care.

 

[ZiprHead]

I know it's about abortions and not murdering 11 year old children, but hingeing the right to an abortion prohibition exception on a religious belief does not make sense to me. The State is hardly going to allow someone to murder their own children just because they have a religious reason to do so. The State has already decided (anyone's religious opinion be damned) that personhood has definitely begun at birth.

I agree with this.

What other religious exemptions will this bring about?

 

[ZiprHead]

It's funny. In parts of Australia, it's illegal to have organised prayer in order to convert a gay child into a straight one, yet it seems like the same people might be able to get away with having the child die due to untreated medical conditions.

I know Australia isn't New Zealand but there's a case in NZ right now of eleven people who denied insulin to a diabetic child figuring gawd would heal the child if they prayed hard enough being charged with some degree of murder. I don't remember correctly the exact charges. I cannot imagine that Australia doesn't have similar laws.