http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/758/1246/1600/student%20radio%20station%20attacked.jpg LIAR PARADOX: ABORTION THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

LIAR PARADOX

Whatever Bush says is a lie? That MUST be a truth!

Thursday, September 29, 2005

ABORTION THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

The U.S. Constitution protects our Rights to an abortion, based not only on the Fundamental Constitutional Rights to privacy, but ALSO the Fundamental First Amendment Right to religious freedom. Seeing how those who are opposed to abortion are opposed to it on religious grounds, states that enact anti-abortion laws, are in effect, pandering to their religious voter base, which is an infringement on OUR First Amendment Rights to religious freedom.

How is a Right to choose abortion a Religious Freedom for pro-choice advocates? Laws against abortion are laws that abridge our Fundamental Rights to Privacy and to our Fundamental First Amendment Right to Religious Freedom. Laws that abridge these Fundamental Rights are subject to strict scrutiny by the courts, which means that the Court must inquire into the motivation behind the legislature. The motivation behind anti-abortion laws would be religiously based, and therefore, unconstitutional, because, although the Constitution does not explicitly state that there should be a separation of church and state, it does protect our Relgious Freedom, and that means for those who choose, Freedom FROM Religion. Therefore, the First Amendment forbids the church from controlling our states via lobbying legislature and petitioning them to enact laws that conform exclusively to their religious beliefs, thereby discriminating against us who do not subscribe to those religious beliefs; thereby infringing on OUR Religious Freedom Rights.

These arguments can also be applied to states that have enacted laws infringing on our rights to access to contraception and morning after pills, or in lawsuits against pharmacists motivated by their religious beliefs to refuse to sell contraception and morning after pills to the public.

7 Comments:

At 8:44 PM, Blogger BO said...

love your blog!!

 
At 8:52 PM, Blogger banana said...

thanks!

 
At 9:10 PM, Blogger kingfelix said...

i think these people are so far gone they frame it thus:

what is religious about seeking to prevent murder?

thou shalt not kill

therefore: abortion is wrong

so, the law to them is to be changed to prevent a crime, rather than going into any debates about it being a religious matter per se.

 
At 9:14 PM, Blogger banana said...

historically, our laws have never and still do not consider unborn, nonviable fetuses as human beings.

the judicial system will not consider an unborn fetus a human being unless there is consensus from medical experts to that effect, so they're lost there.

and for the state legislature to consider abortion the killing of a human being without any scientific basis, would demonstrate religious motivation of that law.

 
At 9:14 PM, Blogger kingfelix said...

duh, i meant not to use "thou shalt not kill" just the basic fact that murder is illegal and that this basic fact is the lever rather than necessitating a recourse to anything explicitly religious (though, of course, that is what drives it)

 
At 9:19 PM, Blogger kingfelix said...

yes, your points are good.

it's a good bind that the State treating something that has been ruled not a human being as a human being is in itself an admission of having succumbed to the arguments put forward by religious groups.

should a woman have the right to play a vigorous game of tennis if she fears she may be pregnant? (old method of miscarrying)

what will the religious right do about that? ban tennis?

 
At 9:21 PM, Blogger banana said...

that's another thing. outlawing abortion will create more harm than good. more women will resort to clothes-hanger abortions, and that ain't cool.

of course these mysogynist relgious fanatics care more about a group of cells than they do woman.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home