slowguy wrote:
Quote:
still, it's reasonable to assume that at some point rights flow to the unborn, and that a pregnant woman must exercise her choice to terminate prior to that point.The first part is reasonable. The second part is only reasonable if you don't think that those rights flow to the unborn child at the moment of conception.
Quote:
it's also reasonable that the state exercise its responsibility. any person, or any entity, including a governmental entity, that through direct action or legislative action makes terminating that pregnancy harder than it should be takes on itself the financial obligation of raising that child. that's only fair (texas). so, if you're the state of texas, or alabama, get ready to open your pocketbook.Arguing from the point of view or pro-lifers, this is nonsense. The state is not somehow obligated to provide for the child just because it denies you the right to kill the child. The state doesn't allow you to kill your neighbor. That doesn't mean the state is responsible for providing for all the financial obligations of your neighbor.
Quote:
it's fundamentally wrong, under our form of government, for one religious majority to force its religion on everyone else.Sure, but it's not fundamentally wrong for any group of people with shared believes to pursue normal democratic processes to implement those beliefs. Religious groups aren't forcing their religious beliefs on the population. They are lobbying their governments to enact laws and policies that conform to their beliefs, just like every other interest group does. That's actually fundamental to the democratic process.
if a religious group uses its power to inflict its religious beliefs on others, that's 1) unconstitutional; and 2) uncool. if the religious right really wants to take a shellacking in 2020, it needs to get its way on this issue between now and the election.
it certainly is fundamentally wrong, in every conceivable way, including according to the very tenets of christianity. religious groups aren't, as you put it, "just like every other interest group." enforcement of a religion was specifically carved out as a named "peril" by our founding fathers. it's the first clause of the first sentence of the first amendment. you can't force your religious views on me; and i can't keep you from exercising your own religious views.
it's certainly not current law to have anyone who impedes a lawful abortion from taking on the financial responsibility of raising the child he forces into the world. but making it law would be great! you're arguing against something i'm not stating. if the state kills someone unjustly, civil law absolutely calls for the state to make whole the victim's family. if the state infringes on someone's lawful right an abortion, then the state (or any actor) should bear the financial responsibility for raising that child. that will stop states cold from trying to force their religious majority views on the entire population.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman