Do you support tax funded abortion?

Your point was very clear and was very clever, as usual. LOL. The OP probably just didn't pick up on it, until you pointed it out.

 

No you where clear I just choose to ignore what you wrote because the 2 situations are not even remotely similar in my mind and my viewpoint. This again falls back to what/when is a fertilized egg a life. A 13 year old child is a living breathing human that is not dependent upon a host source for nourishment and survival. It is completely fine that you do not agree with me though as I don't agree with you and the world keeps spinning around !

 

Look, it really is not a religious issue since

A.) The Supreme Court does not rule on matters of religion but of law and

B.) The original law that was legally challenged was found in Texas criminal law.

We could get into a discussion about how a society’s mores and values eventually become codified into law and how these laws evolve as a societies norms change but in this particular case it is unnecessary because every civilization has laws on the books to prevent the unjust killing of another human being (Whether these laws are adhered to or enforced is another matter). The point is the “morality” of the idea of an unjust killing transcends religion (Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Pagans and whoever else) all tend to agree that killing someone except in specific circumstances is wrong (there are even international laws regarding this). So every culture and any religion can see that killing innocent human beings is not just illegal but morally and ethically wrong. This transcends a religious context. If we cannot agree that we are discussing a legal issue then we have nothing further to discuss, you are in a morass of incomprehension.

But even giving you the benefit of the doubt, he only way that religion could even remotely be pulled into this argument is if the law was based upon the values of a society because of their religious belief. If that is an invalid law and “right” and “wrong” are entirely relative, then why should anyone look down upon the actions of or enforce laws against rape, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, child labor or slavery (just to name a few)? The “right” or “wrongness” of the actions are entirely subjective to the actor’s personal beliefs. After all, all law of men have a basis in some type of religion if nothing more than in codifying mores and values of that given civilization. But what we are talking about in this context is the law of the land in light of the United States Constitution…which by your statements you feel is an invalid document to begin with.

But let’s dissect what you have stated.

Then following your logic, just because I believe someone is murdering someone else, that’s just their business. How do you feel about other violent crimes? For example if you were raped? Should someone do something about that? Should that be against the law? What if the rape was actually consensual but you were below the legal age of consent? Or your child for that matter, should everyone just butt out?

Actually it does, at least if you live in a democratic republic (hint: we do) in which case you elect people who most closely resemble your own values and beliefs to legislate laws on your behalf. The role of the courts then are to look at the foundational documents (the Bill of Rights and the Constitution) and determine if these laws are in violation of those (since neither the legislature nor the court are always right we have checks and balances)…my point is that abortion clearly is a violation of the Constitution.

My point exactly, slavery was the law of the land upheld by the same Supreme Court that allows for abortions now. But slavery was morally wrong and eventually the mores and values of society caused a change in the law to reflect this belief. This is how law works.

The death penalty is another discussion altogether but is currently the law of the land. The U.S. has very clear Constitutional guidelines surrounding the topic of war and as a legal discussion is pretty cut and dried. And this is a legal discussion, not a religious one.

You might note religious sacrifice is not the law of the land and outside the prevue of our discussion. BTW this was a pretty weak example.

Hey…now you’re getting somewhere. Guess what? Abortion is currently the law of the land. I am forced to stand idly by while it happens and nothing I can do to forcefully stop it would be legal (unlike intervening in a murder for example). So in a way I am forced to accept it, this is how the law works. The ironic thing is most Americans find it abhorrent or at the very least are not comfortable enough with it to have it be the law of the land (some blue states the exception). Even those who argue that it should be legal often do not allow zoning for abortion clinics in their town which is ironic…but I digress. And unlike most things Constitutional the limits placed upon abortion are largely controlled regionally.

Then you have no place in any civilization, democratic, republic or otherwise. What you espouse is anarchy. Without people making choices that impact the personal lives of others there would be no rule of law whatsoever. Either that or you feel that a mother killing her child really doesn't impact said child enough to warrant consideration.

Again this is not a religious debate. If it were the lawyers in Roe v. Wade would have been making Biblical references in their arguments rather than citing law. How effective do you think it would be trying to cite the Bible or any other religious text before the Supreme Court? Do you think they’d let you finish your statements before tossing you out or just do it immediately? This is a legal (Constitutional actually) issue.