Ohio Republicans Say It’s Their ‘God Given Right’ to Restrict Abortion Access

That's the great thing.... "Christian" can mean a whole number of things and churches.....

It would seem like "Christians" are using your nebulous reasoning in order to create a protected class that can ignore the Constitution and democratic principles....

 

Who is protected?
Who got elected in an undemocratic means?

If a religious person gets their morals and standards from a holy book or idea, you're essentually saying only atheist should be elected.

Or is this just yet another example of anyone who disagrees with you is being unconstitutional, just like the morons who claim the EC is the incorrect way to elect a president and proceed to bang on with the whole 'wElL mOrE pEoPlE voted HiLaRy' nonsense. It's amazing how people pick and chose when to recognize the constitution.

 

That is incorrect. The law around the separation of church and state refers to the religion, not an actual church lol.

And no, the gov't is prohibited from showing preference for one religion over another. Passing a law based on Christian tenets would do just that. You can not have a religious belief have control over people.

 

Not arguing that Republicans should have done this and I'm pro abortion rights but what's to say life doesn't begin at conception. The religious argument against abortion revolves around taking a life. Its not just simply my church says abortion is a sin, its that abortion is taking a life

Laws are based on morals

 

What? It literally says church, not religion. Who is the leader of Christianity? Islam? Judaism? How is a religion going to dictate anything to the state if there is no hiarchy? You clearly haven't spent any time in any religion else you would know every major religion has hundreds of sects, all varying from one extreme to another. The catholic church ran England for a long period of time...not Christianity.

You are correct in that the government can not show preference to a religion. It's a two way street that neither are allowed to control

 

I think it’s more about religious views. These same groups of people are for capital punishment and are okay with wars, where lives are unquestionably being taken away.

More importantly, personal beliefs, no matter how strongly held, aren’t universal; consequently, morality is not universal either. In a democratic society, laws aren’t based on some group’s morals but on the general agreement of all through their votes.

 

If you believe life begins at conception then it's very simple that abortion is taking an innocent life. I think pro abortion people get too caught up in believing pro lifers have ulterior motives like controlling women or imposing their religion

I'm just talking about imposing religious beliefs posts. Maybe it is amplified by religion but it's about life to them.

Edit: I'll agree that it's driven by religion but it's about life to them

 

Can you not see how those are different ethical circumstances?

Equating child sacrifice with punishing a convicted criminal? Really?

 

Yes, I can. Wars undeniably sacrifice innocent (children's and adults') lives. To expand on this, the lack of universal health care has also undeniably sacrificed innocent (children's and adults') lives. It's clear that innocent lives aren't universally sacred here.

 

I don't see it as ulterior motives but the impact of uncompromising pro-lifers, which are grounded in religious interpretation and teaching. Within the same religion, you find different interpretations and viewpoints. Ultimately, it comes down to personal beliefs rooted in religion, and yes, there is imposing of these religious viewpoints on others who do not share the same beliefs. This level of uncompromising imposition is not as prevalent in other domains, and it's quite specific to religion.

 

by this reasoning, murder should be legal so long as wars exists and health care isn't free

Abortion is murder, the intentional taking of an innocent life without moral justification. If you understand that, there is no moral contradiction.

 

I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. By that reasoning (innocent lives are universally sacred), wars are morally wrong, and universal healthcare is morally right. On the contrary, when innocent lives are only sacred if they haven't yet been born, it's clear innocent lives aren't universally sacred. This narrow viewpoint is grounded in religious interpretation of what's sacred.

 

@Commodore

What is the moral justification for intentionally denying healthcare to innocents, leading to their death?

What is the moral justification for intentionally dropping bombs that kill innocents?

Whatever you perceive as moral justification can be viewed as immoral by others, and vice versa, resulting in contradictions. Is it morally justified to abort to save a woman's life. Is it also morally justified to abort to prevent great suffering to a baby that will die within hours, or that will suffer from lifelong conditions without a functional brain. Is it even morally justified to abort to prevent hardship to the family financially, preventing other kids from greater suffering. Is it morally justified to kill 100 kids in a bomb to win a war against a perceived greater evil. How you wrap your moral justification is basically personal interpretation and in this case, based on religious viewpoints.

So, we are back to square one—the origin is religious.

Would you answer this question - do you agree with the representative that said to ignore the election results because they allow abortion?

 

Sacred does not mean you are morally obligated to sustain every life (as if that were even possible). It means you cannot take a life without moral justification (i.e. self-defense, criminal punishment).

"How can you be against abortion when children if Africa are starving?" is such asinine moral reasoning.

The blame for civilian lives lost in war generally lies with the aggressor in that war (the Nazi's are to blame for lives lost in the fire-bombing of Berlin).

Just as the blame for the murder of an unborn child lies with the "doctor" who intentionally crushed its skull with forceps, and the mother who wanted that done.

 

Before the 1970s, it was not about life to SCWs.

Maybe the real reasons, whatever they are, are a hard sell and making it about life is an easy sell. The fact that SCWs are also pro-death penalty (for the non-whites) should be ignored and not addressed, since it goes against narrative.

 

See my other post.

To add - You have outlined that there is moral justification for taking innocent lives in certain situations, except when it comes to abortion. That is a contradiction.

 

What law are you quoting?

 

Will the outrage over this be enough to overcome the vibe shift?

 

Who's morals?

 

I think y'all are way too far down the wrong game trail. In Ohio, it is no longer about whether abortion is moral or if a Christian lens can be applied to legislating. That was answered in this last election. The Constitution now says the people have a right to abortion. The question is now how are they going to structure the legal framework to ensure that Ohioans' right to an abortion is honored. Some are still trying to win the last argument by obstructing on the next issue. The courts must (and probably will eventually) put the kibosh on all that nonsense.