Texas Lawmaker attempts to block stringent abortion restrictions with 13 hour filibuster

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You said the fact that a law can't be passed if Congress is adorned doesn't apply because the Constitution gives the states the right to govern themselves. If that doesn't apply to them them why should the rest of it.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by aethertek

 

Uh, no. The establishment clause means Congress cannot make any law declaring a certain religion to be the religion of the land. It preserves the free exercise clause for all citizens.

Uh yes, because if secular law is based on ignorant religious belief then by default the government is declaring that religion to be the law of the land.

You see (well you wont) but this is what is wrong with people like you, your freedom to practice your religion gives you no right to force me to live by those same superstitions.

reply to post by aethertek


Who said anything about making religious laws? Stick with your argument, which was that the constitution guarantees "freedom from religion". There is no established religion in the United States.

Pfht, like talking to a wall.

Well the good news is that with every new generation these mind numbingly stupid superstitions are being believed by an ever smaller minority.
Eventually christianity, judaism & the muslim beliefs will go the way of ancient gods, merely fables of humanities past foibles.

Can't happen soon enough for me.

K~

reply to post by aethertek


Don't get rude because you cannot support you claim, that's not my fault. There is no constitutional "freedom from religion", and the establishment clause is just that. Congress cannot pass any laws establishing one religion or one over another. All people are free to exercise their own religion of choice. So refrain from the pithy personal attacks.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


We also have the unalienable right to reject religious doctrine, and cannot be forced to submit to another's religious dogma. Religious doctrine CANNOT be legislated. Separation of Church and State!

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

We also have the unalienable right to reject religious doctrine, and cannot be forced to submit to another's religious dogma. Religious doctrine CANNOT be legislated. Separation of Church and State!

Okay, but what on earth does that have to do with this topic? No one is forcing religion on anyone in this story. Oh, BTW. Separation of church and state likewise appears nowhere in the Constitution. That term comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson, not the Constitution or Bill of Rights. All citizens have an unalienable right to freely exercise any religion of their choosing.

You cannot call things "rights" that don't appear in the "Bill of Rights".

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So, you're of the opinion that the religious have the right to shove their doctrine down the throats of the American people, but the people don't have the right to reject their imposition?

Inalienable rights can't really be listed, and the government doesn't grant them. The spirit of the law is to limit individual "god given" inalienable rights.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So, you're of the opinion that the religious have the right to shove their doctrine down the throats of the American people, but the people don't have the right to reject their imposition?

Did I even say that?? No I didn't. The only reason religion was brought into this discussion was because some member claimed the Constitution guarantees "freedom from religion" which is does no such thing, in fact it does the opposite, it preserves everyone's right to freely exercise the religion of their choosing.

Inalienable rights can't really be listed, and the government doesn't grant them. The spirit of the law is to limit individual "god given" inalienable rights.

Well, that would be the James Madison argument. He didn't want a Bill of Rights he argued because the rights of free people would be limited to just the one's spelled out on paper. But he lost, and we do have a bill of rights today.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by aethertek

 

Uh, no. The establishment clause means Congress cannot make any law declaring a certain religion to be the religion of the land. It preserves the free exercise clause for all citizens.

By the free exercise clause, that would indicate I have a right to not be subjected to your religious beliefs. Nor should I tolerate any laws based upon those beliefs, as it would violate my rights.

You cannot espouse any religious doctrine that would force any America to involuntarily follow it, and expect to have your own freedom of religion maintained; should it come to pass.

So that means I have the right to 'Freedom from Religion', and that any law of the land that is Constitutional, must respect my right to not have a religion, or a religious precept(s) forced upon me.

Which is to say, that there is a firm ground work established with in the Constitution that allows a woman to have an abortion if she, or she and her doctor deem the need for one.

Demanding that your religion, religious viewpoint or dogma, trumps her rights, is not going to fly.

M.

reply to post by Moshpet

By the free exercise clause, that would indicate I have a right to not be subjected to your religious beliefs.

Okay, that's a simple thing. Don't practice religion or believe what I believe. You're free to do that. What you're talking about is covered under the establishment clause not the free exercise clause. And Congress has not ever declared one religion to be the religion of the state so you are fine. What you are talking about has nothing to do with the free exercise clause. That clause guarantees others the right to practice their particular religion freely without government hindrance.

Originally posted by itssomethingyoudid
I am pro choice. But I thought the issue/legislation in question was dealing with mid term (20 weeks +) abortions.

We are talking about someone who potentially found out that they were pregnant around the beginning of February, deciding to have an abortion tomorrow.

Believe me, if a woman finds out she's pregnant and knows that she is not mother material, then we should listen. No one knows us better than we do. Forcing the births of unwanted babies isn't doing anyone any favors.

But at some point we have to concede that perhaps the woman's indecision comes with a price and it's too late to go that route.

Don't wait until the baby is aware and comforted by the sound of your voice before you decide to get rid of it.

So my question is this. If people take the pro choice position, cant they decide to give that child a choice? A chance? Maybe even give the child to a set of parents who cant have children? This is what I mean about informing young ladies about decisions like this. Not everyone can just peel off that mental scar that developes after years of realizing you've terminated, a part of yourself. Because thats what a child is, its half of you and half of another person. And doing that basically because you couldn't bare the idea of being a parent. Just seems, kneejerk and un-informed. You know, an effort to shrug off responsibility out of panic or fear, or insecurity.

On the other hand, I can agree that there are times, when, maybe the mothers life is in danger, or the baby isnt going to make it, or there are issues with development. I can understand that as sad as all those cases are, they are reasonable conditions and those conditions require facilities. This is just a reality. A very sad one.

Third, I'm not sure what happened to our decisions on birth control. (I'll have to look into it) But if any position on that was to terminate the program, then I would hope it would have been in an effort to promote a second thought towards preserving a life, or just flat out promoting personal and social responsibility.

Final point: In all these cases comes a duty to protect all of the people. All people with different circumstances with each presented circumstance taken into consideration. I would say to all my fellow Texans, neither side has to compromise, but we should ALL protect our fellow Texans. Born and unborn alike.