The Supreme Court’s decision did not establish religion or violate the religious freedom rights of pro-choice Americans. Instead, it created space in the public square for the pro-life convictions of people of faith.
I find this bizarre. When did anyone deny anyone else’s freedom of speech regarding abortion rights? Place in the public square? Seriously?
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
The Supreme Court’s decision did not establish religion or violate the religious freedom rights of pro-choice Americans. Instead, it created space in the public square for the pro-life convictions of people of faith.
I find this bizarre. When did anyone deny anyone else’s freedom of speech regarding abortion rights? Place in the public square? Seriously?
The article asserts that Jewish religious beliefs "don't hold up":
Ortner wrote:
For instance, many Jews interpret Jewish law (which holds a complex view of the status of a fetus in the womb, but generally holds that the spirit enters the body at birth) to allow abortion if a pregnancy would be psychologically traumatizing to a woman, while many states post-Roe will not allow abortions absent the risk of serious physical harm.
This religious freedom argument is one pro-life people of faith need to grapple with carefully. We certainly should not be gratuitously restricting the religious freedom of others. But ultimately this argument does not hold up.
We all have a right to the free exercise of our religious beliefs, but not to inflict direct harm on someone else in the name of religious worship. Obviously, if someone felt that his faith compelled him to perform human sacrifice, the state could properly ban such a ritual. If you accept that an abortion is an act of direct violence on another human being, then it seems quite clear that the state could block such harm and indeed perhaps even has a moral and ethical obligation to do so.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
The Supreme Court’s decision did not establish religion or violate the religious freedom rights of pro-choice Americans. Instead, it created space in the public square for the pro-life convictions of people of faith.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Editor’s Note: This article previously read, “Blair is friends with many of the founders and writers here at Public Square Magazine.” While he knows many of the founders and writers socially, he reached out to clarify that “he would not characterize any of the PS founders or writers as his friends.” The article has been updated to reflect his clarification.
ETA:
If you accept that an abortion is an act of direct violence on another human being, then it seems quite clear that the state could block such harm and indeed perhaps even has a moral and ethical obligation to do so.
Editor’s Note: This article previously read, “Blair is friends with many of the founders and writers here at Public Square Magazine.” While he knows many of the founders and writers socially, he reached out to clarify that “he would not characterize any of the PS founders or writers as his friends.” The article has been updated to reflect his clarification.
God. So did I. Though mine was mostly just a snort.
The Supreme Court’s decision did not establish religion or violate the religious freedom rights of pro-choice Americans. Instead, it created space in the public square for the pro-life convictions of people of faith.
I find this bizarre. When did anyone deny anyone else’s freedom of speech regarding abortion rights? Place in the public square? Seriously?
This sounds like an extreme version of the Christian persecution narrative that pops up from time to time. The argument conflates the public square with government endorsement or enforcement of religious beliefs. Often, it creates disagreement with persecution. Given the degree to which legislatures, executives, and judiciaries in the U.S. are dominated by Christians, the notion of widespread persecution of Christians in the U.S. is pretty nonsensical.
he/him
“I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time so that my children can live in peace.” — Thomas Paine
Ortner wrote:If you accept that an abortion is an act of direct violence on another human being, then it seems quite clear that the state could block such harm and indeed perhaps even has a moral and ethical obligation to do so.
That's the problem. Most people don't accept that it's violence against another human being, any more than masturbating and killing sperm cells is violence against another human being.
I'm getting just a tad tired of the idiotic idea that this whole fight isn't about religion. Religious nonsense is ALL it's about.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense. It's also the favored cover for hypocrites.
