[tpaine]

Fine, argue the debate on your concept of morality. But to demand that laws be codified/enacted based on your religious convictions goes against our constitutional principles, imo.

I agree with you, I never suggested that, however the moral argument is a legitimate one, though not necessarily one I agree with. -jackson-

Thanks.. -- Its rare to arrive at ~any~ point of agreement on this type of thread. Too bad it doesn't happen more often.
Anyone here care to comment on why we can't agree on at least the constitutional principles involved, as agreed above?

You obfuscated, "But to demand that laws be codified/enacted based on your religious convictions goes against our constitutional principles, imo."

No 'obfuscating'/confusion in that line at all. Do you deny that you want our governments to outlaw abortion? In my opinion, prohibitions on early term abortions are unconstitutional. - Why is that confusing to you?

Since when are moral convictions the sole property of religious beliefs? Nice try though ..

Nice 'try' at what? I've never claimed that "moral convictions the sole property of religious beliefs", as you well know. To me, moral convictions derive from our golden rule, common to ALL men, pagan or religious.

[MHGinTN]

The protection OR disenfranchisement of fetal individuals is a moral question that doesn't require any particular religious convictions to be the directives for laws or codification. But you keep trying to make this assertion to me and to Dr. Beverly. And why do you keep quoting Jackson? It won't stop opposition to your mischaracterizations and it won't magically gain you any allies in your efforts to raise strawman arguments.