Adolf Hitler - “I don’t happen to believe that killing Jews is a bad thing but I wouldn’t want to impose that belief on others.” If Biden believes that “life” begins at conception, what does he call the ending that life? As a society we do impose our beliefs on others all the time. And yes, we do legislate morality, contrary to what liberals say; in fact, we legislate little else.
Exactly. Do they really believe what they’re saying? “I don’t personally believe in incest (stealing, murdering, raping, lying under oath, cheating on tests or on spouses, littering, take your pick), but I’d NEVER impose my superior moral views and preferences on others.” Do they have any concept whatever of a lawful society, of civil behavior, of universally/timelessly held ethics?
But they screw the pooch with this particular nonsequitor: “We want to keep abortion safe and rare.” Safe for whom? It’s ALWAYS been safe for the mother. Ask Hippocrates. Why “rare” if it’s an okay, legal, ethically acceptble option?
Good grief. The whole reason for running for office is to influence society, to convince others of the efficacy of YOUR VISION. But that doesn’t happen with democrats. Their vision comes from whatever polls well. Unfortunately, abortion’s not polling too well.
Although Biden said that life beginning at conception was a *de fide* article of the Catholic faith, he was wrong about that. The initatiation of each person’s human life is something that is scientifically demonstrable: it is simply a fact of cellular biology that each life— yours, mine, and everybody else’s — began at conception or (even more accurately) fertilization. That was Day One. One doesn’t go to “the faith” to determine this: one goes to embryology.
So the determination of life is not a “de fide” belief nor opinion. One cannot compel belief, but a fact, with its sufficient evidence, can compel acknowledgement.
The question then becomes, could a law that restricts the killing of the conceived child pass legal scrutiny? What level would be appropriate? Rational purpose, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny?
It is reasonable to say that the killing of the young of our species is a matter which has both ethical and practical consequences making it a fit matter for public policy. Certainly if the killing of eagles, condors and snail darters is a matter of civic concern, the killing of tens of millions of our own species has even more significance.
The protection of our own species serves a rational secular purpose. It does not require any “supernatural” or “faith” perspective, and it passes muster as a fit subject for public policy.
All law involves "force," in the sense that it is "enforceable." It is not a matter of forcing belief; it is enforcing life-protective measures. How to do that may be a matter of debate: but doing it effectively, by some means or another, is the rock-bottom purpose of secular law.