Posted on 10/05/2021 7:32:12 AM PDT by Kaslin
No, Ana Navarro, the Principle of Separation of Church and State Does Not Justify Abortion
Ana Navarro, a co-host of ‘The View,’ recently opined that she would not personally decide to kill her unborn child by abortion because of her Catholic upbringing, but she also believes the principle of separation of church and state prohibits her from imposing that view on others.
Navarro’s is an often repeated but nonsensical argument that should be dispensed with once and for all—especially coming from a self-proclaimed Catholic.
Her comment sadly reveals she understands neither Catholic teaching on the intrinsic evil of abortion nor the principle of separation of church and state as it applies to our system of government. She also ignores the fact that you don’t have to be religious at all to oppose the killing of unborn children.
Navarro Gets Catholicism Wrong
First, Navarro is wrong from a Catholic perspective. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes it crystal clear: "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”
Powerfully, the Church adds: “To claim that some live human beings do not deserve respect or should not be treated as ‘persons’ (based on changeable factors such as age, condition, location, or lack of mental or physical abilities) is to deny the very idea of inherent human rights.”
In other words, if you believe killing unborn children is just as intrinsically morally wrong as murdering already born children, which is the Catholic Church’s clear teaching, you have no leg to stand on when you say you support pro-abortion laws and a pro-abortion culture. Hiding behind the phrase “separation of church and state” does not legitimize a Catholic’s support for pro-abortion laws.
That makes as little sense as saying you personally oppose homicide more generally, but you shouldn’t impose that moral view on others because “separation of church and state.”
Catholics Are Not Alone in Our Opposition to Killing Unborn Children
But beyond the fact that Navarro, a self-proclaimed Catholic, clearly does not abide by the tenets of her own faith, she also fails to acknowledge the existence of people of several other religions that teach the dignity of the unborn, as well as the existence of secular/non-religious people who have come to the same moral conclusion solely via science and reason.
While a person’s religion can and should guide his or her thinking on abortion, all people, religious or not, can conclude that abortion is morally wrong through science and reason alone—as plenty of people do.
In fact, all opposition to abortion entails is the knowledge—whether based on religion, science, reason, or some combination thereof—that unborn children are innocent human beings deserving of the same basic human rights and legal protections as already born human beings.
For instance, the organization Secular Pro-Life explains, “’Life begins at fertilization’ is a shorthand way to say that the zygote is the first developmental stage of a human being's life cycle. This is not a religious premise; it is a biological fact, attested to in countless biology and embryology texts and affirmed by the majority of biologists worldwide.”
The Catholic Church, whose teachings rely not only on Scripture and Tradition, but also on reason and the natural law similarly states: “Given the scientific fact that a human life begins at conception, the only moral norm needed to understand the Church's opposition to abortion is the principle that each and every human life has inherent dignity, and thus must be treated with the respect due to a human person.”
If science alone can prove the humanity of the unborn, which it definitively does, which religion would be established as the official government religion simply by extending legal protections to the most innocent and vulnerable group of human beings? Hinduism, Roman Catholicism, the Southern Baptist Convention, secularism, or something else? None of the above.
Establishing any of these as the government’s official religion would entail a lot more than simply enacting legislation that extends humane, scientifically and rationally based legal protections to unborn human beings.
Navarro Doesn’t Understand the Principle of the Separation of Church and State
The principle of separation of church and state is frequently misconstrued by commentators like Navarro, celebrities, and politicians to mean the banishment of religion and religious moral principles (especially of Christianity) from public debate, politics, and culture. That’s not a reasonable or historically based understanding of this principle.
As Professor Paul R. DeHart explains: The jurisdictional separation of church and state effected by the First Amendment allows people to vote for religious reasons, to make religious arguments in order to persuade others to support particular candidates or policies, and allows political officials and legislators to act for religious reasons.”
It is absurd to suggest that one should check their religiously, rationally, and/or scientifically informed moral beliefs at the door when voting for politicians or crafting policies that touch on moral issues—especially on a matter as grave as killing unborn children.
Navarro and her comrades should at least agree with that! After all, leftists advocate for what they call the “fundamental human right to abortion” with what looks a lot like indefatigable religious zeal.
Pathetic reasoning. Killing is wrong, in a secular or religious world. That being established, the only argument is whether or not a fetus is alive.
Uncritical thinkers on the Left like to mischaracterize objection to abortion on demand as a purely religious thing.
Why wouldn’t an atheist be just as horrified and appalled at Planned Parenthood’s baby parts-selling as anyone else? Why would a Hindu be any less shocked at an environment of filthy clinics where terrible crimes are performed than a Christian? Most of the really militant, visible pro-abortion folks are upwardly-mobile or wealthy white women who supposedly don’t need abortion - it’s the poor and ethnic minorities who need it. (Supposedly.) When you get out there and demonstrate and throw poop at supreme court justices, etc., you’re supposedly helping the poor and ignorant.
Except that’s not really it: It’s guilty consciences all the way around for these dames. They use their power and influence to change the minds of youth and the poor and disabled - if they can make everyone think that it’s not just okay to get an abortion, but some sort of social ritual that almost everybody has to go through - like wearing braces - then they can sleep without guilt. So they think.
Oh yea. . right. . .but it’s okay for the trannies to impose their confused belief about their sexual identity upon us.
Liberal logic......People who don’t wear a seatbelt are a threat to people who do.
The Constitution does not prescribe “separation” of church and state. It merely prohibits CONGRESS from enacting a law concerning a religious establishment, i.e., mandating an established church.
Ana has a degree from an American law school. Even for libs, this is a really weak and flawed argument. AA? Somewhere in Nicaragua, a village is missing its idiot.
Separation of Church and State simply means that US doesn’t have a State Religion unlike, say, Sweden (Lutheran) or most Middle Eastern countries (Islam).
It is designed to protect Churches.
And, for some reason, these @$$#0!3$ never seem to get to the part about “NOR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.”
That's because pro-lifers (who, like myself, are most often religious) let them get away with it. When someone gives me that line, I let them know in no uncertain terms that I would be pro-life even if I were an atheist. I point to the science that human life begins at conception and after that the deliberate killing of such human life is the murder of an innocent child. And I don't let it go until they either have to acknowledge my argument (or they burst out crying or in anger or walk off-- whichever comes first).
Pro-lifers need to be ready with well thought-out scientific and rational arguments in favor of life. Throwing Scripture verses at them does no good because they'll either twist it or ignore it. Make them listen to the empirical facts that they can't refute.
I am personally opposed to murder, theft, rape, manslaughter but I would not to push these views on anyone else.... - DUH
Didn’t the states/colonies have official religions at one time?
That’s what caused me to change my mind. The more rhetoric that gets thrown at me, the less I listen. A friend told me why Roe v Wade was pure dee old sh1t any way you slice it. Once I had worked my head around that, I started to feel differently about the entire thing. I had been of the “it’s just a clump of cells” persuasion for some time. Now I don’t think that, either. Logic worked on me and then I arrived at the point that I started to feel sympathy. Am I still lost? Hell, I don’t know! I guess I’ll find out.
I agree with and applaud your approach. I do have a couple of observations, though, if you don’t mind:
1) They will leave, thinking you a religious nut. That is how they will describe the encounter and internalize your arguments, even though of a scientific basis.
2) Their belief is religious. The conviction that the unborn are not human is a religious belief on their part. Their sacrament is abortion. Religious beliefs are rarely changed by science.
So, as I say your approach is sound. But it might be that throwing Scripture at them is exactly as effective.
Haha, and saying you’re a “catholic” no longer means a whole lot, either. Old #ChoMoeJoe says he’s a catholic and like #HagNancy he uses his “catholicism” to claim the moral high ground; however: https://dailycaller.com/2021/10/05/biden-reverses-trump-rule-abortion/
The child has its own distinct DNA. That’s science that agrees with religion.
Your logic is one of the reasons that social media censors pro-lifers.....Can’t have people,especially minority and poor people getting the truth....
The black CEO of PP has admitted in the NY Times that PP and Sanger were racist...Nobody on the dem side cares that PP has murdered more blacks than the KKK.... Abortion /birth control is about wiping out the poor,especially black america.....
I’m sorry to hear that she is breeding!
The formula “separation of church and state” is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution. Rather, its origin is found in correspondence between former president Jefferson and the Danbury (CT) Baptist association discussing how both parties worked during the Constitutional Convention era to protect religion FROM government, and not government FROM religion. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution prohibits the federal government from making any law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The Baptists, who were highly persecuted in New England and Virginia during colonial times, in communicating with George Mason and Thomas Jefferson, were successful in opposing any federal role in establishing a state religion and in codifying freedom of religion in America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.