Religious beliefs give strength to the anti-abortion movement – but not all religions agree

yahoo ^ | May 11, 2022 | Steven K. Green, Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Religion, Law & Democracy, Willamette

[Morgana]

The leaked draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which has sent shock waves across the United States, indicates that a majority of Supreme Court justices will likely overturn the constitutional right to an abortion granted in Roe v. Wade. Employing unusually harsh language, Alito declared that “Roe and Planned Parenthood v.Casey must be overruled” because of the decisions’ “abuse of judicial authority.”

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito wrote, and its “reasoning was exceptionally weak.”

He also asserted that neither abortion nor privacy is mentioned in the text of the Constitution, nor should they be considered to be “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history or traditions” so as to be worthy of protection.

As a professor of constitutional law who has taught about reproductive rights for more than 20 years, I argue that Alito’s legal reasoning leaves out several established constitutional principles also not mentioned in the text – such as separation of powers and executive privilege – as well as rights that conservatives hold near and dear like the right to marry and parental rights.

Alito’s claim that a right to an abortion “was entirely unknown in American law” until Roe is unfounded. Historically, abortion was not completely illegal, even in Puritan New England. The first abortion restrictions were enacted in the U.S. in the 1820s.

Even then, they generally outlawed abortions only after “quickening,” the early equivalence of fetal viability – the ability to survive outside the mother’s womb. Alito’s legal rationales aside, the legal debate over abortion is as much a religious dispute as it is a constitutional one. Religious opposition

[fidelis]

I’ll cross that particular bridge if I ever become a hardcore atheist.

[cowboyusa]

🤣🤣

[TigersEye]

I was impressed that he was able to combine a straw man argument and a red herring in one question.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Like it or not the birds and animals are not sentient life.

Humans are.

And if this is all there is then to deprive someone of life for no reason would be a heinous act.

[fidelis]

Yes, most impressive. Fortunately, this old fish has been around too long to take that bait.

[MDLION]

“simple understanding … A woman doesn’t have a penis because she has a male baby. Not her body.”

It is simple understanding, but can you expect simple understanding and common sense from people who now talk about “menstruating people”?

[vpintheak]

True. I do sometimes wonder if they really believe that. It has to be more like a personal 1984 for them. They constantly tell themselves 2+2=5 until they believe it. Apply that to most aspects of their lives.

[BrandtMichaels]

What about the part of the Constitution that says:

We reserve these rights for us and our posterity/offspring? Rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Everyone always seems to forget these.

[Telepathic Intruder]

What you have just quoted is often used as a catch all by liberals for whatever entitlements they think they should have. But it comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, it was a letter written to the British Empire explaining why we no longer wanted to be part of it.

[TigersEye]

:) lol