Why would you think that? I've no reason to think he's misrepresented the Catholic position, in which case theh belief wouldn't be uncommon. For different reasons, many Jews would take the same position when donors are used in the in-vitro process.
-- And, -- that your efforts to codify your moral beliefs into law is ~very~ divisive to our rule of constitutional law.
Moral beliefs are at the core of our system. I don't see where it divisive at all in a harmful way. I'd much rather see the question debated on moral grounds, rather than see the debate itself rejected as morally based.
I believe fertilization outside the body (in-vitro fertilization, or IVF) is gravely immoral, --
Believe what you like, but I would suggest that for your own emotional health, you should realize that your beliefs are not shared in any way by a great many of your peers..
-- And, -- that your efforts to codify your moral beliefs into law is ~very~ divisive to our rule of constitutional law.
Why would you think that? I've no reason to think he's misrepresented the Catholic position, in which case theh belief wouldn't be uncommon.
Reread my comment. The Catholic position doesn't dominate american thought, but even if it did, majority rule is an immaterial concept in Constitutional terms.
For different reasons, many Jews would take the same position when donors are used in the in-vitro process.
Judeo/Christian concepts of morality do not dominate in our system of Constitutional law.
Moral beliefs are at the core of our system. I don't see where it divisive at all in a harmful way. I'd much rather see the question debated on moral grounds, rather than see the debate itself rejected as morally based.
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.