This topic contains 6 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by Wesley House 9 years, 5 months ago.
-
Defending Religious Freedom?
Started by Kathy Kraft
Defending religious freedoms is one thing; imposing your particular social morality on people through government is exactly what this country has always sought to avoid. In addition, the assault on women because of beliefs in religion, denying health care because it contains provisions for contraception, and abortion should it be necessary. Please tell me how you plan to rev up the adoption system for born and as you say unborn. Again, these are your religious values, and while I respect that, you do not have the right to legislate my medical healthcare decisions or make it virtually impossible for those needy women to get the care they need. My entire family who happen to be all Christian, will certainly be voting for a fresh sane approach to government, Wendy Davis.
You will need to login to join the discussion.6RepliesDenise Doyle, 11 years ago
To be a Christian is to follow Christ. You are not following Christ if you are doing everything in your power to fund the slaughter of children. To me, this seems pretty obvious.
James Prim, 11 years ago
I do not believe the taxpayer should be burdened with the cost of abortion. I myself am against abortion knowing there is a better method which is to provide that child a home through adoption. I rather see my tax dollars go to helping cut the “red tape” on adoption than to use it for killing a child. I also believe that though a woman may feel she has the right medically to care for her body she should have considered that before pregnancy, once a child is conceived that child becomes a living person and is being deprived of its rights to live that the woman claim she has.
Mike Goldman, 11 years ago
Ms. Kraft, thank you for your post. You appear to refer to House Bill 2 (83rd Legislature, 2nd Special Session), which had several effects, notably: 1. banning abortions that take place after 20 weeks of gestation, and 2. raising the health and safety standards of abortion clinics. Which portion(s) of that bill do you oppose?
You bring up an interesting point in referencing religious beliefs. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson asserted that all people are born to inalienable rights of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Yet there are challenges in defining each of these rights.
In the case of a human life, when does one begin? At conception? When a fetus can feel pain? When it is viable outside the womb? At birth? All of these positions are supported by some religious and ethical traditions. Science cannot say at what point biological material becomes “human life;” how can that question be approached without regard to the philosophical, ethical and moral traditions of our civilization?
Mike Goldman
Policy Analyst, Texans for Greg AbbottJanet Middlebrooks, 10 years ago
Mr. Prim, I do agree with you about the use of tax dollars for something that is a choice and one that not everyone agrees should even be available either. Nor should the tax dollars be used for something that is sub standard and endangering the life and health of the woman. For the protection of the health and lives of women, the standards must be set and overseen by the state – regardless of who pays. I believe that is what HB2 will do.
Marykate Moore, 10 years ago
Mr. Goldman,
I’d like to address some of the points you’ve raised on behalf of Mr. Abbott. First off, I think you should elaborate on the second “effect” of the Texas House Bill. By, as you put it, “raising the health and safety standards of abortion clinics” you really mean closing 1/3 of clinics in the state of Texas for reasons relating to geographic distance to hospitals. This clearly unduly burdens women residing in rural areas. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), stated that state provisions unduly burdening a woman’s right to a safe and legal abortion are unconstitutional. How can you defend the state of Texas’ bill in this regard?
You also reference the Declaration of Independence as a legal document. Could it not be argued that while this document is certainly a “founding document,” it is not an appropriate source of legal precedent? Furthermore, if these fundamental rights include the “unborn” then why was abortion legal in the United States until the 1820s? The early American government’s apparent approval of this practice implies that the rights addressed in the Constitution do not apply until, as both Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade stated, viability.
Lastly, you imply that religion and ethics contain more answers to these questions that science does not, and therefore should be the basis of our legal system in this issue. I would like to point out that in the United States we have this thing called the First Amendment, and that the United States Supreme Court has established that the government cannot further any religious practice. Considering the Texas Abortion Law seeks to lessen the number of abortions by employing emotionally and physically traumatic practices like transvaginal ultrasounds under the guise of “informed consent,” I would argue that the state of Texas is violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Wesley House, 9 years ago
When it is viable outside the womb .. Case closed .
