carmody wrote:
“You’ve declared unborn babies have no soul based on your personal belief and then use that belief to justify abortion.”
I’ve done no such thing. The burden on a person using religious premises to outlaw abortion is to prove by that a soul is present. Whether or not a majority interprets their religion’s scripture or church fathers as supporting their view, those who disagree should not be subject to the tyranny of the majority. Rights are individual, not collective.
You don’t want to have an abortion you have the right not to have one. The individual conscience of someone who disagrees with you should have no less standing under any theory of human rights.
Your right to decide a fetus is human rests only with you and your life. Your opinion is binding on no one else.
If the government determines there is no soul or God (separation of church and state) then there is no justification to punish or outlaw any murder except those that the government determines as a crime against a secular society. And that’s where the ACLU & the Progressives are taking us.
Where no soul exists no crime exists whether you are a fetus growing older or a 45 year old (still growing) or an 85 year old (still growing). If you are a drain on societies resources a soul-less government can vote to end your life.
And the debate over abortion is pivotal to this argument. If the government’s default position is no-soul then abortion is lawful. If the government’s default position is no-God, then ending a human life at any stage of it’s biological growth is also lawful. Death panels are a real possibility for families (2 child limit), people with disabilities, and the elderly. No God - no crime.