The “Sweathog’s” email address:
(I like the term! Definitely stole it from a Freeper above.)
Dr. Doniger,
The question of when life begins is not just a religious one, but also clearly a moral one. One’s religious views might influence that moral opinion, but there is no exclusion on either side of the argument. This is a very basic legal understanding, and I’d expect a bit more academic muster from a UC professor.
That you would take such an incredibly hardline, fundamentalist view and put on blinders a mile thick on the subject is just typical of radical feminists. As the stormtroopers fight to protect the female body, they care not for the female’s body who is ripped in half and discarded into a waste bag—much less the male’s.
I’d further like you to explain to me where the Constitution provides the right to abortion—(I know you’re citing the First Amendment regarding abortion and religion, but I’m calling that argument completely specious given the obvious moral question at hand—something our laws, our Constitution, and our history of common law all take into account). I can, however, clearly cite the US Declaration of Independence that speaks of a God-given right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. Or is this just discarded because it’s “imposing a religious belief” on others. *massive roll of eyes*
Perhaps along the with the Second Amendment, per your fierce objection to guns?
Not only is it eggregiously offensive to claim that the origins of life should not be questioned (as you praise Obama’s fence-sitting), it is an absolute failure of the defense of human rights and human dignity. If one believes something is murder, one should, without question, lash out at those who would destroy it.
Or would you take the view that genocide is perfectly okay if one considers another race sub-human or inferior? The question of what is human life should not only be vigorously debated, it is a moral imperative if one at all believes in the dignity of human life.
I have little patience for santimonious windbags who on one hand argue that the origins of life should not be legislated but dare to presume who is indeed a woman. It amuses me to no end how the feminists try to cross that divide.
In the end, morality must be debated any government that is going to remain solvent. And while you might drag out all your Constitutional talk you like, nothing changes the fact that not a week after finalizing the wording of the First Amendment, Congress passed a bill granting funding to and appointing a Congressional Chaplain.
You stand on incredibly flimsy ground.
Regards,
I’ll further note that your belief that all one’s faith is a matter of privacy runs clearly contrary to the final teachings of Christ in the Great Commission. I’m willing to bet you have a pretty hostile attitude towards members of the world’s largest faith, and it’s clearly evident that you let this impede rational and fair discourse. So be it. It’s not like you’re fooling anyone.
that’s phunny!
sweathog.
that she is.
thanks.