5 1

Why aren't the anti-abortion laws deemed unconstitutional. The First Amendment to the Constitution states in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” What is “religion?” Is it a church or beliefs? Is one’s religion the set of beliefs that they adopt or a church they attend? What motivates the anti-abortion laws?

SunshineEast 5 Aug 25

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


If we had a Supreme Court instead of a Taliban Tribunal, the Rights of bodily discretion would fall squarely protected under several categories.
But thanks to Evangelical idiocy (fetuses are given short shrift in the Babble!) Nooooooooo.

I don't know if anyone has sued a state over the constitutionality of their anti-abortion laws. It is my understanding that SCOTUS reviews the execution of the legal system by the lower courts and not the contents of a legal claim. The Federal government has not passed an anti-abortion law. They have done things to deter abortions, e.g., defunding Planned Parenthood. But then why should they be funding Planned Parenthood? Because some believe that they should? Well, some believe that one should be limited in exercising their natural rights. Should legislation be based upon the beliefs of the majority, i.e., mob rule.

@SunshineEast try some FACTS: no federal money has Ever been used for abortions, PP provides a lot of healthcare for millions who need it that is Not abortion-related....shame on you for parroting a right-wing Lie!

@AnneWimsey I am aware that the Federal government gives money to Planned Parenthood in support of some of its programs and services. I am aware that some in Congress seek to reduce that financial support in the hopes of deterring PP from whatever they do associated with abortions. Congress cannot legislate to prevent abortion. If they could, they would have. They can, though, and do strive to deter it as much as possible. I have no problem with you taking me to task. Thanks.


No one agrees to be born, so being born is is a contract law violation.

I don't understand the point that your making here. It is my understanding that only those who have reached their age of majority can enter into a contract. Until a newborn reaches their age of maturity, their parents represents their interests.


I doubt things like a ban is considered "respecting religion" so the 1st isn't really a point to discuss. Keep mind that government types decided that use the phrase "in God we trust" or other references doesn't count.

If you were to ask someone who was anti-abortion they could probably cite some secular based arguments they were told or read about. Most likely did come to that position through a religious lense but I am aware of some atheists who are anti-abortion for whatever reason. Not saying they have good arguments just that they can make ones without the Jesus.

Part of the issue with finding constitutional protections for it is they sort of have to be derivatived or argued to be an extension of something else. As we saw that left the door open for people to change their mind. There were some that were worried about that when roe happened. Ideally there would a new amendment or at least federal protections.

I am not aware of any scientific, medical or natural reason to limit a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. It comes down to beliefs. Some believe in the sanctity of life. That a life, in and of itself, is important. There is nothing in the natural world that supports this.

While the life of a newborn begins at conception, not all life that begins at conception becomes a newborn. Some newborns have inherent limitations that will prevent them from ever living independently or self sufficiently. Without intervention, they do not survive. Lives are taken indiscriminately by acts of nature and random events. We do not live indefinitely, without diminishing capabilities or without illness.


That's a pretty complex question. To answer in short I'd say holding beliefs/values/attitudes that one expects others to hold and follow. A person can hold whatever belief/value/attitude they want as far as I'm concerned. It's when they start expecting others to hold the same ones and follow along that it becomes an issue.

Yes, we have natural rights and there is a natural morality for which a Golden Rule can be drawn. namely, “Live with others harmoniously and responsibly”. To impose one's beliefs upon another is to be disharmonious. To do it intentionally, is irresponsible. Some believe that they can do whatever they will if they sincerely believe that they are doing their God's work. One has the natural rights to believe, choose and do what they will.One can do to another only what the others has given their consent.

@SunshineEast I fear your comment is true in theory but rarely in practice.

@FvckY0u I agree. There are several versions of the Golden Rule. One selects the version that, in their thinking, gives them the latitude that they need. I take the position that all of them are equally applicable to all situation. Violate any of them means violation of the Golden Rule. To many, that is the same as saying, "All Gods are the same".


The ruling by SCOTUS 6 eliminating Roe motivates them but an illegal law, even if SCOTUS declares it legal, should not to be obeyed. I'd see how it goes in Nov before revolting.

My understanding of SCOTUS is that they rule upon the application of the law by the lower court and not upon the content of the case. The anti-abortion laws are at the state level. Why hasn't anyone challenged them on the grounds that they are unconstitutional according to the First Amendment of the Constitution?

@SunshineEast I think it's odd how much I'm challenged in calling our enemy a Theocracy. It seems obvious to me that god is what links all of them together, under the Fed Society's roof, but most folks don't want to call out religion. They call out the corporations, instead, but I think Big Religion is the bigger problem. The Potter Rule is that not using the name makes the evil grow stronger.

@rainmanjr Keep in mind: There will always be those who use a system, any system, for their personal benefit. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.What keeps the clergy in check? Some clergy teach their adherents that their God will forgive their transgressions if they are doing the work of their God. The clergy defines what their God wants.

@SunshineEast I'm not aware that the clergy is kept in check.

@rainmanjr Neither am I. The First Amendment is there to protect the civilization from those who would strive to impose their beliefs upon others. I do not understand why it is not being used.

@SunshineEast It has always been brushed over (Dems have viewed the encroach of religion as manageable) so never used as the fundamental reason which disqualifies anti-abortion. Now religion has gained admission to our Supreme Court and the basis for overturning Roe. In short, the Mob has spoken.

@rainmanjr Yes, religion-motivated interests have worked since the end of WW II to influence our civilization. It began with the change of the national motto from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God we Trust". One political party pushes the public support agenda. The other pushes the morality agenda and pushes to dominate state-level politics. When enough states are dominated, it will be possible for the religion-motivated interests to amend the Constitution, i.e., nullify the First Amendment.The United States will become a theocracy.

The world is changing. China is emerging as the leading civilization. I can readily imagine the United States initiating a World War to maintain its dominance. It will lose. Theocratic civilizations do not evolve as they need to. They either stagnate or die.

The world will continue to evolve. That is the nature of the natural world. The nature is absolute and will prevail in time.

The planet continues to evolve, e.g., climate change. The population continues to increase. Within several generations one will do what machines can't do or they will do cheaper than what machine can do. From history, there will always be enough who have the wherewithal to pretty much live the life they will. There will always be those in positions of power and influence. I think of Greece and Persia and the United Kingdom and the civilizations that they once where. Oh, well.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:683374
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.