Not exact matches
The «right - wing» document, however, targeted, not activities, but political
thought — opposition to
abortion, immigration amnesty and gun
laws.
Genocide, slavery, anti-miscegenation
laws, burning of «witches», bombing of
abortion clinics, live burials of gay people, etc., etc., all result from fundamentalist
thinking.
We've had blue
laws imposing Christian beliefs on businesses, Prohibition,
laws criminalizing sodomy,
laws banning birth control,
abortions, gay marriages, interracial marriages and more simply because arrogant Christians
thought they needed to impose their «personal knowledge» of what God wants on our entire society.
I don't
think you can be a pro-life feminist and argue that women need to be condescended to and «informed of what they're doing» as though they don't already know (cf.
laws that institute mandatory waiting periods so they can «
think it over,» which puts an untenable burden on those who have to travel for
abortion procedures and do not have the money to do so).
It's impossible to write a
law that outlaws only the
abortions that disturb us, and allows the ones we
think are okay.
As for the
law, I
think opposing
abortion on principles (religious or other) but as long as no church is forced by the state to preform a ceremony.
Don't want an
abortion, don't have one but don't
think your personal belief trumps the
laws that you must bide by in this world and please don't
think they deserve respect when obviously they are being use to step on other peoples rights to freedom over their own body.
The Hawaiian court has thus set itself on the same course of action as the misguided Supreme Court in 1973 when it
thought that
laws about
abortion were merely an assertion of the rights of a living mother and an unborn fetus.
Catholic schools, for example, used to
think of academic freedom as in the service of the truth we find in natural
law, the truth about
abortion, the relational person, and so forth.
The pro-
abortion media persist in reporting that the
law permits
abortion in the early months of pregnancy and only for compelling reasons, and many prefer to
think that is so.
On the other hand, the polls show that most people still
think abortion is wrong, and, as Lincoln said of slavery, «Like every other wrong which some men will commit if left alone, it ought to be prohibited by
law.»
This is why I don't
think most Christians who demand
laws against
abortion are sincere about it being about «respect for human life».
Traditionally, states have been able to pass
laws that prevent or limit access to
abortions after the point of «viability,» currently
thought to be as young as around 22 weeks.
I
think the new
law actually does mention
abortions.
We go to work, socialize, and share public space with many people who reject the moral
law's authority over their lives, people who regard
abortion as a fundamental right or who
think sexual liberation an imperative.
This I
think is the basis for the viability rules around existing
abortion laws.
In consulting my faith and its rich legal traditions, I found that my
thinking was much in line with orthodox Jewish
law on the morality of
abortion.
It introduces the conept of 12 mark questions on the OCR exam; the timeline of a feotus; the
law and
abortion - as well as getting them
thinking and evaluating when life begins
Near one of the mansion's four fireplaces, the cross-eyed governor had served decaffeinated coffee in beautiful old buffalo - themed china and asked Walters his
thoughts on
abortion, the death penalty, and whether he believed adhering to the actual language of the
law and the original meaning of the Constitution.
I
think it is hard to argue that there is a pressing need for
law or regulation in regard to late term
abortion because the reality is that elective late term
abortion is rarely happening and when it does happen it is for criteria that are generally deemed by the general public to be acceptable.