Skip to main content

I've heard it said that greed & exploitation are behind the GOP's hatred of abortion but  I think they honestly believe God’s breath is within a fetus from the moment of conception and needs law to protect it from death since it can’t defend itself.  GOP is very big on defense for some very good historical reasons and it benefits us to understand their POV.  Telling someone who believes themselves to be a Godly human-being that they’re greedy isn’t going to open their eyes.  I also believe that life may start at conception but that both parties have a soul which needs the protection of compassionate law to survive.  I also believe mom's right’s take precedence since she’s the host.  There’s more information that determines which soul survives (which is the same reasoning for ending life during war).  I think an abortion for reasons of birth control, which was happening under the rotten welfare program we had and birthed this issue to begin with, is immoral—ergo the exemptions for a mother’s health.  Rape and incest are compassionate exemptions which, I believe, should also exist.  A legitimate life is still being lost but without malice or financial self-gain and, most likely, leaving a deep emotional/psychological scar from tragedy.  That’s excusable, imo.
For those GOPers who defend the fetus on religious grounds, which is more uncompromising SCOTUS needs to remind the nation that our laws ARE NOT BASED ON RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES. Religious Conservatives won't be happy but will have no legitimacy under law for their extremism.  Of course, SCOTUS might rule for their side and we would need to accept that. People on both sides would then need to make a decision as to whether to stay residents of the USA or not.  There are, after all, other nations.  Those who can't afford to move would need to choose whether to risk their lives to defend the nation or not.  I wouldn't but that's me.
SCOTUS needs to address this issue NOW.  Lives actually depend on the answer. There will be no forward movement from religious issues, like abortion or gay rights, until the nation has been given a clear understanding of legal conception. I do not believe an issue who's roots exist in "God said" can have legal standing within our courts but, without the finality of our top legal authority's declaration, these issues will never become accepted conditions of the USA. The SCOTUS needs to get brave and DIRECTLY take on the issue of religion vs law, whether there’s a specific case or not, and THEY MUST give a clear ruling.

Poll

Should SCOTUS directly address Bible vs Constitution?

50%9 votes
16%3 votes
33%6 votes

| 18 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (0+ / 0-)

    "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

    by rainmanjr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:26:27 PM PDT

  •  The Supreme Court only addresses (17+ / 0-)

    actual cases and controversies (see Article III of the Constitution).   They do not now, and never have, delivered advisory opinions.

    Ultimately, the only thing that matters with respect to preserving choice is who will be nominating the next Supreme Court Justices.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:31:50 PM PDT

    •  Beginning to wonder if they still teach "civics" (8+ / 0-)

      That said, maybe it should be a required course in high school and no diploma until one gets a passing grade.

    •  That was my point (0+ / 0-)

      This is an actual controversy with no end unless the final decider of what creates law speaks.

      "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

      by rainmanjr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:19:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're still not getting it (4+ / 0-)

        Courts hear cases - Smith versus Jones, or some variation of that.  They only decide the issues that are involved in the case; those are the "actual controversies" that they decide.  They don't wake up one morning and decide to issue an opinion on how the Bible, for example, relates to the US Constitution, no matter how "controversial" the issue may be.

        Plus, there are many Supreme Court cases that relate to the intersection of the Constitution and religion.  It's a complicated subject but a wiki search would be a good place to start your research if you're interested.

        •  No, I get that. (0+ / 0-)

          I'm saying that they must rule on the specific application of religion to law under our Constitution.  Individual cases allow for them to focus on questions which do not address the greater divisive issue, that of the religious application that created such a law to begin with, so the question before them must address ONLY that aspect.  Possibly it would need a Constitutional Convention in order to do this.

          "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

          by rainmanjr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:08:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I suggest you read Lemon v Kurzman. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rainmanjr, BlackSheep1, terrypinder

            SCOTUS addressed the issue of religion and law in 1971, and the Lemon Test is still the prevailing standard.

            •  Can you enlighten me on that case? (0+ / 0-)

              Since I post the diary for the consideration of everyone who felt the idea intriguing enough to read it I would ask you to tell us what the case was about and what it decided.  I've not heard of it but thank you for the reference.

              "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

              by rainmanjr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:34:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Here's a link for everyone (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BlackSheep1

                "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

                by rainmanjr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:36:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Further info and comment (0+ / 0-)

                  The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
                   1.The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
                   2.The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
                   3.The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

                  If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional.  However;

                  Sustained criticism by conservative Justices such as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas,[2] lack of a clear reaffirmation of the central tenets of Lemon over the years since the 1980s, and inconsistent application in major Establishment Clause cases has led some legal commentators[who?] and lower court judges[who?] to believe that Lemon's days are numbered, and that the Court has implicitly left the decision of whether to apply the test in a specific case up to lower courts.[citation needed] This has resulted in a patchwork pattern of enforcement in circuit courts across the nation; while some courts apply Lemon in all or most cases, others apply it in few or none.

                  And there's the subject of my diary.  The question needs to be reaffirmed and broadened so that it includes the foundation of all law, not just educational, and is binding.

                  "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

                  by rainmanjr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:49:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Careful about the criticism referenced by Wiki.... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rainmanjr

                    IANAL, but the Lemon Test is the prevailing standard and has been cited in countless cases.   It's true that conservatives don't like it, but they don't like the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine either (which is at the root of what they really don't like the Lemon Test, that the 1st Amendment applies not just to the feds but also to the states).

                    Notably, in one of the DOMA cases Judge Tauro cited the Lemon Test when he reviewed the legislative record of DOMA, and found no legitimate secular purpose for the law but rather lots of religiously motivated animus against gays.

                    Lemon is less applicable in Establishment cases involving religious displays or religious expression, but it sets a clear standard that in general a law must have primarily a secular purpose.

                    •  It does address my diary. (0+ / 0-)

                      I didn't know of this law before posting the diary and it does go a long way toward addressing the idea.  I would like to see it reaffirmed, though.

                      "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

                      by rainmanjr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:57:24 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree that it's long overdue, but would prefer (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    trueblueliberal, Smoh, rainmanjr

    to wait until Barack has two more nominees on the bench so we can get much better than a 5-4 split decision.

    Keep the law out of women's lady parts!

    by Templar on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32:25 PM PDT

  •  I think they've ruled on this. (8+ / 0-)

    We can have religious motivations for passing laws provided there's also a possible secular reason that passes constitutional muster.  eg, actual motivation can be religious provided there exists a secular one.

    •  That's not a clear ruling (0+ / 0-)

      A clear ruling would be that only secular matters of offense to another are what actual laws are based on.  Nothing else.  Or, that Biblical edects are also Constitutional so can be the subject of actual laws.  We should then put forward some Ballot proposals to stone adulterers or demand women marry their rapists or the brother of their deceased husbands.  That should make for fun conversation.

      "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

      by rainmanjr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:24:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Any religious motivation must be incidental (0+ / 0-)

      under the Lemon Test, in that a law cannot advance one religion over another, or religion over non-religion.

      In other words, laws against murder have a secular purpose.   That some (or most) religions have laws against murder as well is incidental and irrelevant.    In contrast, laws against shaving or working on Saturday would be unconstitutional.

  •  Umm...exactly what would SCOTUS be ruling on? (8+ / 0-)

    I've read the diary, and I'm not seeing a specific case.

    A court can only rule on a specific case.

    So what's the docket # we're discussing?

    •  The specific issue. (0+ / 0-)

      The problem with specific cases is that none allow for the specific issue.  The issue is Bible vs Constitution.  If the only background for a proposed law is "God wants" then it's obviously Biblical and unworthy of discussion.  If a social component can't be justified then no law can abridge the practice.  Yes, some issues have both concepts but it's only the social which allows for debate.

      "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

      by rainmanjr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:28:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If there's no case, there's nothing to rule ON. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skrekk

        Without a case, and a plaintiff with standing, the court CAN'T rule on, well, anything.

        There has to be a case.

        •  I'd be calling for an exceptional revue (0+ / 0-)

          I believe that I'm seeing this question as so basic to our nation's legal foundation that the SC needs to make it a unique review to decide the question.  It's become a fatal issue, at times, and no individual case will ever be of such specific grounds to address the question.  That gives it an importance worthy of such review.  If the SCOTUS ruled that religion does have an application then no longer would we who rail against religious influence have an argument to stop any religious-based law.  If they ruled against ANY religious influence then those who use God as their witness could no longer do so, effectively stopping the wasting of time and money in courts.  Without a firm referee making this decision formal and binding there will never be an end to the clash and we will become more divided.  

          "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

          by rainmanjr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:21:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The right does not see a difference... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rainmanjr

            The religious right does not see a distinction between their religion and our laws.  I do not think that they can separate their religious belief and what our laws should be.  This would be hard for them to figure out.  I agree with you that on topics such as abortion they are using their religion to infringe on my rights.  My suggestion is find the lowest common denominator and lets all live by those rules.  For example, we should all be vegetarians like Seventh Day Adventists, we should not drink alchohol like Mormons (although we have tried this and decided against it).  I don't think that they will like it but maybe it would get the point across, but I doubt it.

  •  Our laws are based on religious doctrine (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Z51Xfire, Gooserock, rainmanjr

    That's why the SCOTUS has an image of Moses, along with Hammurabi and some others, are carved into the marble. But our founders got this right -- we're not ruled by religion. Or at least we shouldn't be. I don't place the failure for the rise of the anti-women views of the right on the SCOTUS. I place it on the rest of us for thinking that Roe v. Wade meant the battle was over. The religious zealots refused to take that sitting down and when Reagan opened the door to them in the Republican party they jumped in with gusto. We should've fought back against them hard in '80. Instead we lost the Whitehouse and started chasing after the "moderate" position. We got suckered into the Overton window and have only recently realized we were played for chumps.

    Romney's religion is only an issue because he's a high priest in the Church of Mammon.

    by ontheleftcoast on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:37:43 PM PDT

    •  Jefferson Dismissed This Pointing Out Our Laws (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ontheleftcoast, JTinDC, rainmanjr, skrekk

      are based on the English Common Law which was founded and developed for 2 centuries before missionaires made it to England. So the original common law wouldn't have known about Moses or Hammurabi etc. I'd think.

      Well he was addressing the specific issue of Christian origins.

      Similar laws arise in many different locations because we're the same species everywhere and we have many cultural similarities.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:53:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, "Don't kill your neighbor for his cow" (0+ / 0-)

        is probably one of those universal "religious" concepts so it's hard to call it "Judeo-Christian", etc. But it's also hard to ignore there is an influence from it. Even though English common law has ancient roots it was affected by exposure to relgious doctrine.

        Romney's religion is only an issue because he's a high priest in the Church of Mammon.

        by ontheleftcoast on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:00:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, more importantly... (0+ / 0-)

          murder is a demonstrable evil for societal cohesion.  It harms others for the benefit of one and allowance would not ultimately benefit the one.  The fact that a cow is a big religious symbol to one group is immaterial to the issue of murder.  Now, if someone put forward the idea that your neighbor can not kill his own cow because of religious objection then that's an issue the SCOTUS ruling against religious law would disallow as permissable.  Apply this to the idea that God doesn't like gays and you see my application to a real issue.

          "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

          by rainmanjr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:35:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Roe v wade The Supreme Court of the USA (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rainmanjr
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

    3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

    (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

    A trimester is approximately 90 days
    •  Yes, so SCOTUS needs to affirm this. (0+ / 0-)

      Because of the inflammibility of the issue it is, in my view, the responsibility of SCOTUS to reassert the meaning of this clause without waiting for an applicable case.  Such a case may never come along, or back the court into such a narrow aspect of review.  But it's not just in the area of abortion that I'm referring to.  Therefore, the case should involve the DIRECT applicablity of Biblical arguement having ANY place in an issue.

      "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

      by rainmanjr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:42:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  by Its the Supreme Court Stupid (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rainmanjr
         The Supreme Court only addresses (13+ / 0-)

        actual cases and controversies (see Article III of the Constitution).   They do not now, and never have, delivered advisory opinions.

        by Darmok
         Beginning to wonder if they still teach "civics" (5+ / 0-)

        That said, maybe it should be a required course in high school and no diploma until one gets a passing grade.

        U.S. Constitution

        Amendment I

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

        •  But this does not address the legal foundation (0+ / 0-)

          Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, nor the practicing and voicing of one, or to assemble for one BUT can one, or any, religion be the foundation for U.S. law?  That is not addressed in Amendment 1.  It is the very bedrock of the entire GOP arguments over abortion and gay rights.  As such, we need to first decide if one or any religion can be of legal foundation.

          "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

          by rainmanjr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:27:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  they won't (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xanthippe2

    and there aren't any cases forthcoming that'd do so.

    pseudoscience can kill

    by terrypinder on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:57:01 PM PDT

    •  That doesn't negate my argument that they should. (0+ / 0-)

      Simply saying they won't isn't an argument and the fact that no case is forthcoming is why I think they should simply take up the issue.

      "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

      by rainmanjr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:44:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  maybe not this SCOTUS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rainmanjr, HockeyMomToo

    But then I'd never be happy with anything short of an airtight policy of official secularism that systematically denies religious institutions any influence over the government.  

    I'd like to see religious properties and incomes made subject to taxation.  I'd like to see a ruling that institutions and legal entities (including churches and corporations) do not enjoy First Amendment protections, only flesh-and-blood people do.  I'd like to see a ruling that institutions with secular purposes (schools, hospitals, etc.) merely owned by a religious body cannot hide behind the Free Exercise clause to avoid being subject to laws that a similar institution not owned by a religious body would have to obey.  I'd like to see a ruling that any religious exemption to a law (making a law that affects some but not others) requires a broad and compelling justification with the good of everyone in mind; I know there's a precedent for that already, but so far it does not seem to be interpreted to cover religion.  I'd like to see a ruling that government officials cannot bring their religion into their work, and that there is grounds for lawsuit or termination if they do or even appear to; ideally this would cover all private sector employees as well (e.g. pharmacists).

    I'm sure there are a lot more.

    To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

    by Visceral on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:08:14 PM PDT

    •  Which (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rainmanjr
      But then I'd never be happy with anything short of an airtight policy of official secularism that systematically denies religious institutions any influence over the government.
      would have ruled out the civil rights movement, as it developed historically.

      If religion means a way of life, and life's necessities are food, clothing, and shelter, then we should not separate religion from economics. - Malcolm X

      by dirkster42 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:12:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dirkster42

        A compelling case existed that civil rights was mandatory for societal cohesion and causing undue hurt to the well being of those affected.  Such imbalance is inherently against the protections of "liberty and justice for all."

        "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

        by rainmanjr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:53:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But the social impetus for the reforms (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rainmanjr

          was the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.  That was the group that got the ball rolling.  To be sure, they made their case on secular grounds, but it was a movement that emerged from the Black churches.

          If religion means a way of life, and life's necessities are food, clothing, and shelter, then we should not separate religion from economics. - Malcolm X

          by dirkster42 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:02:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A religious group but... (0+ / 0-)

            a social question.  The question did not originate with God Said so it fits Constitutional purpose and would have still happened.

            "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

            by rainmanjr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 04:07:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I like you. (0+ / 0-)

      Thanks.  You very effectively listed many things that I would also like to see addressed.  I think such a focused review of such practices involving religion can only be decided one way, and it would not make the GOP happy.

      "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

      by rainmanjr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:48:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Your poll does not relate to the issue. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rainmanjr, xanthippe2

    The Bible no where explicitly prohibits abortion.  

    According to Jewish law, the life of the mother takes precedence over the life of the fetus, up to birth.  Since that is a religious argument, would you like to see the Supreme Court make a statement that the life of the mother should be subordinate to the life of the fetus so that Jewish legal reasoning doesn't infect secular law?

    If religion means a way of life, and life's necessities are food, clothing, and shelter, then we should not separate religion from economics. - Malcolm X

    by dirkster42 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:09:04 PM PDT

    •  It couldn't. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dirkster42

      Being a religious POV, Jewish law could not be considered at all if SCOTUS ruled against Biblical infection of law.  Nor would the question of who's life took precedence (Roe v Wade made it clear that the mother's life does so).  But my diary isn't about abortion, specifically.  It's about the ability of Biblical reasoning to have any effect of an issue.  ANY issue.

      "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

      by rainmanjr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:01:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Unfortunately, THIS SCOTUS (0+ / 0-)

    is batshit insane, too.  They'd rule (5-4) that the Bible is the supreme law of the land.

    But you're wrong in your assumptions anyway.

    I think they honestly believe God’s breath is within a fetus from the moment of conception and needs law to protect it from death since it can’t defend itself.
    They're full of shit.  They don't give a crap about the fetus, the child, "God's breath" or any of it.  If they truly did, they would not allow millions of children (here or abroad) to go to bed hungry and eventually die of malnutrition.  They'd be in favor of increased spending on education.  I could go on, but there is not ONE position the goopers hold that is consistent with being "Pro-Life".

    They are NOT pro-life.  They don't give a crap about anyone's life except their own.  Goopers, by nature, are the most selfish, self-centered, self-interested people in all of (no pun intended) creation.  It isn't about "life", it's about control.  They aren't pro-life, they're anti-woman.  And that is the entirety of it.  It is logically and philosophically impossible to be "pro-life" and Republican.

    They are anti-woman and that is how I will address them from this point forward.

    "Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will."—Frederick Douglass

    by costello7 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 04:50:51 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site