The First Amendment protects only one side.

[sear]

The logical end game to a culture of normalised abortion

Non-criminalized OB/GYN health care for women demonstrates a refusal to knuckle under to illogical religionists that insist a non-sentient unborn's presumed choice should trump the expressed choice of the sentient woman.

How conspicuously absurd!

Human history has countless examples of humans making the ultimate sacrifice for unknown others.

But the ostensible moral religionists assume an embryo would not do so for a family member. A younger sib.

Logic has won out (for now). That's a comfort.

But religious forces continue to threaten these women's rights even into this third Millennium; shocking.

Religionists have every right to not have abortions if they so choose.

They have no right to impose their religious preference on others.

Another irony?

If the roles were reversed, the religionists could claim the refuge of the 1st Amendment; their rights under the free exercise clause.

And though it's the same issue, do those that have taken the other side in that debate share the same degree of protection from 1A?

[Frank Merton]

I have serious concern as to the morality of having an abortion, no doubt stemming from the Buddhist notion of greatest possible protection and succor to all sentient beings. At some point we know that the embryo becomes sentient, since it responds to outside stimuli.

At the same time, I have serious concern as to the right of someone like myself to do anything more than discourage abortions or perhaps take actions to provide alternatives to desperate women.

This is because what should be legal or illegal is only partly connected with morality. Legality is the law, not the church or the evolution of one's life spirit. Laws should be designed not with morality or religious belief in mind but with the practical needs of a functioning society in mind. Often these coincide, but even then the church should remain silent and refrain from using its moral power to influence the law.

[sear]

FM,

I understand it's easier than falling off a log to misunderstand, misinterpret a post.

Please understand that I respect your position, and perhaps even share it.

I hope you won't misinterpret my comment as disrespectful to you, or your position.

"I have serious concern as to the morality of having an abortion, no doubt stemming from the Buddhist notion of greatest possible protection and succor to all sentient beings. At some point we know that the embryo becomes sentient, since it responds to outside stimuli." FM

When my promotion to Emperor of the Cosmos is finalized, I'll strongly consider making sentience the point of demarkation.

"At the same time, I have serious concern as to the right of someone like myself to do anything more than discourage abortions or perhaps take actions to provide alternatives to desperate women." FM

If she's not responsible enough to avoid getting an unwanted pregnancy, why would we want our governments to demand that she undertake the decades long commitment of motherhood?

Seems to me any female irresponsible enough to want an abortion should be allowed to have it.

"what should be legal or illegal is only partly connected with morality. Legality is the law, not the church ..." FM

There are two primaries with ostensible interest here.

On a baby's first birthday, the parents have virtual total responsibility for it.

Why would we invert that when the zygote or embryo is in utero?

[+and-then]

I see no lack of people standing LOUDLY in support of ABORTION. Let's not use euphemisms with the ending of a human life please - at least have that much courage. It IS a woman's choice if she will kill her child or let it live. But if you believe any dissent from those who see life as sacred and say so is the same thing as lack of freedom of speech for those who support abortion then I'd say that's whining a bit. Both sides have the freedom to call it as they see it. Is that what's really bothering you? Would you rather that no one be able to stand and say they THINK this is wrong behavior? And if so, then who exactly gets to choose which person has the right to speak and which does not?

[Professor Buzzkill]

If she's not responsible enough to avoid getting an unwanted pregnancy, why would we want our governments to demand that she undertake the decades long commitment of motherhood?

Seems to me any female irresponsible enough to want an abortion should be allowed to have it.

What about adoption? Where i live, adoptions have dropped from 2750 per year in 1968 to less than 200 last year. This means that many couples who cannot concieve, yet who would be great parents, will never have the chance to raise a child.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Professor Buzzkill

[sear]

"Where i live, adoptions have dropped from 2750 per year in 1968 to less than 200 last year. This means that many couples who cannot concieve, yet who would be great parents, will never have the chance to raise a child." PB

If there simply weren't enough orphans or other potential adoptees, I'd agree.

But even if the statistical evidence you cite is true, it may equally well be explained by a progressive reduction in demand, a diminishing of willing adoptive couples.

I have great reverence for the plight of orphans. Count me skeptical that the remedy for their dismal plight is a systemic increase in their numbers.