look like the moronic very many "pro-life atheists" striked again:



nb; y it's abortion clinics map

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Aug 20 2016 12:23pm

There aren't many other women's health clinics outside of Planned Parenthood, though. Seriously. People always try and say there are a ton of other options, but there really aren't. These maternal mortality rates speak for themselves.

Besides, the politicians of this state would rather shut down PP entirely (including cancer screenings) rather than just its abortion services (http://www.dailytexanonline.com/blogs/the-update/2015/06/21/abbott-signs-proposal-eliminating-cancer-screening-funding-to-planned).

And the pro-life movement isn't exclusively religious, but it is overwhelmingly religious, and that is especially true among Evangelicals and Catholics. This is a separation of church and state issue.

How is it a separation of church and state issue?

No, not really. People are allowed to vote their conscience as long as it's constitutional. What's next, you want to ban religious people from voting? There are plenty of women's health clinics in the major cities...it's the more remote places that are difficult. However, that's the price you pay for living in a rural area. There aren't universities, Fry's Electronics, etc.

They deserved it.

The pro-life movement is overwhelmingly a religious movement. When Greg Abbot signs in a bill that reduces abortion access, it's to please his Conservative-Christian constituents. If you don't trust the polling numbers that suggest the pro-life movement is very religious, just go to an abortion clinic yourself and speak with the protesters there - I can guarantee you that 90% or more are Christian and advocate against abortion for religious morality reasons.

I've got no problem with religious people voting, advocating for pro-life policy, and electing pro-life leadership, but I've also got no problem with the federal courts repeatedly shutting those folks down because what they are doing is unconstitutional.

Why, in this particular case (Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt)? Because the abortion restrictions placed an undue burden on women seeking abortion access.

The percentage of deeply religious people in the pro-life movement is probably similar to the percentage that was in the Civil Rights movement in the 60's.

Nothing you said has anything to do with separation of church and state. You don't seem capable of understanding what separation of church and state actually means.

Ok, what's your point? I said that people are free to vote their conscience as long as it's not unconstitutional. This has absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment.

People are free to support unconstitutional things, too. The federal courts will just have to strike 'em down. The abortion issue is littered with federal courts striking down unconstitutional abortion access restrictions.

What's my point? Read my OP in this topic. This isn't smart governing. It's not constitutional, either.



You shouldn't conflate the pro-life movement with the Civil Rights movement. The philosophical foundation of the Civil Rights movement was one of liberty, while the pro-life movement is largely a religious argument.

That's not to say a religious argument can't be a movement of liberty, but in the US, it needs to have a Constitutional basis. The Civil Rights movement had that, and the pro-life movement does not. The argument against abortion is a religious one.

I'd argue that listening to your constituents is "smart governing" in a democracy. Why don't you ask Eric Cantor what happens when you ignore your constituency? This is why I don't support democracy and I'd prefer some sort of test in order to vote.

@ Bold: Wrong, you just lack empathy. If you actually listen to the arguments, it's mostly about personifying the fetus. Try listening to the other side instead of ignoring them.