FSTDT Forums

Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: rosenewock21 on January 22, 2012, 05:33:30 am

Title: Roe v Wade turns 39
Post by: rosenewock21 on January 22, 2012, 05:33:30 am
...so if you're 38 and under, go thank your mom (or not) cause she had a choice.

All joking aside, it would amaze me that people are still trying to slip "personhood" bills into the legislature almost 40 years later if I weren't so jaded by fundies.

Have an article by the Daily Jewish Foward highlighting, among other things, how not all religions consider a fetus a baby and how blocking abortions would go against their religious freedoms.

http://forward.com/articles/150006/ (http://forward.com/articles/150006/)
Title: Re: Roe v Wade turns 39
Post by: Damen on January 22, 2012, 05:36:40 am
Yep. And guess what Oklahoma's trying to shove onto (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-lawmakers-seek-personhood-other-questions/article/3640872) the ballots.
Title: Re: Roe v Wade turns 39
Post by: rosenewock21 on January 22, 2012, 06:07:50 am
Yep. And guess what Oklahoma's trying to shove onto (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-lawmakers-seek-personhood-other-questions/article/3640872) the ballots.
Quote
While the measure would not apply to miscarriages or medical treatments to save the life of a mother, it would ban birth control methods or in vitro fertilization that “kills a person.” The measure also states there would be no exceptions for pregnancies that occur as a result of rape or incest, a provision that Martha Skeeters, the head of the Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, finds troubling.

So remember, girls, it was your fault for wearing that skirt so just shut up and be a good little incubator.
Title: Re: Roe v Wade turns 39
Post by: N. De Plume on January 22, 2012, 10:14:28 am
Have an article by the Daily Jewish Foward highlighting, among other things, how not all religions consider a fetus a baby and how blocking abortions would go against their religious freedoms.

http://forward.com/articles/150006/ (http://forward.com/articles/150006/)
Unless their religion actually requires abortions, I really don’t see how banning abortion blocks their religious freedom. It’s kinda like saying, “The Bible says nothing about speeding, so speed limits restrict Christian religious freedom.”
Title: Re: Roe v Wade turns 39
Post by: rosenewock21 on January 22, 2012, 10:24:14 am
Have an article by the Daily Jewish Foward highlighting, among other things, how not all religions consider a fetus a baby and how blocking abortions would go against their religious freedoms.

http://forward.com/articles/150006/ (http://forward.com/articles/150006/)
Unless their religion actually requires abortions, I really don’t see how banning abortion blocks their religious freedom. It’s kinda like saying, “The Bible says nothing about speeding, so speed limits restrict Christian religious freedom.”

From the article:

Quote
Personhood proposals also highlight an overarching truth about opposition to abortion — it is fundamentally based on a religious view ...snip... For many Jews and others who do not share the religious belief that values a fetus above the health and autonomy of women, criminal prosecution for obtaining or providing an abortion is an intolerable violation of religious liberty and the constitutional right of privacy.

Basically the author of that article is claiming anti-choice legislation favors Christianity.

Edit: I have also already been yelled at by my mother for making dead baby jokes. Then yelled at some more for responding to her comments with "Well, you had a choice.".