The plurality also replaced the heightened scrutiny of abortion regulations under Roe, which was standard for fundamental rights in the Court's case law, with a lesser "undue burden" standard previously developed by O'Connor in her dissent in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health. A legal restriction posing an undue burden was defined as one having "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."This law clearly has the purpose AND effect of creating such an obstacle. It won't survive.
the underlying theological and philosophical rationale for banning abortions is about who has the right to end a human lifeHence the enormous correlation between those who are anti-abortion and anti-death penalty.
the underlying theological and philosophical rationale for banning abortions is about who has the right to end a human lifeThere are of course Christians who do consistently advocate an anti-abortion, anti-death-penalty position: many Catholics have taken that position for years. Christians who support the death penalty point to a fairly well established precedent for executing people who do evil things in the Bible. Unless you're arguing that abortion is a means of punishing fetuses for sins against humanity.
Hence the enormous correlation between those who are anti-abortion and anti-death penalty.
What people say motivates them and what actually motivates them are sometimes two different things.I don't think you're being sarcastic, but there is in fact a considerable difference between, say, trying to save someone's life and trying to end a life. But the idea is that death is a consequence of sin corrupting the world, and that trying to prevent death is a generally worthy goal. From a traditional Christian perspective, ending a life requires some sort of moral justification -- punishment of wrongdoing or self-defense, for example. If you disagree that a fetus is a human life that's a separate argument, of course (and a worthwhile one).
In order to apply this stance consistently, they'd also need to be Christian Scientists, but I can guarantee you all of them are just fine with using human medicine to interfere with God's apparent plan to wipe them out with cancer or heart disease.
Effective long term action would be to support girls' self-esteem and non-traditional ender roles, so they are better able to withstand pressure to engage in sexual activity that they are not comfy with - either in or outside of marriage - and to support policies which make women more equal to men in terms of income, security, wealth etc, so bearing a child is less of a risk.Well, yes.
It is starkly noticeable that people who claim to be anti-abortion do not seek to pursue any of these (I think clearly effective) routes, which makes me doubt their sincerity.
« Older Legendary English music critic Simon Reynolds asks... | Austrian research company IAT2... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by geoff. at 9:07 PM on June 23, 2011