Tuesday, February 05, 2002

but I must take exception to her take on abortion policy -- that any attempts to restirct abortion are "religiously intolerant" because some churches are pro-choice. Really? First of all, I'm not so sure these churches are "pro-choice," in that they think abortion in demand is great so much as they don't see it as a grave injustice that must be rebuked. Surely, some restrictions on abortion like waiting periods and parental notification would not be inconsistent with their views.

Secondly, since when is it "religiously intolerant" to have policies that contradict the policies of Churches? My Church holds that the unborn life is human life , and that abortion is killing. My government says that the unborn child does not have rights. Isn't this "religiously intolerant?" My Church says that the death penalty is wrong. My state executes 10 people a year. Isn't this religiously intolerant?

Back to the main point, I'm not sure what justification there was to classify fetuses as "unborn children." On its face, it does seem like a back door attempt to move towards restrictions on abortion. If so, this does smack of being undemocratic (not that Roe vs. Wade was a great example of democracy). But maybe it was an honest attempt to give pregnant women more benefits. I'm not as informed on this as I should be.

But I do know that it's not "religiously intolerant."
Post a Comment