The fact that “the Founders� (a very broad and ill-defined term, by the way) were religious doesn’t imply that they would have approved laws that merely codify religious beliefs. In any event, their views on separation of church and state have been transcended by the First and 14th Amendments, as well as many other enactments that have erected a wall between church and state at all levels of government.

Certainly rlier can propose outlawing the eating of pork because that offends his religion. If pork were infected with something like mad cow disease, there would be a secular basis. Lawmakers would err under our system of government if they imposed such a ban on everyone without secular grounds.

Rlier says it’s mistaken to think that the First Amendment bans religious discourse from the public square. I agree. But enacting a particular religious belief into law, without any secular basis (or worse, against secular considerations), would have the effect of furthering one religion and limiting the freedom of all others. Separation of church and state is probably the main reason religious diversity exists in this country, and religious diversity, which equates to freedom of religion, is precisely why we don’t need official religion, as exemplified by such things as “In God we trust� and “under God� on currency and in the pledge. We have millions of churches to supply all the religion we need without getting government into the act.

Pro-lifers contend that human beings merit full protection from the moment of conception (“Life begins at conception�). This is a religious belief. Pro-lifers don’t pay attention to arguments to the contrary based on reason and evidence. Nor do they offer substantive secular analysis in support of their belief. The closest thing I’ve heard to such an argument is the contention that one can remember events that occur in the womb. I’ve seen no persuasive evidence of that. I’m convinced that a fetus couldn’t recall events in the womb, particularly those occurring before development of the brain. Nor do pro-lifers pay attention to the consequences of their belief, which they would do if they considered secular matters. If humans at conception are fully equal to born humans, then the state should issue birth (or conception) certificates for “persons� in the womb, and death certificates for those who don’t make it out alive. To accomplish this, the state would have to collect vaginal discharges from all women who might be able to conceive to be sure that deceased “persons� spontaneously aborted shortly after conception are accounted for. There would have to be analysis of deceased early products of conception to be sure that twins, triplets, etc., were not created, lest some deceased “persons� be missed. Pro-lifers never consider these things, because their belief is religious.

For example, I am a Christian, and my whole life is influenced by what Christ taught and what Christ has done for me and for others. It is impossible for me to live without reference to those facts. When I approach the issue of murder and how to deal with it, Christ’s teachings inform my views. As a Christian, if I were making a law regarding murder, I would treat it as an evil to be punished. But to make that law, I do not have to give it a “secular basis in evidence and reason.� I can present a bill with the law providing punishment for murder and then give all kinds of arguments for its passage. To those who share my religious presuppositions, I could make theological arguments for its passage. To those who do not share my religious presuppositions, I would make arguments that would appeal to them. If I can find enough people that I can convince, using a variety of arguments, then the bill will become law. Nothing in the First Amendment says that such a way of approaching lawmaking is prohibited. In fact, the “free exercise� clause protects such a way of approaching lawmaking. The idea that the First Amendment to our Constitution bans religious discourse from the public square is totally foreign to the First Amendment.

With regard to abortion, if Christians wish to make laws protecting fetal life, they ought to focus on three things: 1) They ought to seek to convince as many people as possible that the teaching of Christ should be treated as authoritative. In other words, they should seek to make as many people Christians as they can, using the methods that Jesus used.

2) Once they have done that, they ought to seek to establish the link between what Christ taught and how fetal life should be treated.

3) They ought to find ways to convince non-Christians that laws protecting fetal life will benefit society.

But Christians who oppose abortion should also go beyond lawmaking and focus on other ways to protect fetal life. In fact, this is where most of their effort ought to be placed. They should promote adoption and provide practical help to pregnant women who don’t want to keep the children they have conceived. As long as pregnant women feel they have no viable option other than aborting the fetus they are carrying, then fetal life will always be in jeopardy, regardless of what laws are in existence.

At the present time, what the pro-life movement needs most is not a change in the laws of the land, but a change in how Christians treat pregnant women. What is needed is not more law, but more love. I think this is what Jesus would say.

Anti-abortion advocates generally base their argument on the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception. This belief can only be shaped and affected by religious inspiration, not by reason or evidence.

Our legal system affords rights to persons. Traditionally, persons were defined as born humans. The advent of scientific observations of developing embryos/ fetuses has led many people to believe that the unborn are persons. Similarly, they believed Terri Schiavo’s remains, which continued to function in rudimentary biological ways after her brain death, were a person. I question both assertions. Reason and evidence tell us that embryos totally unable to think or remember, and brain-dead “persons� similarly and permanently limited, don’t have rights the state has a duty to protect. Even the most ardent pro-life advocates don’t claim that age should be measured from the date of conception, that women should be constantly monitored to determine whether they are carrying fetuses, that death certificates must be issued for human beings aborted naturally or otherwise at any stage of development, or that names should be assigned upon conception, all of which would be required if the pro-life position were consistently applied.

The challenge for the pro-life group is to formulate secular grounds for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. So far, they haven’t done it. Meanwhile, I think Roe v. Wade has provided a secular determination that we can live with. Although the right to privacy was cited as a major underpinning of the decision, the secular determination of when a fetus begins to have rights is equally and essentially embodied in the decision. Separation of church and state requires that a religiously motivated ban on abortion in the early stages of pregnancy not be embodied in law.

My general comment is that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, we get fifty versions of what’s possible, depending on the each states’s posture via its state constitution, and depending on that state’s enacted and enabling laws.

The NARAL Prochoice American web site gives the summary on Massachusetts status, should Roe be overturned.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/yourstate/whodecides/states/massachusetts/issue.cfm?issueid=2639

To see your own state’s status, see:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/yourstate/whodecides/states/

I believe Massachusetts has a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that would continue to permit women to choose to have an abortion, and that this decision is actually stronger than Roe. Alas, I don’t have the citation. Some states already have in place laws or constitutional circumstances that do not rely on the Federal level Roe vs. Wade decision. I believe New York and California are two examples.

Some likely sources of further info are:

ACLU of Massachusetts

http://www.aclu-mass.org/home.html

NARAL ProChoice Massachusetts

The Massachusetts Affiliate of NARAL Prochoice America

http://www.prochoicemass.org

NARAL Prochoice America

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/

http://www.naral.org

National Abortion Federation (a group of providers)

http://www.prochoice.org

And, an example from another state:

Here’s a staement from California, describing their state’s situation.

http://www.prochoicecalifornia.org/s04politicalupdates/rights.shtml

http://www.prochoicecalifornia.org/s04politicalupdates/govpowers.shtml

“…The point of this is truly when does a fetus become a human being? The moment a fetus becomes a human being, it has human rights and killing it – regardless of its mother’s ability to care for it – is illegal. On the flip side, before the fetus is a human being, it has no human rights and the mother can do with it as she wishes. This seems pretty straightforward to me…”

The moment that life begins is a gray area, although it needn’t be. And, it seems that neither side (as well as O.S.) is willing to seriously, scientifically, and morally engage this question, perhaps because they are afraid of what they might find.

Here is an example of how to reason forward from this type of uncertainty:

Rhode Island just passed a law requiring drivers to wear seatbelts. I always wear my seatbelt, although I don’t know for certain if it will ever save my life. It certainly restricts my freedom, and places limits upon my body, but I wear it regardless because it MIGHT SAVE my life.

If those on the pro-choice side of the issue are truly open-minded, they will admit that we don’t know for certain when life begins. Therefore, they should be willing to admit that avoiding abortion MIGHT SAVE a life, just as a seatbelt does.

Since this is a battle of MIGHTs and a gamble of uncertainly, we must consider what we/others might win, and might lose. Perhaps the choice within being pro-choice is this:

1. A consequential, yet unwanted pregnancy MIGHT be a hardship.

2. An abortion MIGHT take a life that we will forever grieve, as one caller shared.

Like choosing to wear a seatbelt, I am willing to accept limits that CERTAINLY restrict my freedom and inconvenience so that I MIGHT save a life. This carries a hint of selflessness, which isn’t very popular anymore, on either side of this issue.

On a side note:

Open Source aspires to be “fast and free all over the globe,� but if it is so fast that calls cannot complete his or her succinct thought, then O.S. is missing the essence of the internet.

The governor lays out his decision in an op-ed column in today’s Boston Globe.

“Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that,” he writes. “The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception… I have spoken with medical professionals to determine whether the drug contemplated under the bill would simply prevent conception or whether it would also terminate a living embryo after conception. Once it became clear that the latter was the case, my decision was straightforward.”

Really? Which medical professionals? There is wide consensus among doctors that the morning after pill is contraception, not abortion. In fact, it’s what you take to PREVENT an abortion. It’s ironic that the Governor’s decision, will actually end up causing the thing to which he states he is morally opposed.

I’m sure that the governor has probably been able to find SOMEONE in the medical profession to say that emergency contraception is abortion. After all, his buddies in the Bush Administration have been able to find a stray scientist here and there to contend that global warming is a hoax. If you look long enough, you can usually find someone with credentials who can argue against any scientific consensus.

In any decision we make as a society, all we can do is look at the evidence with intellectual rigor and an open mind, then choose. When our elected officials start playing games with evidence and opinion, it makes it virtually impossible for citizens to make good decisions. This kind of obfuscation is particularly vile when it is done to serve special interests or for political purposes, as the Governor does now.

(Read Romney’s op-ed at http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/26/why_i_vetoed_contraception_bill/)

The debate used to sound (simplistically) like this: “Abortion is murder because the embryo has a soul/is a human being” vs “An embryo isn’t a human being until the (third) trimester so abortion is ok before that stage.”

Now those first voices admit that it’s ok in cases of rape. When those voices say that, they have just proven themselves wrong. If a person truly believes the embryo has a human soul, then ALL abortion is murder, no matter how the embryo was conceived. There can be no compromises!

What accounts for this discrepancy? In the case of rape, the woman did not want to have sex. In all other cases she did. I have argued many anti-choicers down with this fact until they have actually had to admit that the bottom line is that woman should pay for having voluntary sex. There is no other conclusion to come to.

As a side note, parental consent is a cruel sham, because it is exactly those children who have been raped by their fathers that cannot get parental consent. Girls who have a good relationship with their parents are not going to have a problem getting parental consent. The constraint therefore has no use except to force victims of incest to be further disadvantaged. What a cruel law.

I didn’t know I was pregnant until the random ultrasound two days before abortion would be illegal (in Germany). The doctor had told me that the pills she gave me worked as birth control. I would have been out of luck had I not happened to be in Germany for a 5-day visit because in Ireland where I was living, there is no legal abortion. Germany is a country where people are taken care of, and so I was gently led through the process of talking briefly to a counselor and getting permission from my health insurance. The process takes three days but they fit it into two for me. I do not regret anything. It would have been a catastrophe for me to bear a child at that point. Some of the reasons why I could not have cared well for that child, are being mentally ill myself and being in a physically abusive relationship. My child doesn’t get abused.