https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/30/supreme-court-religion-atheists-backlash/ Ms Cohen, It is ludicrous to decry the Constitution on the one hand as an illegitimate spiritual concoction, and then appeal to its authority on the author in a bid to make your case: “What we need — and what our Constitution conveniently provides for — is freedom from all gods.” If you set aside the “Christian” window-dressing to this argument, the overarching question remains — Is a baby conceived by a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg the exclusive purview of a woman, or does that baby have any rights under law, particularly after 15 weeks? While Christians may be dedicated to the right to life, they are by no means the exclusive proponents of that position. At what point do you recognize that the court’s opinion was based on states rights and not the merits, and focus your efforts purposefully on local levels to address the issue with their law makers? If you are an atheist, good for you. Now — what about the living being growing inside your womb? What is your responsibility to that life? Does that life deserve any protections under law? Is that new life the exclusive property of a woman carrying it, or should it be protected under law? Or, do you conclude that new life is irrelevant and all that matters is my freedom to do whatever I want with my organs. Wherever you happen to come down on these questions, purposeful, intelligent discourse and exercise of the courts and the law will probably get you farther, and help you achieve more than engaging in rabble rousing in pursuit of your goals. Sincerely, Scott
AUTHOR: Scott Vincent
AUTHOR EMAIL: sgvincent@optimum.net
AUTHOR URL:
SUBJECT: [Kate Cohen] Contact
IP: 24.186.183.21
Array
(
[1_Name] => Scott Vincent
[2_Email] => sgvincent@optimum.net
[3_Website] =>
[4_Comment] => https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/30/supreme-court-religion-atheists-backlash/ Ms Cohen, It is ludicrous to decry the Constitution on the one hand as an illegitimate spiritual concoction, and then appeal to its authority on the author in a bid to make your case: “What we need — and what our Constitution conveniently provides for — is freedom from all gods.” If you set aside the “Christian” window-dressing to this argument, the overarching question remains — Is a baby conceived by a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg the exclusive purview of a woman, or does that baby have any rights under law, particularly after 15 weeks? While Christians may be dedicated to the right to life, they are by no means the exclusive proponents of that position. At what point do you recognize that the court’s opinion was based on states rights and not the merits, and focus your efforts purposefully on local levels to address the issue with their law makers? If you are an atheist, good for you. Now — what about the living being growing inside your womb? What is your responsibility to that life? Does that life deserve any protections under law? Is that new life the exclusive property of a woman carrying it, or should it be protected under law? Or, do you conclude that new life is irrelevant and all that matters is my freedom to do whatever I want with my organs. Wherever you happen to come down on these questions, purposeful, intelligent discourse and exercise of the courts and the law will probably get you farther, and help you achieve more than engaging in rabble rousing in pursuit of your goals. Sincerely, Scott
[email_marketing_consent] =>
[entry_title] => Contact
[entry_permalink] => https://katecohen.net/contact/
[feedback_id] => 89c70f5b96b5c257b0343fb7cfbd1776
)