As far as I know 100% of the anti-abortion organizations making up the movement are connected to either the Catholic Church, the Evangelical movement, the Lutheran Church or The Southern Baptist Convention. Whether or not a supporter has a religion or not makes no difference to the movement. The movement is still a religious one. And any bills proposed in state and federal legislative bodies have been initiated by religious organizations. In legislative hearings the people that speak in favor of an anti-abortion bill are from religious organizations. Those voting anti-abortion bills into law defend their vote in terms of their religion. It is not necessary that everyone supporting anti-abortion law be religious for the movement itself to be supported by churches and other religious organizations.
In order to understand a movement of any kind it is necessary to know it's history, who supports it, what it's goals are and how they are organized to achieve those goals. The beliefs of the anti-abortion movement: determination of women's duty, the beginning of life, the sanctity of life, the rights of a fertilized egg, the supremacy of the fertilized egg over already born humans, God's disapproval ending a human life in utero, all of these have been determined by church organizations.
Anyone has a right to try to get their beliefs enacted into law. I was wrong to state that you did not have that right. What I should have said is that religious organizations are prevented from getting the tenets of their religion made into law by the 1st Amendment. The government may make church laws into civil law but it will be immediately challenged because it would be an endorsement of one religions belief and the 1st Amendment prohibits that . Religion is at the heart of the anti-abortion's movement and needs to be discussed.
Just because hitler liked dogs, doesn't mean it's bad for you to like dogs. I think your post, and your reasoning is entirely ridiculous. As I am limited in time, I wouldn't normally respond to your ridiculous assertions. But I address it briefly because i think you expose the sort of elitism may pro-abortion advocates have for those in the pro-life "movement".
What, do tell, is a "movement"? Had we had the internet in the 1860's, with freedom of information laws, how many questionable things would we have found on the abolition "movement"? how many "rich, radical, religious people" would we have found at the head of such organizations? Yet, you do not question them. You question to pro-life "movement", despite the fact that the "movement" involves millions of individuals who just happen to vote for pro-life causes on the ballot. That's why I used the term. Sure, there's tons of pro-life organizations, but I don't refer to them because I'm not part of any organization. Only my place in the wider movement as a whole, do I refer to. I'm just an individual with an opinion. Just as I do not the hold the racism of Margaret Sanger and the eugenics-oriented ideology that many pro-abortion organizations have historically held, I do not hold that against you person, as you have suddenly held against me. I've never been part of the catholic church in my life, so it's absolutely confusing and diabolical that would dare rob me of my agency, and hold their sins against me.
Here's a warning for you. Whatever your "place" is in the pro-choice movement, very rarely, if ever, is there a "good guy" at the head of these issues. Just as I have relized this about many pro life orgs, you should see the same in the many pro-choice orgs you look at.
You want to talk about religion? be my guest, and im fine with discussing such things, but that's entirely different from abortion and my reasons for abortion. I'm not here to discuss what other people want on this issue, but only what
I want in this issue. I quite honestly find it insulting you want to talk about whatever religious strawman you want to bring, when I, myself, am not even religious.
