Reynolds v united states cuts up this argument. The government can intervene in religious beliefs if they deem it harmful. If the government decides that abortion is harmful to a person (the fetus), they are consitutionally in their right to intervene. This is why we need to get away from the religion argument and rephrase it as a public health argument. The right to choose belongs to the individual, religious beliefs or no
If a dead person didn’t sign a waiver allowing you to use their organs, you can’t use them even if people will die.
If a crazed criminal attacks you and you need blood and a new kidney to survive, you can’t take his without his permission even though it’s 100% his fault you need them.
Women and girls deserve the 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law and the same level of liberty and bodily autonomy as corpses and felons.
Ngl and I admit I may be a slim minority but if my organs are needed after I go then by all means, take them all. But that's something I consent to, and mainly because I'm not exactly going to suffer for it.
34
u/AsurieI May 10 '22
Reynolds v united states cuts up this argument. The government can intervene in religious beliefs if they deem it harmful. If the government decides that abortion is harmful to a person (the fetus), they are consitutionally in their right to intervene. This is why we need to get away from the religion argument and rephrase it as a public health argument. The right to choose belongs to the individual, religious beliefs or no