![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Obama lifts the ban on US aid money going to any organisation that provides abortions and the US House of Representatives goes and passes a similar ban on their own people.
It's absurd. Federal money banned from paying for a particular class of medical procedures. Why? It's not illegal, so why is a government being barring itself from funding legal medical procedures? Because a subset of the population has a religious prejudice against it, seems like mainly. Which isn't a very secular way to run a government. Unfair too; no government is making laws based on my religious beliefs, or even- well.
How come? we would ask. How come laws are made on the basis of the views of some sects of a religion but not the views of others? Especially the ones which outlaw personal choices, ones we would expect people who hold a belief in their immorality not to choose.
If this becomes law the lives of many people, particularly poor women and children, will be materially disadvantaged compared to if this does not become law. The gain, meanwhile, is that members of some Christian sects can feel pleased others are being forced to live by their morality, while members of other Christian sects will be frustrated that their morality has been prohibited.
Their are anti-choice non-religious atheists and members of other religions, but let's not pretend this was done to suit their desires.
[Link up top, very worth reading. Post content is different to what I wrote here]
It's absurd. Federal money banned from paying for a particular class of medical procedures. Why? It's not illegal, so why is a government being barring itself from funding legal medical procedures? Because a subset of the population has a religious prejudice against it, seems like mainly. Which isn't a very secular way to run a government. Unfair too; no government is making laws based on my religious beliefs, or even- well.
How come? we would ask. How come laws are made on the basis of the views of some sects of a religion but not the views of others? Especially the ones which outlaw personal choices, ones we would expect people who hold a belief in their immorality not to choose.
If this becomes law the lives of many people, particularly poor women and children, will be materially disadvantaged compared to if this does not become law. The gain, meanwhile, is that members of some Christian sects can feel pleased others are being forced to live by their morality, while members of other Christian sects will be frustrated that their morality has been prohibited.
Their are anti-choice non-religious atheists and members of other religions, but let's not pretend this was done to suit their desires.
[Link up top, very worth reading. Post content is different to what I wrote here]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 14:11 (UTC)From:Really, though, it's only because Britain's a monarchy that we don't still have the Catholic Church getting into the legal system; kings can do what they like, including throwing out a religion that's too inflexible to suit and starting their own. Plus the church was a seperate entity based out of the country, which makes it easier to get rid of, and not all that popular with the general population anyway.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 14:52 (UTC)From:And yeah, I have nothing to add, really. Just sucks all around.