Aside from the First Amendment, it seems that it is also addressed by the Golden Rule. If one wouldn't want another to impose their religious beliefs on them then why would they impose theirs on another? The Golden Rule, in one form or another, is universal and precedes the major religious of today. The Golden Rule applies to the relationship between any two persons.

My impression of religion is that it is about morality, how one should live their life. The Golden Rule is about "live and let live".

The actions of Michigan's Supreme Court suggest that democracy is about mob rule.

@SunshineEast "The Golden Rule applies to the relationship between any two persons." ..unless one of those people is a sadist or masochist.

@ChestRockfield I have found several different statements of the Golden Rule. Do to another what you would want another to do to you. Don't do to another what you wouldn't want another to do to you. Live harmoniously and responsibly with others. Live and let live.

To abide by the Golden Rule is to meet all of them. To pick out one is playing games.

@SunshineEast If you are a sadist, you cannot meet all of those conditions because they become mutually exclusive. Your "Golden Rule" even in its many forms, is simplistic and ultimately nonsensical.

@ChestRockfield Consider: "Live harmoniously and responsibly." If one imposes themself upon another without the other's consent, they are being disharmonious. If they do so intentionally, they are being irresponsible. Whether one violates the Golden Rule is in the eyes of the one upon whom the action falls.

We have natural rights. One is able to believe, choose and do what they will and do to their body and life what they will. One can terminate their life, ingest what they will, and, if a woman, terminate her pregnancy. It is readily demonstrable. No man-made law can prevent it. It is not about "protecting choice", it is about defending one's rights. Consider the success of "the war on drugs".

@SunshineEast That does not answer my question. That is the answer to the question, "In what way does banning choice prohibit the free exercise of religion?"

@ChestRockfield Choice of word's. It is about protecting one's natural rights. If one has their natural rights they are free to exercise their religion.

@ChestRockfield What if one believes that they have the moral responsibility to impose the teachings of their God upon others? That is their personal religion. If they believe that choice is morally wrong then by protecting choice might be viewed as preventing them from exercising their religion. Some clergy teach that it is OK to ignore the Golden Rule if one is doing God's work. (I'm trying to find a way to understand and reply to your question.)

@SunshineEast What is that supposed to mean? How does guaranteeing reproductive rights prevent the free exercise of religion? Your post doesn't make any sense unless you can answer that question.

@ChestRockfield I am not familiar with "reproductive rights" only with natural rights and civil rights as put forth in the U.S. Constitution. I suspect that the need for "reproductive rights" was in response to others imposing their social beliefs, i.e., religion, upon others. I found reference to "reproductive rights" in terms of Supreme Court decisions. They, as we have seen, are subject to "reinterpretation".

@ChestRockfield As an aside, I think a better strategy in addressing the Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice issue is the application of the First Amendment . When I first articulated about natural rights, a minster friend challenged me, "Because one is able, should they?" Only recently did I recognize that the Golden Rule determines what one should not do in a given situation.

Some believe that a life, in and of itself, is important. I've recognized the following:

The reproductive system is a closed system consisting of conception, a random in context process, i.e., “let’s tries this and see what happens" and closed by the process of natural selection, i.e., "survival of the fittest". Not all life is intended to survive to procreate. While the life of a newborn begins at conception, not all life that begins at conception becomes a newborn. Some newborns have inherent limitations that will prevent them from ever living independently or self sufficiently. Without intervention, they do not survive. Lives are taken indiscriminately by acts of nature and random events. We do not live indefinitely, without diminishing capabilities or without illness.

I have found no basis upon which to assert that a life, in and of itself, is important. I have found, though, that a life may be important to another to be used for their, the other's, benefit.

@SunshineEast The government vows not to prevent the free exercise of religion OR ESTABLISH ONE, thus, the clearest path to both of those goals would be to allow choice while allowing religious members who believe as you stated to preach to the best of their ability. But for the government to infringe on one's rights to exercise freely so that another can exercise more effectively is clearly and obviously a violation of the First Amendment. Good try though.
Would you make the same argument if a person's religion said it was their personal responsibility to murder black people or enslave and rape women? Would you claim putting them in jail for carrying out said acts violated their First Amendment rights? Obviously not. That would be stupid.

@SunshineEast
You said, "a better strategy in addressing the Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice issue is the application of the First Amendment" but then do not explain how the First Amendment is applicable. Unless you're suggesting it's a religious issue? You realize that not everyone is religious or makes this decision based on religious beliefs, right? That it would be ludicrous to frame this as a religious issue (and codify it as such)? Don't you think forcing an anti-religious woman to claim it is her religious belief to terminate a pregnancy so that she may retain access to abortion in this country would clearly be a violation of the Golden Rule you inexplicably have a giant boner for?

"The reproductive system is a closed system"

I don't know what you mean by this, but the reproductive system is certainly not a closed system, biologically speaking.

"Not all life is intended to survive to procreate."

If we continue this discussion, at some point this belief of yours will cause us to reach an impasse. To believe in intention in this context necessitates a belief in a higher power of some sort.

"Some newborns... Without intervention, they do not survive."

Not some, all. All human newborns require intervention to survive. I get what you're trying to say, but the big picture is that they all require intervention, so I don't think that argument is as strong or persuasive as you think it is.

"I have found no basis upon which to assert that a life, in and of itself, is important."

100% agree. All life is purely accidental and thus, unimportant.

@ChestRockfield The Pro-Life movement is driven by a belief.i.e., a life, in and of itself, is important. Life begins at conception. The Pro-Choice movement is driven by one's natural rights, i.e., one can do to their body and life what they will. A religion is the set of beliefs that one holds in guiding them in living their life. It is personal. The Pro-Life movement is striving to impose their religion upon others to prevent them from exercising their rights. It is not about beliefs vs beliefs. It is about beliefs vs rights.

Yes, some people believe that they should discriminate, persecute and murder others because of their religion, race or ethnicity. Some believe that woman are subordinate to men and are there to be used by men. Some believe that enslavement is acceptable. They were/are taught by words and examples by clergy. As long as the churches represented by that clergy exist, that history is relevant.

The First Amendment establishes that it is unconstitutional to legislate laws that impose religion upon others.

The feeding, sheltering and securing of a child is a responsibility of the mother as is preparing the child to live independently, self-sufficiently, harmoniously and responsibly as an adult. In some societies the father shares the responsibility. In the natural world, if a child is physically or intellectually unable to learn and to do what is needed as an adult, they perish. Intervention is about those things done to extend their lives.

Conception is unbounded. Natural selection places bounds upon it. The reproduction system consisting of conception and natural selected is a bounded system. The underlying concept is that only the fittest are intended to procreate to create the next generation.

@SunshineEast

"A religion is the set of beliefs that one holds in guiding them in living their life."

I do not believe that is a widely held definition of religion.

"The Pro-Choice movement is driven by one's natural rights"

And are you suggesting that pro-choice individuals' beliefs constitute a religion or not? If you are then your statement about beliefs vs rights is contradictory. If you're not then your statement a few comments back about this being a First Amendment issue makes no sense. Please try to follow your own thread. If you can't even stay consistent with your own statements, how do you expect any of us to make heads or tails of your comments?

"Yes, some people believe that they should discriminate..."

So then you agree that your argument about it being religious freedom to take reproductive rights away is nonsensical? That was a long-winded way to agree.

And I don't know what your last two paragraphs have to do with anything.

"Conception is unbounded."

What is that supposed to mean?

One fatal flaw in your worldview I'd like to mention is that you belive there is intention to natural selection or evolution. There is not. Natural selection is a consequence, not a blueprint.

@ChestRockfield You are right, "a religion" is different from "religion". "A religion" is associated with a church. "Religion" is the set of personal beliefs. We all have religion but do not necessarily identify with "a religion". The First Amendment uses "religion" and not "a religion".

Natural rights are not a belief. They are readily observable. They are not religion. We all have them.

What are reproductive rights? I know what natural rights are. I know what civil rights are. Where did reproductive rights come from? Who granted them? By one's natural rights, one can do to their body and life what they will and do to another's body and life that which the other has given their consent. I am aware that some have imposed their beliefs that one's exercise of their natural rights should be limited. Some continue to strive to do so. They are motivated by their beliefs,

As I stated previously, conception is a random in context process, i.e., "let's try this and see what happens". Natural selection, as defined by Darwin, is "survival of the fittest". Not all life is intended to survive to procreate to create the next generation. History suggests that we exist to evolve. This is how it happens.

@SunshineEast You're just talking nonsense now. I can say the same thing to you about "natural rights" as you did about "reproductive rights". Same with your definitions of "religion" and "a religion". They are your own definitions that I'm sure many people don't agree with.
And how can you claim that "natural rights" are self-evident and then claim some people don't believe people are entitled to them?
You still haven't shown how pro-choice v pro-life is a First Amendment issue.
You still don't understand that there is no intention in the evolutionary process.

Honestly, I agree with your conclusions, but none of your paths to them make any sense. If you think they do then we should probably just leave it at that.

@ChestRockfield It is interesting. I am very much aware of the technology and how it is and can be used to shape peoples' thinking. I am aware of "disruptive" information. I sense in our exchanges that you are attempting to blunt my thinking with others. Yes, you can believe, choose and do what you will. That is your natural right. You can go in the woods and hang yourself. That is your natural right. You can snort coke. That is your natural right. No man-made law can prevent you. The Pro-Life community is striving to prevent a woman from terminating her pregnancy, which is her natural right to do so. They are driven by their beliefs. Change is the intention of evolution. We learn. We adapt. Some do it better than others, They procreate. We evolve. You have not validated the existence of "reproductive rights". "A religion" is defined by a religious institution. "Religion" are the beliefs that one personally adopts to guide them in living their life. I would submit that most persons readily understand the difference. The First Amendment refers to "religion" and not "a religion". Long ago, for reasons best understood by those who did, they referred to it as a separation of "church and state". More correctly, it is "religion and state". Keep in mind that agnostic.com provides the means for one to share their thinking freely and openly. One’s learning experiences, the beliefs that they hold, the questions that they ask, and how they relate facts enable some to perceive things that others do not. We know what we know. We don't know what we don 't know. The more we learn the more we learn that there is more to learn.

@SunshineEast Good luck with your nonsense beliefs. Doubt they'll get much traction on this site.

What is it that we all adopt to guide us in living life? Is the Golden Rule a belief? Some need a God in their life. Some don't. Is God a belief? Is the "Creator" a belief? The existence of planet Earth suggests that there is a "Creator". How does one measure "the ability to think critically"? We are born with the ability to reason inductively.