The law doesn't work like that. Most offenses are prosecuted by the state, but there is a federal law that protects fetuses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

People and organizations that obey lobbying laws are allowed to donate their money how they see fit. If you are wanting to limit the free speech of the religious, because you don't like what they have to say, then you are coming up against the First Amendment.

Ok, do you think Islam should be able to donate money to a political cause in the matter of abortion? National Security, National Defence, Civil rights, gay marriage or gay rights? I don't!!! I think muslims should!!!

Islam is a relgion, it can't do anything.

Muslims and Mosques should be allowed to use their donations / votes for whatever they want, so long as it's legal. Same goes for any church or people.

Thanks for the insight. Ive got to go but will differently touch base on this again. May even get more insight from others??? Thanks everyone for the civility This thread is second on hits on this page to legalizing Pot!!!

The key problem, as I see it, is the point of “biological separation.” In other words, when do cells cease to be a part of one human body and become a totally separate human body in their own right?

In the sense of physical separation, that point could only be defined as when the umbilical cord is severed (or when the placenta is delivered if the cord is never severed.)

Any other definition for that “point of biological separation” is subject to hair-splitting debate.

And even then, real issue is one of responsibility.

How much responsibility does one have, or should one take, for the physical health of a human body that is not one’s own? When does that responsibility start? When does that responsibility end? How much responsibility should one take and why? And most importantly from the standpoint of ethics, who should be taking that responsibility? The state? The pregnant mother?

One last philosophical question that I find fascinating from the standpoint of ethics: If the state can assume responsibility for the body after conception, (which it does by passing and enforcing laws) how can the state refuse responsibility for the conception itself?

The scientists and theologians will never agree on when it starts, IMO.

And I don't think either will ever know for sure.

Thus, by default, the lawyers get to decide.

That's a scary thought.

Walks in accidentally and runs screaming for the door

basically what i mean is

if abortion is legal

and a fetus is not considered a life

then if something happens to the fetus causing termination

then there should be no penalty for the losing of the non life involved

or if their is a life involved then the abortion should not be permitted if the unborn fetus is a life

to say fetus a is manslaughter because it was terminated in a car crash

and to say fetus b is not a life and is terminated by abortion is a double standard

also if the fetus is a non life why should the non life be permitted to come to full term if the adults involved are not responsible enough to care for all the costs involved at the time of incubation

i am not condoning mandatory abortion i am asking why should the public have to pay all the bills for it if it is a non life

choice is turning it into a cash cow i know several women that have children for the sole purpose of receiving the child support payments (and no i am not a victim of one of them)

if you take away the choice of if it is a life or not then clarity will come to the forefront

it either is or it is not a life

the double standard needs to be done away with

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

this again see page 4 4 link

who is the creator of you

your parents create you upon conception

so the unborn are endowed by their creator (the egg and the sperm donors) when those human biological organisms come together they create a life

it does not say anything other than creator it could be considered a God but does God create that new tv show (i think not)

and what of those that do not believe in a God does that mean they have no creator (i think not)
-----------------------

cre·a·tor Listen to the pronunciation of creator
Pronunciation:
\krē-ˈā-tər\
Function:
noun
Date:
13th century

: one that creates usually by bringing something new or original into being ; especially capitalized : god 1

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creator

-----------------------

not one that creates so if you get really technical the woman by permitting sexual intercourse permits the creation of (thus being the creator of) the next life combination of the male and female donors

-----------------------

upon the mother creating this life she becomes the Creator thu passing on the the creation

""""""""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.""""""""""

so the question becomes how much weight does the declaration of independence carry in the legal field

------------------------

just a thought

but hey

what do i know

killed another one

i am so good at that

"Islam is a relgion, it can't do anything.

Muslims and Mosques should be allowed to use their donations / votes for whatever they want, so long as it's legal. Same goes for any church or people."........ Im slow so plz humor me. At what point does a church become that religion? Is a nation chapter of that church considered a church or part of that religion? Should a national chapter be allowed to donate to support state policy? Where does the Catholic religion not become a church and be considered a "Religion"? At the local church?, state chapters?, or the Vatican?

Plz read the orginal topic!! I am not attacking anyone's religion or sexuality,just trying to understand it since it is brought into political debates on abortion all the time.....I think peoples sexuality is attacted all the time by the church! Would you like to debate gay marriage?

Islam isn't a single monolithic religion, Catholicism is. Every Catholic church is but a branch of a larger organization. They have a hierarchy of command from the local level up to the world level (Pope). The Catholic Church can act as a local, regional or world organization. Islam is a series of unconnected Mosques, without centralized leadership.

This isn't hard to understand: If an organization, group or individual stays within the law, then I support their use of freedom of speech. So while I oppose gay marriage, I believe that individuals, organizations and religions should be able to lobby for both sides. In the same way, Islamic organizations, mosques and individuals should have the right to use their political speech (donations) and public speech how they choose so long as they obey the law.

Well,I see a lot of people who worship and call themselves catholic but have distance themselves from the church. Where does true "freedom of religion" come into play?

You said it yourself "have distance themselves from the church".

A church can't make political donations without losing their tax exempt status. They have to be careful what statement they make.

"A church can't make political donations without losing their tax exempt status."...I beleive you hit the nail on the head! What gives a "Church" the right to donate to a "State" policy on gay marriage? I think all Churchs, non-profits, and Bussiness shouldnt be able to. Do they Yes! Does it make it right NO! Just think of the power that would give "Your Vote".