Roe v Wade Overturned

A worthy interjection.

For scholarly consideration by those intent on following biblical decrees -
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/

"An unborn fetus in Jewish law is not considered a person (Heb. nefesh, lit. “soul”) until it has been born. The fetus is regarded as a part of the mother’s body and not a separate being until it begins to egress from the womb during parturition (childbirth). In fact, until forty days after conception, the fertilized egg is considered as “mere fluid.” These facts form the basis for the Jewish legal view on abortion. Biblical, ic, and rabbinic support for these statements will now be presented."

There's much in this article to consider, but will quote these last paragraphs closing the linked article -

"Turning to talmudic sources, the asserts the following: “If a woman is having difficulty in giving birth [and her life is in danger], one cuts up the fetus within her womb and extracts it limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over that of the fetus. But if the greater part was already born, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another.”

"Rabbi Yom Tov Lippman Heller, known as Tosafot Yom Tov, in his commentary on this passage in the Mishnah, explains that the fetus is not considered a nefesh until it has egressed into the air of the world and, therefore, one is permitted to destroy it to save the mother’s life. Similar reasoning is found in Rashi’s commentary on the talmudic discussion of this mishnaic passage, where Rashi states that as long as the child has not come out into the world, it is not called a living being, i.e., nefesh. Once the head of the child has come out, the child may not be harmed because it is considered as fully born, and one life may not be taken to save another.

"The Mishnah elsewhere states: “If a pregnant woman is taken out to be executed, one does not wait for her to give birth; but if her pains of parturition have already begun [lit. she has already sat on the birth stool], one waits for her until she gives birth.” One does not delay the execution of the mother in order to save the life of the fetus because the fetus is not yet a person (Heb. nefesh), and judgments in Judaism must be promptly implemented. The Talmud also explains that the embryo is part of the mother’s body and has no identity of its own, since it is dependent for its life upon the body of the woman. However, as soon as it starts to move from the womb, it is considered an autonomous being (nefesh) and thus unaffected by the mother’s state. This concept of the embryo being considered part of the mother and not a separate being recurs throughout the Talmud and rabbinic writings."

Deathblows to a Pregnant Woman – What Restitution Was Required?

Deathblows to a Pregnant Woman – What Restitution Was Required?
When a man accidentally kills a pregnant woman in a brawl, Exodus requires him to pay “life for a life.” This is generally understood as either capital punishment or monetary repayment. Its legal formulation in context, however, suggests substitution, i.e., the offender has to hand over a woman from his own family.

 

Romans 13 certainly justifies the state's use of the death penalty for murderers. No question. It does not matter who the murderer is. God is not a respecter of persons.

You certainly could take things to extremes, but if something is unbiblical then it is unbiblical. If you want to be unbiblical, then that is your choice. Nonetheless, the apostles said, "It is better to obey God, than it is to obey men." So. there is a place for civil disobedience when the state oversteps its bounds and orders a person to disobey God. That civil disobedience does not rebuke the state for the times that it rightfully fulfills its role as God's servant by wielding the sword to administer God's wrath against wrongdoers.

I used the same word the Bible does..."wrongdoers." The government is supposed to punish wrongdoers as Romans 13 says. Since the baker is not a wrongdoer, the government has committed evil in God's eyes by punishing good as if it was evil.

Are you making an equivalence between the baker and a woman who gets an abortion? Are you saying that abortion is not murder?

Everything has an appointed time. The appointed time for judgment was not at the very moment that Jesus was being crucified. Jesus had another appointment He had to keep, and that was to settle accounts with God over the sins of His people. Jesus was receiving the rightful punishment that a sinner deserves.

Nonetheless, you have missed something else very important that happened at the cross that pertains to our discussion. Jesus also possessed the power to call the angels down from heaven to remove the men on his left and on his right from their crosses. Jesus did not do that. But what did Jesus do? He told the thief on the cross "today you will be with me in paradise." So, Jesus offered eternal life to the man, but His grace did not overthrow civil justice.

So, did Jesus ask of God to forgive those who had crucified Him? Yes, He did, but that was a prayer that had to do with God Himself judging them. It is a prayer that we will not see fully realized until the future day of judgment, and we will see on the day of judgment how that prayer was answered.

Now, having said that...What do you do with Ecclesiastes 8:11?

Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil. -Ecclesiastes 8:11
​

Here in lies the rub. Back in 60's and 70's we had an opportunity as a country to execute the sentence on evildoers for their evil deeds and do it speedily. We failed to do this, and now look what has happened. We are the children, the grandchildren, the great grandchildren, and the great great grandchildren of that generation. What the Bible said would happen actually happened. The hearts of the children of the 60's and 70's became fully set to do evil. Then those children discipled the grandchildren to have hearts fully set to do evil. And now the grandchildren are discipling the great grandchildren to have hearts that are fully set to do evil.

We know from history that once this happens to a society it is not easily reversed. It is already happened once in this country with respect to slavery. We did not properly punish slavery when we could have in its infancy, and then the hearts of several generations of Americans were fully set to do evil. We need to do now what we did with slavery. Abortion needs to be universally outlawed, except when it is done in rare cases to preserve life, and then the legal punitive mechanisms need to be restored to what they always should have been. Half the population having hearts set to do evil is not an excuse. Evil is evil regardless of how many people support it, and it needs to be punished.

Being deceived...that is a strong claim. Yes, Christ is Redeemer. Yes, all who come to Him will in no wise be cast out. Yes, eternal life is offered to all will come to Christ in faith in repentance. You are absolutely correct about this.

Nonetheless, Jesus will say to many, "Depart from me. I never knew you." He will crush the nations with a rod iron as Psalm 2 says He will. Jesus will tread the great winepress of the wrath of God. Jesus will wield the sword of His mouth against the ungodly. He will personally preside over the eternal torment of the ungodly (Revelation 14:9-11).

We cannot let one aspect of God's character blot out another aspect of his character. Jesus is both redeemer and judge, simultaneously. He is gracious, merciful, and just simultaneously. His grace is not opposed to His justice. Both need to be upheld by any true follower of Christ, and we bear false witness against Christ when we present His grace as being opposed to His wrath or justice.

My daughter if she murdered an unborn child would be held to a higher standard because she would know better. She would be taught about the nature of abortion. If she commits the act of murder, then she rightfully should be called a murderer. And she should be judged before the civil law as a murderer. I would still share the gospel with her that she can still be forgiven and clothed with the robes of Christ's righteousness in the final judgment if she repents and calls on the name of the Lord. Her hope at that point would be the hope of the thief on the cross. She would have as much eternal hope as I presently have if she called upon the name of the Lord, but she would have to pay the temporal earthly price of her actions. If I knew she had called upon the name of the Lord afterwards, then I would support the fulfillment of civil justice against her, but I would look forward to spending eternity with her. I would be at peace knowing that like the thief on the cross she paid the price for her actions, but the very moment she died she would be with Jesus in paradise.

 

The rights to define justice belong not to Karl Marx, Margaret Sanger, democracy, the Democratic Party, or any other man. Justice belongs to Jesus Christ.

 

And Jesus Christ isn't here. You don't speak for Jesus Christ. So you can live your life the way you think Jesus wanted you to, and the rest of us can live our lives according to our belief systems. What you're not going to do is use our government to force your religious beliefs on the rest of us at the threat of death.

 

So how is your vision of the law different than Sharia law? Do you believe in separation of church and state?

 

Going to answer this in the best way I know how.

In the creation account found in the Torah, God said:

Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. -Genesis 1:26a
​

And then Genesis says:

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them. -Genesis 1:27​

We see that the Torah teaches us that whatever God's image is, that is what is most foundational to humanity. And there are two subcategories of humanity, male and female. The physical characteristics tell you which subcategory of human being God created us as. And we know from biology that our identity as male or female image bearers of God is determined the day we are conceived by our chromosomes.

Then we move forward to the time of Noah, and God speaks to Noah after God destroyed the violent inhabitants of the earth. We know Cain was the first murderer of mankind, and it is stated that the pre-flood world committed much violence like Cain did. God then, after the flood, reveals to Noah that the shedding of innocent blood is forbidden, but He quotes what He previously said in Genesis 1 that man was made in God's image. Notice God could have quoted anything that was previously written, including the portion of Genesis 2 that speaks of the breath of life. He says nothing of the breath of life or the physical characteristics of man, but God speaks of the image of God in man:

Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image. -Genesis 9:6
​

Using God's own words, then, God's image in man, is what makes man uniquely man. God's image is what differentiates man from the beasts, the livestock, and flying creatures. That is the key characteristic that makes murder murder. So, we would not say for instance that killing a chicken and making a chicken sandwich is murder because chickens don't possess the image of God. A chicken breathes and has breath in its lungs, but an animal possessing oxygen in the lungs does not make an animal in God's image.

What is inherently important to this question, then, is what is the image of God? We know that God is spirit (John 4:24). God does not possess a body. What makes something in the image of God, then, is not something that is a physical characteristic. So, it must be the immaterial part of a person then that makes the person a man. It is the soul or the spirit or some characteristic of the soul or spirit that makes a man in God's image.

This is where pro-abortion arguments fall short. Arguments about viability, heartbeats, breath in the lungs, etc they are all physical, biological arguments that have nothing to do with the image of God.

What do we know of God? God is love. God is holy. God is righteous. God is just. God is kind. God is merciful. God is truth. God is compassionate. God is patient. God is long suffering. God is zealous. God is faithful. God is joyful...

This is not an exhaustive list and maybe I didn't list some things. However, when the Bible is speaking of the image of God in man these are the ways in which Adam and Eve were made like God. These are the kinds of things that are implied when the Bible says Adam and Eve were made in God's image. They fell from a state of perfection, but their character was Christ-like when they were made. That character is severely marred by the fall of man, but we can see severely marred expressions of these things in human beings today.

When we examine the unborn they may have limited capacity to do the things we do, but character is not a function of biological, mental, or neural development. A person with good character can be in a coma, and the coma doesn't change who they are on the inside. If you murder someone in a coma, then you are a murderer. The coma does not change that. The same is true of the unborn. They may not have developed the physical, the biological, or the mental function that we have, but the invisible part of who they are is there. That is why it is wrong to kill them, and that is why eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth applies to the unborn in various places in the Torah. The Torah recognizes them as full persons.

Exodus 21:12-32 has a list of civil applications of the 6th commandment, "Thou shalt not murder." An examination of that list makes it extremely clear that the Torah granted the fetus equivalent rights to a person. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life was a standard that applied to a fully human person. So, the Torah definitely recognizes the personhood of the fetus.

There is further evidence that speaks to this issue, though. The Hebrew word for womb is רֶחֶם, rehem, but it is derived from רָחַם, raham, which means to love, love deeply, have mercy, be compassionate, have tender affection, have compassion. Another word for womb is רַחַם, also raham, and it can be translated as womb, mercy, compassion...and these words carry with them very positive ideas of love and compassion towards the fetus. It is implied in the very word itself that the fetus is to be cherished, loved, had mercy on, and to receive tender affection.

The womb is a baby's home for several months of its life, and these are things that we would want to be true of our homes. We would hope our homes could be described as places of love, mercy, compassion, tender affection, places where we cherish one another. We strive for our preschool and kindergarten classes in this country to also have these characteristics, and we consider it a monstrous crime to enter into one of those loving, compassionate classrooms and kill those who reside there. Likewise, it is also monstrous to enter into a loving, compassionate, merciful home and kill the people who live there. Horrible crime. And that is exactly what abortion is. It is going into a home filled with love, peace, compassion, and mercy with instruments of death and killing the innocent who reside there. There is absolutely no moral defense for it.

 

Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. -Genesis 1:26a

Did god have elves?

 

I have said that the state exists to administer person to person justice. So, laws primarily are focused on fair treatment between people when one person has mistreated another person. Laws should also focus on the government and other institutions fairly treating people.

So, that means freedom of religion up to a certain point. You can practice secular humanism freely as long as you don't harm others. So, no abortion. An Islamic fundamentalist could practice his religion as long he doesn't harm others. So no religious killing. A Satanist could practice his religion as long as he doesn't harm others. So, no human sacrifice or whatever it is that Satanists do. A witch could practice her religion as long as she doesn't harm others. A homosexual or a transexual could practice their lifestyles as long they don't harm anyone. When you harm other innocent people that is where your freedom ends.

Harming others I would broadly define by the 10 commandments. Every person ought to be free to practice all 10 commandments, but the person to person aspects of the 10 commandments can be summarized in commandments 5 through 9. Obedience to parents (laws acknowledging parental rights), murder (right to life and other laws that protect life), adultery (laws regulating marriage and divorce), theft (laws relating to stealing, property rights), bearing false witness (laws relating to injustices caused by lying).

The 10th commandment is covetousness, which is a sin of the heart, so there is no political application there. When covetousness is acted upon by the hands and feet it is a violation of one of the other commandments.

Honestly, it is nothing even close to Sharia. It is kind of what we currently live under in many ways. The framework I am talking about is where English common law is derived from. So, it wouldn't be a theocracy at all. It would simply be a moral government that allows you freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom to pursue your own happiness within the confines of treating the people around you fairly. Totally different than Sharia.

 

Ironic that you'd mention English common law. It allowed abortion prior the quickening (generally, between 15 and 20 weeks). That was the law of the land here in America at our founding too. So no, the framework you're talking about is not the same. You're talking about "conservative" Christians killing other people because we refuse to submit to your religious views. That's not freedom of religion.

 

Siding on the other side of the fence on one law does not mean that my framework is different. It simply means there is a difference of opinion on how the framework is applied. The impact of the latter half of the 10 commandments is undeniable in English common law.

 

Report: Roberts tried to persuade rest of Supreme Court to keep Roe v. Wade in place (msn.com)

Roberts signaled during oral arguments in December that he wasn't keen to knock down the 1973 precedent that established a constitutional right to abortion. He reiterated the point in a concurrence when the ruling landed in June. Roberts supported upholding Mississippi's ban on most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, but did not see the need to target Roe.

The internal dynamics were reinforced by CNN reporting Tuesday. Citing unnamed sources, the network reported Roberts had tried to convince his colleagues to join his more limited approach to the abortion decision – and failed. The report raises the prospect that the dramatic leak of a draft opinion weeks earlier didn't help Roberts' effort.

 

If that article exposes anything, it is how dishonest John Roberts is. You cannot uphold the Mississippi law without overturning Roe and Casey. What Roberts wanted to do was overturn Roe and Casey without admitting he did to avoid the political blowback on the GOP. In that scenario, he'd uphold the Mississippi law, pretend that didn't necessarily overturn Roe and Casey, and offer no real guidance on what the lower courts would do.

In doing that, he would wink and nod to Republican "judges" to uphold abortion bans. And then, in the future, he and the others would explicitly overrule Roe when it wouldn't do as much damage to Republicans right before an election. Roberts had no interest in keeping Roe. He wanted the same outcome as the rest of the Republicans. He simply wanted to be more deliberate in how he dismantled reproductive rights.

 

In addition, the leak came from Clarence/Ginni Thomas.

 

She needed an abortion to survive. Texas was ready to let her die with her baby

Her baby was going to die. It was highly likely that she was also going to die. The state of Texas refused to do anything.
Instead, the only option for Kailee DeSpain was to make the 10-hour drive to New Mexico to have an abortion to save her life and then to have the ashes of the son that she and her husband so desperately wanted shipped back home in the mail.

This is the reality of America in 2022.
“My doctors said to me: ‘We’re going to be blunt – you have to be dying on the table and we have to be able to prove that before we can intervene,’” Ms DeSpain tells The Independent.

“Texas doesn’t have a law that covers the time period from the moment the doctor finds out there are complications to the moment the complications actually start. They have to allow the complications to start and just hope it’s not too late.”

 

smdh..just a matter of time until companies start leaving these states when they can't recruit enough quality employees due to this type of BS

 

This appears to be a different woman with a similar experience

A wanted pregnancy, in which her water broke at 18 weeks and she had to wait and risk infection (which occurred), risking her own life, and eventually had to give birth to a stillborn, with her life at stake, because medical providers were afraid they would be sued if they followed protocol to save her life by terminating a nonviable pregnancy that still had a heartbeat


"At first I was really enraged at the hospital and administration," she says. "To them my life was not in danger enough."

Their conundrum became painfully, distressingly clear: wait to get sicker, or wait until the fetal heartbeat ceased. Either way, she saw nothing ahead but fear and grief — prolonged, delayed, amplified.

"That's torture to to have to carry a pregnancy which has such a low chance of survival," says Dr. Peaceman. "Most women would find it extremely difficult and emotionally very challenging. And that's a big part of this problem, when we as physicians are trying to relieve patients' suffering. They're not allowed to do that in Texas."

Later on, Elizabeth said she realized that her anger at Methodist was misplaced. "It wasn't that the Methodist Hospital was refusing to perform a service to me simply because they didn't want to, it was because Texas law ... put them in a position to where they were intimidated to not perform this procedure."



Because of Texas abortion law, her wanted pregnancy became a medical nightmare

 

There will be hundreds and thousands of this story, the details will all be a little different, but the common theme will be that women are suffering needlessly.

 

Interesting judicial race in Hillsborough County that is a quasi-referendum on Roe that Wm. March summarizes today.

Judge Jared Smith is up for re-election. The race became a referendum on Roe after an otherwise sealed decision by Smith was appealed and reversed. Here is a very brief summary

Smith ruled against a 17-year-old seeking an abortion without parental consent, citing her C-average grades, courtroom demeanor and lack of proof of maturity. An appeals court overturned the ruling, saying he had misinterpreted evidence.

He drew an opponent, a rarity for a sitting judge, Nancy Jacobs, a Jewish lawyer. The race has turned religious on Roe.

Smith, a deacon at politically conservative Idlewild Baptist Church, has injected a religious tone into his reelection campaign, including what supporters of his challenger, Nancy Jacobs, who is Jewish, call anti-Semitism.


Smith, meanwhile, is making campaign appearances in local Christian churches. In one such appearance, Smith stood with his wife, Suzette Smith, while she told the crowd he wants to deliver the message that, “I’m a believer, I’m a judge and I’m a Christian,” and portrayed the campaign as a religious crusade aided by God, who “fights the battle for us.”

Asked by an audience member about a possible ethics complaint against Jacobs, Suzette Smith said that was possible but the commission is “really slow to take action.”

“We pray for her. She needs Jesus,” Smith said. “To deny God and to deny the Bible is a person that’s — the heart is very hard toward God.”
Judicial race has darts flying in both directions - Tampa Bay Times

 

Month old article, but just as good today as it was a month ago. The main idea...Christians should rejoice over the destruction of Roe in the same way the Rebel Alliance rejoiced over the destruction of the Death Star. It should put a smile on all of our faces, and it is a day in history to be remembered.

Do you remember the climactic scene from the original Star Wars movie?

Luke Skywalker is flying his X-wing starfighter through a maze of trenches along the surface of the Death Star. After narrowly escaping one attack after another from the Empire, Luke is about to be shot down by Darth Vader. But just in the nick of time, Han Solo and Chewbacca swoop down in the Millennium Falcon and bounce Darth Vader. Luke fires two torpedoes down the thermal exhaust port, and a few seconds later, the Death Star is blown apart. What had seemed impossible to almost everyone was now a reality. The Death Star was gone.

I’m sure you remember what comes next. As soon as Luke returned his X-wing to the hangar, he was greeted by muted celebration. One of the other pilots reminded Luke there was still a lot of work to do to make the galaxy safe for hurting people everywhere. A member of the Rebel Alliance asked Luke when he was going to subdue the violent Sand People on his home planet of Tatooine. Another friend advised Luke that many people in the galaxy were devastated by the news about the Death Star and that perhaps a time of listening was in order.

As you recall, Luke wasn’t the only one with questions to answer. Many friends of the Alliance questioned Han’s character. He was a smuggler and a cynic, and many wondered whether he was only motivated by the promise of a reward. Throughout the Rebel fleet, they gave thanks for the work R2-D2 and C-3PO had done, but they also said it would all be for naught if they didn’t do something about the oppressive Jawa droid ring they had left behind. Some concerned voices asked Princess Leia whether she thought the Rebels had the maturity to receive this victory or whether the problem in the galaxy might really lie with her own people. And Chewbacca? People weren’t sure what he was saying, but he seemed angry.​

When Roe was overturned | WORLD (wng.org)