Their mentor was attacked. Now young OB-GYNs may leave Indiana One of the residents spoke after a few harsh moments of silence: "How's Dr. Bernard doing?" "Bernard is actually in really good spirits. I mean, relatively," Scott answered. "She has 24/7 security, has her own lawyer." They're referring to Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indiana abortion provider and one of the physicians who trains residents at this university hospital. Bernard was recently caught in a political whirlwind after she spoke to a reporter about an abortion she provided to a 10-year-old rape victim who crossed the state line from Ohio. The doctor was the target of attacks from pundits and political leaders on national television, including Indiana's attorney general. The vitriol hit home for this group of residents. Bernard has been a mentor for most of them for years. Many of these young doctors were certain they wanted to practice in Indiana after training. Lately, some have felt more ambivalent. "Watching what [Dr. Bernard] went through was scary," said Dr. Beatrice Soderholm, a fourth year OB-GYN resident and one of Bernard's mentees. "I think that was part of the point for those who were putting her through that. [It] was to scare other people out of doing the work that she does."
The more famous phrase used today comes from the King James Version: “Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.”
That's not him weighing in on what the law should be, though. In fact, he's saying the opposite, that religious matters don't concern civil ones and vis versa.
1. Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's.This was when the Pharisees tries to trap Him. Context is key here. He is saying teo things. One you cited above, but the second is that the things of God are above and separate from human law. One could easily argue that Jesus stance on children, the "least of these" , could lead one to believe that He thinks the right to life should trump man made law. 2. He saved a woman taken under law to be executed. (He chose human life over the law).
See above. I actually think he is saying that the earthly ones are trivial compared to the Godly ones. Jesus would have certainly considered an unborn human to be of God. Not something that the state could just impose death upon any more than he thought that laws should lead to the adulterer being stoned to death.
And @PerSeGator please dont take my answers as dismissive of yours, because these are both debated topics of scripture even among theologians. I fully understand where your question is coming from. What I dont see from the scriptures is how someone can say that Jesus "would be pro choice". I see nothing to back that up.
I agree that on balance it seems likely that Jesus would oppose abortions of convenience on a moral/ethical/religious level. But again, there is a big gulf between saying "you should not do x" and "the civil government should prohibit you from doing x." In my reading, Jesus put the onus on the individuals to conform to his teachings through their own free will, rather than relying on state power to force the ordering of society according to his vision. That is the perspective most (although certainly not all) pro choice people share. If asked, I would probably not advise anyone to get an abortion. But I am also not willing to mandate that anyone follow my advice.
The difference is that the state isn't imposing death in an abortion. I agree, there is no chance that Jesus would be in favor of state enforced abortions. But that is a different question than should the government outlaw it for individuals or whether a fundamentally philosophical and theological question should be judged by the state rather than by God.
I'm not sure this is exactly Roe v Wade, but this is the abortion thread, so I'll put it here. Twisted Florida Ruling Says Pregnant Teen Isn’t ‘Mature’ Enough for Abortion However, Judges Harvey Jay and Rachel Nordby wrote in the main decision that the trial court found the teen “had not established by clear and convincing evidence that she was sufficiently mature to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy.” Florida statute “allows for a remand to the trial court with instructions for a further ruling, but no such remand is warranted here,” they declared. “The trial court’s order and findings are neither unclear nor lacking such that a remand would be necessary for us to perform our review under the statute.” The case hinged upon 2020’s Parental Notice of and Consent for Abortion Act, which makes it a third-degree felony for a doctor to terminate a pregnancy of “an unemancipated minor without the required consent.” According to Human Rights Watch, the majority of young people “voluntarily involve a parent or another trusted adult in their abortion decision, even if the law doesn’t require it. But for those who don’t—often because they fear abuse, deterioration of family relationships, being kicked out of the home, or being forced to continue a pregnancy—laws like Florida’s pose a barrier to their care.”
So they said that she wasn’t mature enough to decide on having an abortion but she is mature enough to have a baby.
Try this one Louisiana Woman Is Forced Carry Headless Fetus to Term or Travel to Florida for Legal Abortion
Geez, that sounds terrible. I guess they now know what it is like to be Christian in the current incarnation of the USA. Well, not quite because we haven't reached the civil disobedience (you know, like Jesus did with the Pharisees) stage yet. It is too easy to be on the "nice" side of the equation rather than the "this is NOT God's plans for humanity" side. And besides, we built all those nice, shiny pointy-topped building to show God and all how much we "believe" and if we let some, um, less-than-civil folks burn them down (like they do in those other "misunderstood" countries) well then God may not give us what we desire: prestige and exclusivity. Shame they have some poopie-face people who are voicing their opinions in uncivil ways in Indiana. I can assist by showing them all the dance routines the Christian Church has built over the past 2000 years or so.
Not that surprising. When they campaigned against virtually all forms of government health insurance going back to Medicare in the early '60s Republicans have warned that politicians would insert themselves in the doctor patient relationship. They actually had it right only it's been Republicans who are doing so. First, legislating care for transgender children and following Dobbs are now deciding that they know better than a patient's doctor when an abortion is medically necessary and as previously mentioned their obsession with the abortion issue is making it difficult for patients to obtain drugs which have multiple therapeutic uses because they can also be used as abortifacients.
