A reader who calls him/herself Quickwrit explains why the Supreme Court’s recent decision on abortion is wrong.
The Bible is silent on abortion:
The 9th Amendment gives Clarence Thomas the constitutional right to live in an interracial marriage and gives women the constitutional right to abortion: The 9th Amendment says that rights do not have to be stated in the Constitution in order to be rights: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Americans have long claimed to right to and the practice of abortion. Benjamin Franklin, key Founding Father of America, shaper and signer of our Constitution, published a handbook titled “The American Instructor” that featured a long, detailed section on do-it-yourself abortion and conception prevention. The book was very popular throughout America and the prevention of and termination of pregnancies was widely practiced throughout America, especially in rural areas where an unwanted pregnancy could mean financial ruin in those days.
The current Supreme Court ruling on abortion not only violates the 9th Amendment, it violates the religious rights of many citizens: The Bible gives commandments on a very, very long list of more than 600 laws on everything from divorce to gluttony — yet the Bible says nothing about abortion. Why is that? If abortion was even as important as gluttony, it would have been mentioned in the Bible.
But,the Bible is silent on abortion: Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, which includes the 10 Commandments, NONE — not one — comments on abortion. In fact, the Mosaic law in Exodus 21:22-25 clearly shows that causing the abortion of a fetus is NOT MURDER. Exodus 21:22-25 says that if a woman has a miscarriage as the result of an altercation with a man, the man who caused miscarriage should only pay a fine that is to be determined by the woman’s husband, but if the woman dies, the man is to be executed: “If a man strives with a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet there is no harm to the woman, he shall be punished according to what the woman’s husband determines and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if the woman dies, then it shall be life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” Ex. 21:22-25. So, the Bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being — the mother — but not for the death of a fetus, indicating that the fetus is not yet a human being.
There are Christian denominations that allow abortion in most instances; these denominations include the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church USA. The United Methodist Church and Episcopal churches allow abortion in cases of medical necessity, and the United Universalist Association also allows abortion.
Most of the opposition to abortion comes from fundamentalist and evangelical Christians who believe that a full-fledged human being is created at the instant of conception. In short — it is a religious BELIEF and religious beliefs cannot be recognized by the government under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of our Constitution. Moreover, the belief that a fetus is a human person, complete with a soul, is a Christian interpretation of the Jewish Bible — the Old Testament. But, Jewish scholars whose ancestors wrote the Old Testament and who know best what the words mean say that is a wrong interpretation of their writings.
Christians largely base their view that a fetus is a complete human being and that abortion is murder on the Jewish Bible’s Psalm 139: “You knit me together in my mother’s womb…You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born.”
Who better to translate the meaning of Psalm 139 than the Jews who wrote it? And Jewish scholars point out that Psalm 139 merely describes the development of a fetus and does not mean that the fetus has a soul and is a person. In fact, the Jewish Talmud explains that for the first 40 days of a woman’s pregnancy, the fetus is considered “mere fluid” and is just part of the mother’s body, like an appendix or liver. Only after the fetus’s head emerges from the womb at birth is the baby considered a “nefesh” – Hebrew for “soul” or “spirit” – a human person.
I am not pro-abortion — I am PRO-CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, and until a fetus is in its 24th week of development the mother has the unquestionable constitutional right to decide what happens to the fetus. After the 24th week, society may have a legitimate legal interest in the fetus. What that interest is, to what extent it reaches, and how to encode that interest into law isn’t easy and will require a great deal of debate in society in general and in Congress, not the states, because it is a national constitutional right that is being dealt with.
THE COURT BENDS THE FACTS: The University of London scientist whose research is cited by the Supreme Court in its ruling to take away abortion rights says that his research has been misinterpreted by Justice Alito and the Supreme Court’s activist conservative majority. Neuroscientist Dr. Giandomenico Iannetti says that the Court is ABSOLUTELY WRONG to say that his research shows that a fetus can feel pain when it is less than 24 weeks of development. “My results by no means imply that,” Dr. Iannetti declares. “I feel they were used in a clever way to make a point.” And Dr. John Wood, molecular neurobiologist at the University, points out that all serious scientists agree that a fetus can NOT feel pain until at least 24 weeks “and perhaps not even then.” Dr. Vania Apkarian, head of the Center for Transitional Pain Research at Chicago’s Feinberg School of Medicine, says that the medical evidence on a fetus not feeling pain before 24 weeks or longer has not changed in 50 years and remains “irrefutable”.
LIFE OF WOE: In its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling upholding abortion rights, the Supreme Court set “viability” — the point at which a fetus can survive outside of the womb — as the dividing line after which some restrictions can be imposed on abortion rights. The pending ruling by current activist conservative majority on the Court will do away with the concept of viability, yet even with all of today’s medical miracles to keep a prematurely born or aborted fetus alive, of all the tens of thousands of cases, 90% OF FETUSES BORN AT 22 WEEKS DO NOT SURVIVE, and data shows that the majority of those that manage to be kept alive live the rest of their lives with a combination of BIRTH DEFECTS that include mental impairment, cerebral palsy, breathing problems, blindness, deafness, and other disorders that often require frequent hospitalizations during their lifetimes.
The Supreme Court is infallible until a subsequent Supreme Court rules they’re not, no matter the brilliance of the decent, five votes determines the “truth.”
We can overturn a SCOTUS by electing a sympathetic president and Senate.
The polling place determines SCOTUS decisions, do you contribute to the “good” electeds? do you work in elections? Responding to likeminded blogs is “feel good,” and futile, “boots on the ground” matters
If not for the Connecticut Compromise and the Electoral College you might have a valid point . .
Anti- abortion fealty is not from Christianity but autocratic dependence. The medieval Roman Catholic Church was not driven by the ministry of Jesus but through a desire to revive the Roman Empire. The sad irony is that fundamentalist protestant denominations that have taken up the anti-abortion mantra conveniently forget that they broke away form the Roman Catholic Church for this reason.
The church was established by Constantine to bring order to the chaos of competing factions, and it did this with a vengeance, spending the first centuries of its existence rooting out and murdering adherents of the 200 or so competing Christian sects of the time.
…and raising many armies. Go figure…
Exactly, Paul
In the first couple centuries after Christ, there were literally hundreds of different Christian sects that grew up around the memory of the executed provincial rabbi from Nazareth. These had VASTLY different belief systems but all drew extremely heavily on lots and lots of other religious systems that existed at the time. They borrowed heavily from the cults of Isis, Horus, Dionysus, Osiris, Demeter, Mithra, Cybele, Sol Invictus, Ahura Mazda, various other Greek and Roman cults, and so on. We have more than 200 Christian texts from the first couple centuries CE that were NOT included in the official canon recognized by the one sect that Constantine put into power. Things could have been VERY different if a different one of these early Christian sects had secured imperial backing. The many gnostic sects, for example, believed that there were two gods, the bad one of the Old Testament, the Rex Mundi, and the good one of the New Testament. Almost all the central beliefs of these many early Christianities were borrowed from other religions taht were in the air in the first couple centuries CE.
What god was born of a virgin, was attended by shepherds, walked on water, had twelve followers, performed miracles, was referred to as The Way and The Truth and the Good Shepherd and the Lamb of God and The Word, was executed along with two thieves, was resurrected and ascended to heaven? Well, the first of these to whom all these attributes and actions were acredited (there were others) would have been the Egyptian Horus, who had been worshipped for thousands of years before Jesus was born. So, the early Christianities borrowed most of their beliefs–accretions added by the various cults to the story of the executed rabbi.
cx: accredited
I have often wondered if there was an accepted canon required for immortal status. I think Jewish patriarchs have traits similar to Greek and Roman Gods and the Pharisaic/Christian fealty to life after death comes from Persia along with Satan. Ancient religion was very ecumenical.
Well said, Paul!
Are you familiar with the resurrection myth regarding the Sumerian goddess Inanna (later known as Ishtar, finally Aphrodite) and her descent to the Nether World? Her sister hated her, lured her to the Nether World, “crucified” her, was then resurrected after she sacrificed her husband Dumuzi. There is still a Hebrew calendar month of Tammuz and fast day, 17th of Tammuz, possibly linked to this story, resulting in many others that are not myths. Samuel Noah Kramer writes about it in his book, The Sumerians. He seemed to believe that the ancient Hebrews and Jewish people were connected to the Sumerians, even their source. It follows your idea about religions developing with ideas from their predecessors. It’s not as simple as someone, as an act of faith, receiving a message from their god.
YES! I know these. I have long found the story of Inanna’s death particularly fascinating in its details. Many of those attributes or actions that I mentioned are found in many other myths, some even older than the Horus myth. What I was referring to was the concatenation of ALL OF THOSE, not the individual ones. Here are some examples of myths from which parts of the Christ story were taken. In each case, I list the mythical theme, followed by a list of gods with which it was associated:
The life of Jesus as it ended up being told in the four gospels that became part of the canonical Bible made Jesus not a teacher or prophet but the Christ, or anointed one, the promised Messiah of the Jews. And those gospels picked up and repurposed lots and lots of ancient religious motifs from the ambient and varied religious cultures of the first couple of centuries CE–for example,
that he was crucified on a cross (a story told in myths of such gods as the Egyptian god Horus; the Phrygian, the Indian Krishna, The Chaldean Crite, the Phyrgian Atys, the Mesopotamian Dumuzi/Tammuz, the Celtic Hesus, the Orissan Bali, the Tibetan Indra, the Nepalese Iao, the Indian Buddha Sakia, the Persian Mithra, the Greek Dionysus, the Caucasian Prometheus, the Norse Odin, and even the Mexican Quezalcoatl);
that he was a god who took the form of a man and then ascended into heaven (a story told of many gods and men become gods, far too many to list here);
that he died and was resurrected (a central concept of many ancient fertility and solar religions but also found in later polytheistic religions; examples of the latter include the Mesopotamian Inanna and Dumuzi, the Egyptian Osiris and Horus, the Canaanite Baal, the Phrygian Attis, the Greek Dionysus and Adonis and Persephone, and the Roman Mithra);
that he was born of a virgin and at the winter solstice (Tammuz, Osiris, Horus, Attis, Mithra, Heracles, Dionysus, Adonis, Sol Invictus);
and so on.
Of course, the miracles (raising the dead, the multiplication of food, healing the blind and lame and deaf, and so on) and the driving out of demons are found in folktales and myths worldwide from very ancient times, far predating Christianity.
I went there of my own free will.
I went there in my finest gown,
with my rarest jewels,
with my Queen of Heaven crown.
In the Underworld,
at each of the Seven Gates,
I was stripped seven times
of all I thought I was
till I stood bare in who I really am.
–Prayer of Inanna, Sumerian
Both Max Muller and Sir James George Frazer had theories of the origins of religion, worldwide, based in resurrection myths connected with the annual death and resurrection of the sun/son, the consort of the earth mother.
Frazer’s monumental work The Golden Bough contains references to and sometimes elaborate descriptions of literally hundreds of these resurrection myths. It’s a very ancient and ubiquitous motif, long, long predating the invention of the Messiah.
There were no “Gnostic” sects:
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/17119
While the term “Gnostic” was an invention by scholars to describe similar Christian cults from the first couple centuries CE, it is incredibly misleading to say that “There were no “Gnostic” sects. There certainly were sects as described in Hans Jonas’s book The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity. Scholars may differ in whether they wish to lump these together as Gnostic or to treat them as separate, but the fact remains, and this is the point in my essay, that in the first couple centuries after Christ, there were many different, competing Christianities.
But thank you, Allison, for sharing this.
I’m sorry, Allison. I thought that your note was a response to my longer piece, here:
https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2022/05/15/why-is-christianity-so-weird/
The fact that scholars facilely lumped together different groups under a convenient heading is an interesting one. So, again, thank you for that link. But my main point doesn’t hinge upon whether the term Gnostic stands or falls, and that point is that in the first couple centuries CE, there were many differing Christianities, and the religion as it is known today could have taken very different forms (though there are, of course, many variants today with differing dogmas and doctrines).
Thanks for your comment, Paul.
Similar to this post by Quickwrit, almost every view expressed about Roe, rather the opinion is for or against abortion, will omit from identification, the Catholic Church or Catholics. The exception is the organization, Catholics for Choice.
The amount of cover that the Catholic Church gets should alarm everyone who is opposed to theocracy and the Republican agenda.
Informal poll: Would readers here be ok with a federal law guaranteeing a right to abortion up to week 15, with exceptions for the life and health of the mother?
I’m not suggesting that there are enough votes even to bring such a law to a vote in the Senate. But there probably have been in the past, and there might be in the future.
Let’s put the poll another way: Would readers here be ok with a federal law mandating circumcision if that decision is not made with 24 hours of birth? Any decisions made after that would mandate circumcision for public health purposes. Doctors who refused to perform circumcision after the 24 hour grace period are subject to sanctions culminating in loss of licensure.
Your poll question offends me as a man. Not sure how angry I would be if I were a woman, but if someone has a standard, I’m willing to upgrade. This kind of centrism is why truth is a negotiable political commodity today.
I’ll put you down as a “no.”
For once in your life, answer a question without avoidance, distraction, or poor attempts at humor. You pose them all the time. Would some law dictating medical choices for men be limited to time frames?
Greg, you’ve probably asked me 10 questions today. Whenever you ask me a question, I try to answer it, within reason. (E.g., I’m not going to answer five questions posed in a single comment, especially since I’m guaranteed to get yelled at for each answer.) I can’t recall the last time I asked you a question, unless you’re counting questions that I pose to the entire community here, like the one I posed in this thread. Yet over and over I get yelled at for asking everybody questions but never answering any questions myself. Oh well!
Back to my part-time job of answering your questions: I’m not sure I can think of any laws that restrict medical choices by men. Perhaps assisted suicide laws. I believe some countries have laws or regulations that require pre-op consultations for plastic surgery and don’t allow surgery to happen within some timeframe following the consultation. Not sure if any states in the United States have similar laws. There are probably other examples. But if your point is just that men would never accept a law that restricted their ability to obtain medical procedures that are as fundamental to their own sexual functioning as abortion is to women — maybe a vasectomy is somewhere in the ballpark? — I agree with you. I personally would be outraged.
Roe V. Wade was actually a compromise that attempted to define viability beyond the first trimester. For many women, the awareness of pregnancy at 15 weeks hasn’t happened yet.
True. I’m just wondering, now that this is a pure political question and we’re in a world where there are zero abortion rights in several states, what an acceptable political compromise would be for pro-choice voters. 15 weeks seems a lot better to me than 0 weeks.
Flerp-
Going forward, if you want evidence that you don’t hang out with Republican men, you can cite your question as the proof that you don’t.
Uhhh- the prohibition on abortion is about conservative men’s fears that women are/will be promiscuous. Lots of men have made that clear. Granted, the female fronts for anti- abortion groups like the presidents of AUL and National Right to Life don’t say it. But, Robert P. George has cited it as a view held by some men, Ky. Rep. Danny Bentley intimated it and I’ve cited others including clergy, who gave the clue in big print.
In interesting and related info., Rubio is pushing a bill mandating men pay child support from the moment of conception.
I’ve never understood the fear of women being promiscuous. Much of my youth was spent lamenting that women weren’t more promiscuous.
I knew a current state legislator who gave no indication at the time (college dating) that he would, after the age of 55, decide that sexual opportunities should be made more difficult for guys like him back in the day. He was/is mainline protestant. His interest in initiating the state’s heartbeat bill coincided with the end of his decades-long marriage and remarriage to a much longer woman.
A question to help me answer yours at 11:56. If a fertilized cluster of cells mutates but, by some measure designed to indicate life, exists, the doctors agree, once expelled, it has no chance after an estimated period of time, at what point within the 9 mos. of gestation should a D and C procedure be prohibited?
I don’t know the answer to that question.
Roe v. Wade WAS the answer!
Women never had an automatic right to an abortion on demand during the 3rd trimester in Roe v. Wade.
But they did have the right during the first trimester. The middle trimester was a bit murkier.
FLERP!,
Your 15 week suggestion would put the US in the middle of the countries around the world. It is longer than Norway, Denmark, and Switzerland (all at 12 weeks), but shorter than Sweden (18 weeks), New Zealand (20 weeks), or the Netherlands (24 weeks). I think your law would be an acceptable compromise, especially if there was also exceptions for fetal impairment and improved access to healthcare.
Source for abortion laws around the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law
Unless you have a uterus, I don’t think your (or my) view of what an “acceptable compromise” might be matters at all. Or at the very least, it shouldn’t.
TE is a He
Tee hee
He doesn’t have a uterus.
He just likes to speak for those who do.
And by the way, TE
The correct way to say it is ” especially if there were exceptions”
Not “if there was exceptions”
Is that too much to ask kf someone who teaches college level courses?
And not even any exceptions for rape or incest?
Tell us what you really believe, TE
TE– There’s a more comprehensive source for abortion laws in Europe here: https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/European-abortion-law-a-comparative-review.pdf
The 12-18+wks limits you mentioned are for abortion on demand, no questions asked. After that limit expires, abortion is allowed where the life or health of the woman is at risk; sexual assault is also justification, with no requirement to prove that it happened.
The Bible gives commandments on a very, very long list of more than 600 laws on everything from divorce to gluttony — yet the Bible says nothing about abortion.
Maimonades counted the number of commandments in the Jewish law in the Bible at 613. There is, indeed, no law against abortion, and if it had been considered illegal, it definitely would have appeared in the Bible’s legal texts. The word Torah, referring to what are traditionally considered the first five books of the bible, means literally, The Guidance, or the Law.
Wasn’t Onan the first one in history who was serious about birth control? (excepting killing neighbors, or course)
LOL. Funny, Greg. But ofc every prehistoric and early historic culture had its birth control methods and abortifacients. Many, sadly, practiced infanticide. This was extremely widespread worldwide.
Not sure about Onan, but Ooni is a propane fed pizza oven, which reaches 1000 degrees Fahrenheit so it might somehow also work for birth control, eg, if a woman put it in bed between her and a man.
I have an Ooni and used it this weekend. They’re lots of fun! And good.
Those Ooni ovens look awesome. Years ago, in Italy, I visited pizza ovens built into the side of a cliff on Mount Pellegrino that had been in operation for hundreds of years and were still operating. So, so good. I need one of these Oonis. But saving for a bicycle from Amsterdam first.
Travel tip: best pizza in U.S. can be found in Phoenix at Pizza Bianco’s original location. Neapolitan oven made with Neapolitan bricks by Neapolitan artisans after Chris Bianco spent years in Naples learning how to make the best from the best. And he has a wonderful little bar in the building next door. The only reason to travel to Phoenix I can think of, but it’s worth it!
For you, Bob:
Yeah, and God knocked him off, the Genesis appropriate term is slayed, for it. At least that’s what fundamentalist Christians site to resist masturbation.
One of the militants who wants to overthrow the government said, “When God says he’s going to purge you, that means he’s going to cleanse the land through blood.” The quote was part of the package of his “inspirations from the Heavenly Father”.
It’s a shame that there’s no way to put an amorphism on the stand to swear on the Holy Bible that it didn’t intend to incite a riot.
Note to militants: God can create havoc, floods, fires, etc. and he has a get out of jail free card unlike you.
Add to your list of religious groups who have supported choice the Southern Baptist Convention.
Prior to the 1980 coup by Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler, that group passed resolutions at its annual conference in favor of the right to choose, in accordance with its long-standing beliefs in free will, the priesthood of believers, and individual conscience.
The good Christian folk of Flor-uh-duh are firmly against abortion until their teen daughter or mistress gets knocked up.
Or in the case of Elon Musk’s dad, until his daughtstress gets knocked up.
Or of Woody Allen, who chose an unfortunate first name.
Glad you added that, Steve. They passed a resolution promoting access to abortion three times at their conventions during the ’70s. According to my reading, Paul Weyrich began converting evangelist leaders to the anti-abortion cause in ’79. Up until then, anti-abortion was considered [rather disdainfully] as a “Catholic issue.”
Conservative politicians aiming to cement evangelists into Republican party were looking for a new issue around which to rally them, as segregation waning as a “cause.”
Quickwit makes a good argument in support of the 9th Amendment’s application to Roe v. Wade, but political clout is needed to codify it into law. Once the Supreme Court has had its say, the path to change is large numbers of citizens that vote for those that believe in women’s rights and a civil society. We need enough of a margin to make change possible.
I’d have to say that what the Bible says or does not say about abortion is no more relevant in the context of the Constitution than what the Bible says about Adam and Eve is relevant in the context of evolution.
I understand the desire to show the religious folks that even their Bible does not forbid abortion, but the problem is that even talking about the Bible in this context gives it credibility that it does not deserve.
Even if there were an eleventh commandment that said “Thou shalt not abort thy or thy neighbor’s fetus”, what relevance would it have to the Constitution?
Or “Thou shalt not abort thy or thy neighbor’s fetus after the 8th week of pregnancy, except in the case of rape or incest, and only then if Moses was not responsible”
12th Commandment (aimed specifically at Republicans)
“Thou halt not covet thy neighbor’s wife’s fetus”
But Republicans would only have read that to mean fetuses shouldn’t be used for science.
No joking matter
If Eve had used abortion
Would God have struck her down?
Cuz then He’d have to fashion
Another rib from clown
If further Eves aborted
Then other ribs would fly
Till Adam was contorted
And couldn’t be a guy
That was my immediate reaction to this, too.
Thank you, SomeDAM. Exactly
Poet,
Is credibility also front and center when the commenters at this blog write that they oppose SCOTUS” Roe overturn but, won’t identify the religious group that dominated efforts to achieve it, delivered it and who count it as a win emboldening them to take away other rights?
Reblogged this on Lloyd Lofthouse and commented:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say a woman cannot have an abortion. In fact, Deuteronomy 28:53-63 in the Bible says:
53 “You will eat your children, the flesh of your sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you during the siege and hardship your enemy imposes on you.”
So, if there’s a passage in the Bible that says you can eat your children under specific circumstances, it makes sense that there is no passage that says it is wrong to have an abortion.
Your logic is impeccable, Lloyd.
If cannibalism of one’s own children is OK, pretty much anything goes when it comes to one’s own offspring.
Aborting and eating one’s own fetuses? No problem.
You can’t take all of the money from all of the people all of the time …
But you can take a lot of money from all of the people to promote the religion of a few.
The Supreme Court is not right or wrong about abortion because of what some ancient set of myths and legends and legal codes says. It is wrong about abortion because the 14th Amendment reads,
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So, giving states the ability to prevent abortion deprives women of liberty and, sometimes, of life, and makes of them 2nd class citizens whose biology prevents them from receiving equal protection of the laws.
The right not to be deprived of reproductive healthcare is implied by the right not to be deprived of life and liberty and due process and is an example of one of a great many unenumerated rights implied by but not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution that have been recognized to have been implied in the sense of logically following by the Supreme Court and federal courts over the years. It’s the intention of the current Extreme Christian Fundamentalist Court to erase all those unenumerated rights.
The only thing this has to do with the Bible is that the troglodyte block on the Extreme Court is made up of fundamentalist Christians, mostly Catholics. And, of course, anyone who is a fundamentalist Christian is too gullible and lacking in rationality and discernment to be a Supreme Court Justice. That’s like asking a fish to climb a tree. We can’t wait for these morons to evolve. Expand the court.
Moreover, the view of the beginning of life underpins the Dobbs decision and most of the views that support Dobbs. When does life begin? One view sees the electrical activity that ultimately becomes a part of the heart beating as evidence that life begins at the moment of the creation of the first cell when egg meets sperm. Others view life as beginning when a person breathes without the aid of a mother. I see the error in all this. Life exists on a continuum. The love your mother raised you with existed long before your conception and will outlast your own death invested widely in your society. The decision as to the start of life must therefore be personal, and each of us must make it. We cannot shirk our responsibility to consider the importance of life other than our own.
Because of this, the Supreme Court is obliged to consider the First Amendment and the Ninth as well as the 14th, for those two protect the right of belief. Protecting the right of each individual to decide when life begins, and thereby legalizing abortion, also protects many other private medical decisions as well.
I’m perfectly fine with people following this rule: if you oppose abortion, don’t have one.
The Oranges of life
Life began with a bang
The biggest Bang of all
And angels never sang
When life began to crawl
What the science says about when fetal tissue is a person:
https://www.nature.com/articles/pr200950?fbclid=IwAR0_cdP_J7DX47dQpVLmI1jITPHi-eCjjXSrY-kqAG3rKw0_2V8zZ9ENnh8#Sec13
The whole metastudy deserves careful reading, but here’s the conclusion:
A first conclusion of this ongoing research is that the fetus in utero is almost continuously asleep and unconscious partially due to endogenous sedation. In particular, it would not consciously experience nociceptive inputs as pain. Conversely, the newborn infant exhibits in addition to sensory awareness specially to painful stimuli, the ability to differentiate between self and nonself touch, sense that their bodies are separate from the world, to express emotions, and to show signs of shared feelings. Moreover, “objective signs” for the mobilization of the GNW circuits are being detected in awake infants at the level of the prefrontal cortex in sensory processing, in responses to novelty and to speech and in social interaction. Yet, its capacities for internal manipulations in working memory are reduced, it is unreflective, present oriented and makes little reference to concept of him/herself. Newborn infants display features characteristic of what may be referred to as basic or minimal consciousness (7,9,70). They still have to undergo considerable maturation to reach the level of adult consciousness (70).
The preterm infant ex utero may open its eyes and establish a minimal eye contact with its mother. It also shows avoidance reactions to harmful stimuli. The connections with the GNW circuits are not yet fully established. Our view is that it has reached only a lower level of minimal consciousness analogous (though, of course, not identical) to that of a rat/mouse (7,9). A pending question is the status of the preterm fetus born before 26 wk (<700 g) who has closed eyes and seems constantly asleep. The immaturity of its brain networks is such that it may not even reach a level of minimal consciousness. The postnatal maturation of the brain may be delayed (71) and there are indications that the connectivity with the GNW will be suboptimal in some cases (72) as indicated by deficient executive functions (73). Therefore, the timing of the emergence of minimal consciousness has been proposed as an ethical limit of human viability and it might be possible to withhold or withdraw intensive care if these infants are severely brain damaged (74,75).
I’m perfectly fine with people following this rule: if you oppose choice, don’t have one.
The Choice is Yours
If you choose
To not have choice
Then you lose
Your rightful voice
SDP: I have said the same for always.
If you oppose abortion, don’t have one.
But don’t impose your views on others.
Chief Justice John Roberts Is to Blame for the Supreme Court’s Extremism
BY
DAVID SIROTA
https://jacobin.com/2022/06/chief-justice-john-roberts-supreme-court-extremism-campaign-finance-corruption
“This system of legalized corruption [from Citizens United and other rulings of the Roberts Court] is now almost perfected — but Roberts and his colleagues’ crusade almost certainly will not stop there. Of late, the American right and lower courts are signaling a new attack on laws that merely require disclosure, insisting that transparency is unconstitutional “compelled speech.” If Roberts soon applies that argument to campaign finance, the buying and selling of democracy that he legalized could happen in complete anonymity.”
That’s it. Biden voted against confirmation of Roberts, but it doesn’t matter now. Dark money has enthroned Mitch McConnell. Anyone who tries to act like you can have a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, or promote the general Welfare, forget it. 9th Amendment broken? Too bad. They don’t even support and uphold Article II anymore. You might as well save yourself the attorney fees and defend yourself because anything headed to federal court has already been decided, and it doesn’t matter what the United States Constitution says about it. Roberts says, “Stare decisis de me and not you, sis.”
“story decisis” : fabricating a story to decide a Supreme Court case (eg, a la Gorsuch in the praying coach ruling)
John Roberts, replying to criticisms that he said he respected stare decisis in his confirrmation hearing:
“Story Decisis”
You really said “stare”?
I thought you said “story”
Believe me, I’m very
So terribly sorry
Pretty sure the idea behind the Citizens United lawsuit was created by the WordPress moderator algorithm.
Denizens United
Denizens United
Against the folk parade
All are uninvited
Except the ones who paid
No, CRT did that.
but in Ohio, you have to make sure to treat both sides fairly, so pro algorithm and anti algorithm, pro bowel cancer and anti bowel cancer, pro Nazi and anti Nazi, pro stupid and anti stupid
Dear All,
To many, there are sobering implications of the current state of affairs whose chaos and disruptions are very topical areas for exploring the many outstanding tensions between (the sociopsychological states of) sanity/stability and insanity/instability, affecting not just reproductive freedoms but also the very existence and survival of humanity. There is plenty to explore regarding the escalating conflicts between the two major parties. Any reasonable and discerning person can conclude that the USA has been plagued by ignorance, dogma, falsity, blind faith, spiritual stagnation and epistemological impasse . . . . .
We have been witnessing so clearly the insidious nature of political polarization perverting democracy for nefarious purposes and for justifying, obfuscating or muddying the waters of systemic sexism, racism, historical negationism, discrimination, marginalization and curtailment of civil rights. Given your position and concerns, you are hereby invited to peruse my latest post entitled “🏛️⚖️ The Facile and Labile Nature of Law: Beyond the Supreme Court and Its Ruling on Controversial Matters 🗽🗳️🔫🤰🧑🤝🧑💉“, published at
https://soundeagle.wordpress.com/2022/06/26/the-facile-and-labile-nature-of-law-beyond-the-supreme-court-and-its-ruling-on-controversial-matters/
There exist certain conditions and circumstances in politics and governance under which even legislation has its limits and cannot be counted on to preserve liberty and realize (the significance of) democratic freedom, particularly when human fallibility and corruption prevail to the detriment or exclusion of probity, liberty, equality, fraternity, decency, acumen, rectitude and morality (being defended and applied with good sense and fine judgement); or when laws and decrees can no longer (be judiciously utilized to) guarantee, maintain or restore (any semblance of) order, justice and even democracy itself.
The capacity of laws and legislation to be legally valid, binding and enforceable in different contexts is both contingent (acceptable only if certain circumstances are the case) and circumscribed (restricted to certain roles or situations). Laws and legislation comprise or constitute not unadulterated reality of legal control and scrutiny but a version filtered through the lens and scope of social expectations and human experiences as well as the contexts, power structure and social hierarchy in which they are presented. The content, relevance and quality of laws and legislation are fundamentally filtered and moulded by class structures, social stratifications, cultural reproductions and communication frameworks as well as by the interaction between legal cultures, and the social construction of legal issues. All in all, the validities of laws and legislation are inescapably constrained by, or contingent upon, not merely factuality, intentionality, advocacy, allegiance and partisanship but also contemporary modes of thought, standards of reasoning, epistemic principles, theoretical perspectives, ideological standpoints, leading paradigms, social conventions, cultural traditions, ethical frameworks, moral ideals and the like.
Without the mediation and benefit of the scruple, prudence, moderation, sagacity and good will of those in charge of systems, and more specifically, the justice system, even legal arguments and determinations predicated on morality or moral principles can persistently fail to resolve fundamental disagreements or epistemological impasses that often arise in a pluralistic society saddled with competing moral values. Furthermore, the jostling for legality and legitimacy amongst disparate voices and factions can often manifest as a zero-sum game. Championing or enshrining the claims or moral values of certain societal groups via legal means and legislative controls not merely results in the suppression of the claims or moral values of other groups, but also risks undermining or infringing on their respective prerogatives, autonomies or sovereignties. Such divisive issues can be tricky and challenging to manage, adjudicate and resolve efficaciously even at the best of times, and have become all the more insidious and perilous in the face of a fiercely partisan sociopolitical climate dominated and marred by intolerance, corruption, moral bankruptcy, Machiavellian conservatism and inimical illiberalism.
The rulings of the court and the enforcements of laws and legislation tend to impel rigid compliance, incubate further grievance and even inflame social unrest rather than promote nuanced understanding and facilitate genuine empathy, thereby frustrating people’s effort in, reducing their chance of, and extinguishing their motivation for, mitigating ideological conflicts and moral issues by being more conciliatory, sympathetic, compassionate, open-minded, and less prejudiced or bigoted towards others. After all, outstanding manifestations of controversial matters and polarizing issues that ferment sociopolitical strife, especially those incurring, inducing or involving infringements of dignity, privacy, autonomy, liberty and civil rights, seldom cancel each other out neatly or resolve amicably on their own via an adversarial zero-sum game or winner-takes-all scenario, much less when there also exist punitive sanctions, prohibitive constraints or stringent rules and regulations to the detriment of civil liberties and even democracy itself.
I welcome your input and am curious to know what you make of my said post. Please enjoy!
Yours sincerely,
SoundEagle
“Without the mediation and benefit of the scruple, prudence, moderation, sagacity and good will of those in charge of systems, and more specifically, the justice system,…”
Seems like a problem. Missing all those properties seems significantly problematic to any system that promotes fairness.
Sun Tze- “…If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat…”
Assuming you are clear on who the enemy is, could you define that enemy within the parameters of a vote-getting process? One primary purpose of political analysis is to aid strategists in preparing messaging.
I think I know the answer!
Flerp-
I didn’t get the copy of the list of taboo subjects that others got.
You lament the Roe decision similar to well… lots of people in media and at blogs. Someday, someone, somewhere will make it official, SCOTUS’ religious rulings had no beneficiaries of note and especially, not any church that could be identified.
Just post the taboo list. Thx.
Is the answer the Catholic Church?
Indeed.
It’s a weird taboo. If 6 of the SCOTUS judges belonged to a group e.g. Yoga International, a non-profit, and they made decisions from the bench that benefitted the group, some watchdog would raise the issue of recusal, even if decisions benefitted both Yoga International and another firm, Yoga Limited, with different owners. If the hypothetical Yoga International had an overt policy of discrimination against women and the justices belonged to it, attention would be expected. If the organization was anti-gay, the judges would also face criticism. But, make the organization, the Catholic Church, and it’s untouchable.
Imagine if there were ultra strict Muslim’s following Sharia law and ruling that women had to cover themselves from head to toe.
You can bet everyone would be after Supreme blood.
But because they are Catholics calling for adherence to Papal law, not a word of dissent is spoken from Republicans or from lots of Democrats who are Catholic or Evangelical.
Thanks, Poet
There’s no doubt that there’s a double standard.
It’s a mortal sin to use contraception. There is nothing worse that dying with a mortal sin. You’ll go straight to hell. The Catholic religion does everything it can to keep those little Catholics coming.
………………………………………………
Catholic hospitals’ growth impacts reproductive health care
PUTNAM, Conn. (AP) — Even as numerous Republican-governed states push for sweeping bans on abortion, there is a coinciding surge of concern in some Democratic-led states that options for reproductive health care are dwindling due to expansion of Catholic hospital networks.
These are states such as Oregon, Washington, California, New York and Connecticut, where abortion will remain legal despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.
Concerns in these blue states pertain to such services as contraception, sterilization and certain procedures for handling pregnancy emergencies. These services are widely available at secular hospitals but generally forbidden, along with abortion, at Catholic facilities under the Ethical and Religious Directives set by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops…
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-health-religion-new-york-oregon-8994d9b5fd0040d40d19fd1e44c313d8