Skip to comments.BREAKING: Federal Judge Declares Texas Abortion Restrictions Unconstitutional
Posted on 10/28/2013 6:08:56 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
Exactly put. I would pick #1
I'm sure their vision includes no such responsibility for the State, either, so open those flood-gates for the exit of the elderly, a la "Soylent Green."
Of course, these immoral types have no constructive, God-instilled idea of family. Love either doesn't exist, is crap-sandwich-life-compensating lust or a mere social contract for them.
“I do wonder if it is biblical to extend full protection to a fetus? I.e. when a man hurts a pregnant woman, hes expected to pay an eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth. But if the unborn baby is killed, the price is not the same.”
I assume you are referring to Exodus 21:22-24, and there is definitely disagreement about what that text means, even among the translators:
NIV: If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury...
NRSV: When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows...
KJV: Exodus 21:2224 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow...
The question is does “serious injury/further harm/mischief” refer to the mother only or to mother and child. The Hebrew means simply “the children come out”, which would seem to agree with the NIV and (to a lesser extent) the KJV, rather than with the NRSV.
The commentaries I checked (Word, IVP Bible Background, Bible Knowledge, Expositor’s, Tyndale, MacArthur, Lange, Evangelical(Elwell), and Keil & Delitzsch) are split but lean toward the mother and child.
Elwell has this note: “The Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used here.” It is different word than is used when the context clearly indicates miscarriage (Exodus 23:26, Job 21:10, Hosea 9:14)
I think the best interpretation of the passage is that if there is no serious injury/further harm/mischief to either mother or baby, then there is a fine for striking them and causing the early labor. If there is harm to either, then lex talionis applies.
It is clear throughout several old testament passages that people were valued differently. For instance, reparations for accidentally killing a slave were lower than for a free adult jew. In such a context, looking at this passage, an unborn baby isn’t worth as much reparation as an adult jew — otherwise it would just be eye for an eye.
“In such a context, looking at this passage, an unborn baby isnt worth as much reparation as an adult jew otherwise it would just be eye for an eye.”
But it is an eye for an eye, and if there is no significant injury there is still a fine for the trauma of being struck and being born early. It’s more than eye for eye, not less.
Its more than eye for eye, not less.
***Nonsense. Completely unsupported in history, in fact the opposite is the case. And you also completely ignore the slave reparation. I understand where you’re coming from, that you have a problem with the old testament notion that some people are worth more than others. Unborn babies aren’t worth as much in reparation as a full grown jew; slaves aren’t worth as much in reparation as free jews. Now you’re twisting yourself into a pretzel just to support your unhistorical & inaccurate viewpoint.
I’m ignoring the slave reparation because it’s not relevant to the unborn baby discussion. I don’t see them as being linked except that they are on the same list of unusual/difficult cases that require special instructions.
As far as the “completely unsupported in history,” I’d be interested to hear historical examples that shed light on the original intent and on the understanding of the original readers/listeners. I have my doubts that there is anything recorded that will be helpful.
Back to your original post, “Tier 3: Living, early stage, not yet viable pre-born human for whom we do not extend the rights of life in this society because of a historical snag where we once considered such tissue not to be a baby. We as a society thought it was best to consider it a private decision.”
We never had any such agreement. Remember, Roe overturned an agreement of the people that abortion could only be done when it was medically required to save the life of the mother. Even that doesn’t necessarily place a lower value on the unborn, it merely recognizes that when the choice is two deaths or one, one is preferable.
Even if there had been such an agreement, advances in medical technology have given us much more insight into that alleged blob of tissue and the time of viability keeps getting earlier and earlier. Why would we feel obligated to hold to prior views that were faulty?
That said, what you wrote would be a huge step forward from where we are now. I might not like it personally, but politically I could live with it if the other side would (which there is no way in H-E-double-hockey-tick they would). I understand that our country is not a theocracy and our nation is not primarily Christians. A plan that would greatly reduce the number of abortions would be a great thing. Just don’t pretend there is biblical support for the limitations you want to accept, because I don’t see it
If I were Texas that judge would have a hard time living in the State. The State revenue service should investigate his income tax returns, the local property boards should investigate and harass his ass to no end, motor vehicle, etc. Then I would tell him to go pound sand. If Obama can violate the law so can Texas.
“Texas should declare itself a sanctuary state for the unborn child and ignore any federal law.
Hey, libs can do it with sanctuary cities...why cant we with states?
Excellent idea. “Texas is a sanctuary State for the unborn just like Colorado is a sanctuary State for illegal aliens.”
Im ignoring the slave reparation because its not relevant to the unborn baby discussion.
***It is relevant. I described how it’s relevant. It appears that you simply don’t like where that leads, but that is immaterial. If you don’t want to acknowledge a simple truth that brings us to my simple approach then we run out of common ground.
We never had any such agreement.
***Where do I use the word “agreement”? You use it, and then you reinforce my point (knocking down your own) by saying that Roe v Wade overturned such an “agreement”. If “we never had any such agreement”, then how did Roe overturn such an agreement?
Why would we feel obligated to hold to prior views that were faulty?
***I said so in the original post. It became settled law, culturally accepted. Even Jews accepted abortion for ages due to the same conditions. I don’t see that such a settled cultural issue over multiple generations can be changed in the next couple of years, but my proposal could be implemented in a couple of years. Eventually, if my proposal were in place, then those advances in age of viability would be built into the protection offered to unborn children, and abortion would soon no longer be viewed as a culturally accepted form of birth control.
“I described how its relevant.”
I understand that slaves were given a different value in Exodus, but I don’t see that same valuation on the unborn in that chapter. I don’t have a philosophical problem with the concept that God could value the unborn less than an adult. I have a textual problem with it - I don’t see where He actually said it. Perhaps you have another passage in mind?
“Where do I use the word agreement?”
Maybe I misunderstood the implications of “we once considered” and “We as a society thought.” That sounded like agreement to me. What I was saying was we as a society had an agreement through our elected representatives that it should not be legal and 9 tyrants in robes decided they didn’t like it.
I will grant that after Roe we did reach a point where we had fairly wide support for abortion, but that support has been eroding for the past 25 years or so, although it is still fairly broad. I will also grant that the agreement of the people I cited was only an agreement of the people of the state of Texas. But even if support for abortion collapses, we will still have the nine tyrants chanting stare decisis to contend with. (Why is law only settled when Democrats like it?)
“Even Jews accepted abortion for ages due to the same conditions.” Please clarify this, especially “for ages.”
One more note - on your 2nd tier you had “Cannot be aborted unless there is an open rape case associated with the pregnancy...” I have several concerns about that: 1. It would encourage false rape reporting (that was Norma McCorvey first step before suing and becoming Jane Roe) and possibly false prosecutions. The limits on evidence that the defense can bring are such that false convictions are likely. 2. Why isn’t this part of tier 3? 3. Why are we punishing an innocent party?
I understand that slaves were given a different value in Exodus
***Humans are valued differently. That is relevant. Unborn humans are valued differently (otherwise it would have simply been the same as for adults, an “eye for an eye”). So, basically you’re saying you accept it until it disproves your point.
We as a society
***Again, you’re saying you accept it until it disproves your point.
especially for ages.
***For the last 2500 years or so. I gather you’ll accept that until it disproves your point.
1. It would encourage false rape reporting (that was Norma McCorvey first step before suing and becoming Jane Roe) and possibly false prosecutions.
***I’m aware of that. But even McCorvey’s lawyers considered it inconsequential. Basically, a rape case is not a death penalty issue, so there is no life at stake. But in abortion, there is a life at stake. It is worth erring on the side of caution when it comes to life. And rape cases that are claimed 3 weeks after the event with no physical evidence are an obvious blinking red light of bullshit, so I don’t worry about the issue that much.
First google hit on “Norma McCorvey” rape case
She initially said that her third pregnancy, the one in question at the time of Roe v. Wade, was the result of rape, but years later she said she had invented the rape story in an attempt to make a stronger case for an abortion. The rape story was of little consequence to her lawyers, because they wanted to establish a right to abortion for all women, not just those who had been raped.
The limits on evidence that the defense can bring are such that false convictions are likely.
***I’d be willing to debate this point if it were really important. Since Roe v Wade, the tremendous advances of genetics can prove a defendant innocent today, wherein it could not be done in the past.
2. Why isnt this part of tier 3? 3. Why are we punishing an innocent party?
***Innocent parties don’t leave DNA in a woman’s genital areas, so I don’t think your point is well made.