Cont: Roe v Wade overturned - this is some BS part II

[Aridas]

The thread is about biblical-based anti-abortion and anti-women legislation.

Quibble - Biblically justified, not necessarily Biblically based.

The Bible has a number of issues, but being anti-abortion isn't really one of them, at last check. There's actually a potential abortion method prescribed in it and, punishment-wise, instead of the death penalty for a person killing another's unborn, as is prescribed for the born, there's only a fine. The belief was that a soul entered the body with the baby's first breath, as I recall, not conception.

To the contrary of Bible thumping pro-lifer pretenses, one of the Bible's issues can be said to be that it's all too happy about murdering actual babies and the prospect thereof, to the point where divine punishments could be given out for not murdering said babies. I seem to recall seeing that particular theme over and over in it, for that matter. Rather, the evangelical anti-abortion thing is largely the result of a political effort that began during desegregation - evangelical run business refused to desegregate, Carter threatened their tax exempt status, evangelical leaders got together in response and bam, all of a sudden there was lots of evangelical anti-abortion wailing and pushing people to vote for Reagan, nevermind all the incongruities there.

 

[catsmate]

The thread is about biblical-based anti-abortion and anti-women legislation.

On what do you base this assertion?

 

[bruto]

Again, your response does not answer what I asked you. I didn't ask you when life began. I asked what a CHILD has in common with a blastocyst or zygote and specifically mentioned besides being "not dead". /QUOTE]

DNA.

For the relationship between a blastocyst and a baby, it's true that they share DNA, but so does a nail clipping. Many things share many properties with many other things. Many things come from other things. That simplistic fact may be pertinent at times, but that does not make two things the same.

A tree is not a newspaper.

 

[The Atheist]

Quibble - Biblically justified, not necessarily Biblically based.

Yes, very good point. Sloppy work by me.

To the contrary of Bible thumping pro-lifer pretenses, one of the Bible's issues can be said to be that it's all too happy about murdering actual babies and the prospect thereof, to the point where divine punishments could be given out for not murdering said babies. I seem to recall seeing that particular theme over and over in it, for that matter.

My favourite chalk drawing is one I've done a few times over the years - the beautiful story of how Noah saved all the animals. I draw an ark, filled with happy animals as all the world's children drown in agony.

On what do you base this assertion?

What non-christian motive have you seen for repealing Roe?

 

[acbytesla]

Quibble - Biblically justified, not necessarily Biblically based.

The Bible has a number of issues, but being anti-abortion isn't really one of them, at last check. There's actually a potential abortion method prescribed in it and, punishment-wise, instead of the death penalty for a person killing another's unborn, as is prescribed for the born, there's only a fine. The belief was that a soul entered the body with the baby's first breath, as I recall, not conception.

To the contrary of Bible thumping pro-lifer pretenses, one of the Bible's issues can be said to be that it's all too happy about murdering actual babies and the prospect thereof, to the point where divine punishments could be given out for not murdering said babies. I seem to recall seeing that particular theme over and over in it, for that matter. Rather, the evangelical anti-abortion thing is largely the result of a political effort that began during desegregation - evangelical run business refused to desegregate, Carter threatened their tax exempt status, evangelical leaders got together in response and bam, all of a sudden there was lots of evangelical anti-abortion wailing and pushing people to vote for Reagan, nevermind all the incongruities there.

The Bible doesn't say that life begins at conception. This idea that life begins anytime before birth is very arguable.

In fact, Genesis says when God “breathes into him the breath of life, and he became man.”

Psalms describes it as the "quicken." Actually describing life when God breaths his life into man. That man isn't really alive until he is filled with the Holy Spirit.

Life beginning at conception is a modern idea.

 

[Darat]

On what do you base this assertion?

I presume the ruling in Alabama, that clearly demonstrates this is a "biblically" inspired ruling.

From the AP report:

.....Chief Justice Tom Parker issued a concurring opinion in which he quoted the Bible in discussing the meaning of the phrase “the sanctity of unborn life” in the Alabama Constitution.

“Even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory,” Parker said.....​

From the ruling itself:

....At the time § 36.06 was adopted, "sanctity" was defined as: "1. holiness of life and character: GODLINESS; 2 a: the quality or state of being holy or sacred: INVIOLABILITY b pl: sacred objects, obligations, or rights....

....

The Alabama Constitution's recognition that human life is an endowment from God

....

The common usage of this phrase has continued into the 21st century, referring to the view that all human beings bear God's image from the moment of conception.

....

But the principle itself -- that human life is fundamentally distinct from other forms of life and cannot be taken intentionally without justification -- has deep roots that reach back to the creation of man "in the image of God." Genesis 1:27 (King James). One 17th-century commentator has explained the significance of man's creation in God's image as follows:

....

Van Mastricht's assessment of the significance of man's creation in the image of God accords with that of Thomas Aquinas centuries earlier. Following Augustine, Aquinas distinguished human life from other things God made, including nonhuman life, on the ground that man was made in God's image.

....

"Therefore to kill man is to deface God's image, and so injury is not only done to man, but also to God." Genesis 9:6 n.2 (Geneva Bible 1599). Finally, the doctrine of the sanctity of life is rooted in the Sixth Commandment: "You shall not murder." Exodus 20:13 (NKJV 1982).

...

would be unacceptable to the People of this State, who have required us to treat every human being in accordance with the fear of a holy God who made them in His image. For these reasons, and for the reasons stated in the main opinion, I concur.

...

I could go on - but there can be no doubt the decision is based on Christian theology.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Given that God has demanded the murder of every male of the enemy tribe, down to the baby, and the death of all non-virgin women (and to have the virgin ones as sex slaves), maybe don't use that book to claim a moral authority against abortion.

 

[Aridas]

Life beginning at conception is a modern idea.

To add a time marker, I think I saw that 1987 was when the Vatican officially endorsed it.

 

[acbytesla]

To add a time marker, I think I saw that 1987 was when the Vatican officially endorsed it.

Interesting. But a lot of what Catholicism teaches is not biblical. Catholicism teaches even the use of prophylactics is a sin. Not to mention masturbation.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Interesting. But a lot of what Catholicism teaches is not biblical.

It doesn't have to be: only Protestants claim to have their entire theology based on the Bible, even though they clearly incorporate non-Biblical bits. Roman Catholicism doesn't even make that claim so they at least can't be criticized for not doing it.

This confused the hell out of several of my fellow students at my very Southern Baptist college, "but...but...but...that's not in the Bible!!!" "So?" They couldn't wrap their heads around the idea of Christianity --a syncretic religion two thousand years old and centered a continent over from its main origin-- isn't entirely coming from one single solitary source document (which wasn't originally a single document at all, but that's a different argument).

 

[catsmate]

I presume the ruling in Alabama, that clearly demonstrates this is a "biblically" inspired ruling.

From the AP report:

.....Chief Justice Tom Parker issued a concurring opinion in which he quoted the Bible in discussing the meaning of the phrase “the sanctity of unborn life” in the Alabama Constitution.

“Even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory,” Parker said.....​

From the ruling itself:


I could go on - but there can be no doubt the decision is based on Christian theology.

True, in the specific context. But in USAia the anti-abortion movement is as much political and financial for the churches as biblical.

 

[catsmate]

To add a time marker, I think I saw that 1987 was when the Vatican officially endorsed it.

1867. For the centuries before that 'ensoulment' happened several weeks after conception. In fact the ex-cathedra pronouncement of Gregory XIV (1591) determined it took place at 166 days. Which would mean most abortions are fine.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And here is another case of something we were assured wouldn't happen. Apparently you only get a ectopic pregnancy aborted if you are dying enough.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/23/texas-woman-ectopic-pregnancy-abortion/

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I asked "As previously noted, countries where laws are based on religious beliefs are theocracies. Do you believe the US is, or should be, a theocracy?"

And I repeat, some parts of it are. Overall, it isn't, but with an evangelical conservative majority in SCOTUS it could well be in the near future.

OK...what specific parts of the US are theocracies? What specific state legislatures are theocratic?

Should it be is a silly question. Clearly not.

But, according to you, parts of the country are theocratic so why is it a silly question to ask ? There are Christian Nationalist organizations in the US that advocate for a theocracy so, obviously, they don't think it's a 'silly question":

The Christian Liberty Party: "Ideologically, the Christian Liberty Party is aligned with the Christian right and Christian nationalism, viewing the United States as a Christian state and seeing "the Bible as a blueprint for political action".

The American Redoubt movement: "Adherents to its philosophy believe in a kind of theocratic limited government utopia"

Constitution Party:" "the U.S. Constitution established a republic under God, not a democracy"." "The preamble of the 2004 platform states that the Lordship of Christ Jesus and the Bible are the final authority of law. It also stated that the purpose of the party was to restore American jurisprudence to its biblical and constitutional roots"

The New Columbia Movement: "a self-identified Christian Nationalist group that wants to turn the United States into a theocracy,"

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Even Utah, founded by and dominated by Mormons, is not a theocracy. Your response was nothing more than flippancy.

There...does that help?

Certainly helped me have a good laugh. The thread is about biblical-based anti-abortion and anti-women legislation. That is being enacted through various states, and that's the very epitome of theocratic rule.

No, theocratic rule means all laws are religiously based, not just abortion laws.
What laws have been passed that are "anti-women" that are not connected to abortion? Have 'anti-women" laws been passed restricting women's clothing,
marriage or divorce rights? Have women's education, parental rights, and property rights been restricted?

Again, your response does not answer what I asked you. I didn't ask you when life began. I asked what a CHILD has in common with a blastocyst or zygote and specifically mentioned besides being "not dead".

DNA.

Silly answer. Every single living thing has DNA, including vegetation. Having DNA does not make something a "child".

 

[Aridas]

1867. For the centuries before that 'ensoulment' happened several weeks after conception. In fact the ex-cathedra pronouncement of Gregory XIV (1591) determined it took place at 166 days. Which would mean most abortions are fine.

Mmm. I was mistaken, then, or I was repeating a mistaken claim. I failed to properly fact check this time, either way. On a quick check of the three main terms in the claim, I came up with this -

On March 10,1987, the Vatican responded to these recent developments in reproductive technologies by issuing a 40-page document called "Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation." This "instruction" was not only aimed at influencing the decisions of Roman Catholics, but also was intended to influence national legislation worldwide on biomedical issues.

What did the document say? It opposed all technological interventions into the process of human reproduction. More specifically, the document condemned artificial insemination and embryo transfer, in vitro fertilization, and surrogate motherhood under all circumstances. It also opposed experimentation on embryos when such experiments were not of direct therapeutic benefit to the fetus, and amniocentesis (a procedure used to detect fetal defects) when done for the purpose of deciding whether or not to abort the fetus.

Not the same thing as claimed, but still relevant to the discussion on IVF.

 

[acbytesla]

I can't say I know for sure. But I think all this push for extreme anti-choice legislation is likely to have significant political consequences for the Republican party. The GOP now have the tiger by the tail.

 

[The Atheist]

No, theocratic rule means all laws are religiously based, not just abortion laws.

I suggest you start a new thread, because it's an entirely different topic to the OP and we're going round in circles.

 

[bruto]

I suggest you start a new thread, because it's an entirely different topic to the OP and we're going round in circles.

I suspect you're right here. I don't think it's the origin of the laws but the scrutiny through which they pass that characterizes a theocracy. I would consider Iran a theocracy, but I suspect that such things as building codes and traffic laws are secular in origin and content even if those making them are aware that they may not violate religious conformity.

I think the US is drifting towards theocracy, even if it hasn't gotten there yet, and that it would be a mistake to think only abortion laws are at issue here, because religious conformity has begun to invade other areas as well, such as education and medicine. At various points we have, with limited success, fought theocratic subversion. When I was a kid, we had prayer in the schools, the state I grew up in had a law against birth control that required a Supreme Court decision to overturn, and we had "blue laws" forbidding liquor sales and hunting on Sundays. The trend in the other direction now is unsettling.

I don't think theocracy and its absence are binary. It's a parasite in the body politic, and the time to fight it is before it has taken over completely.

 

[Stacyhs]

I suggest you start a new thread, because it's an entirely different topic to the OP and we're going round in circles.

We certainly are so why bother?

 

[slyjoe]

I suspect you're right here. I don't think it's the origin of the laws but the scrutiny through which they pass that characterizes a theocracy. I would consider Iran a theocracy, but I suspect that such things as building codes and traffic laws are secular in origin and content even if those making them are aware that they may not violate religious conformity.

I think the US is drifting towards theocracy, even if it hasn't gotten there yet, and that it would be a mistake to think only abortion laws are at issue here, because religious conformity has begun to invade other areas as well, such as education and medicine. At various points we have, with limited success, fought theocratic subversion. When I was a kid, we had prayer in the schools, the state I grew up in had a law against birth control that required a Supreme Court decision to overturn, and we had "blue laws" forbidding liquor sales and hunting on Sundays. The trend in the other direction now is unsettling.

I don't think theocracy and its absence are binary. It's a parasite in the body politic, and the time to fight it is before it has taken over completely.

This. Kind of like fascism.