Monday, January 22, 2024

Judicial error …

 … Supreme Court makes profoundly flawed decision

1 comment:

  1. The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is not an argument against abortion, as the article has it, unless thou believe that having an abortion shalt kill, as did many immigrants believed in the mid-to-late Nineteenth Century.

    This is from Wikipedia: "Exodus 21:22 describes a situation in which two men fight and injure a pregnant woman, causing her unborn child to leave her womb. The Masoretic text uses the Hebrew term "veyats'u yeladeha" (וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ)[53] to refer to the child coming out;[54] different English versions translate this term either as a "premature birth" or as a "miscarriage".[55] The Spanish translation published by the Sociedad Biblica Catolica Internacional (SOBICAIN) uses the term "aborto", clearly indicating the demise of the fetus.[56] If no additional harm follows, then the perpetrator must pay a fine. Only if there is additional harm must the perpetrator be punished with equal harm (i.e. eye for an eye).[57] Commentators such as Bruce Waltke have presented this verse as evidence that God does not value a fetus as a human being, and/or evidence that a fetus has no soul.[58][59][60][61][62] C. Everett Koop disagreed with this interpretation.[63]

    "Another Old Testament passage that has been used to argue for divine approval of abortion is Numbers 5:11-31, which describes the test of an unfaithful wife.[64] If a man is suspicious of his wife's fidelity, he would take her to the high priest. The priest would make a substance for the woman to drink made from water and 'dust from the tabernacle floor'. If she had been unfaithful 'her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.' If she was innocent the drink had no effect.[65]"

    I leave the reference numbers in to show that these notes have references.

    The only girls (and parents, etc.) and women who would be persuaded by "Thou shalt not kill" to refrain from having an abortion, are the ones who believe that the fetus or embryo is already living, as you and I are. The opposite belief for the religious can have to do with those Numbers and Exodus citations, but also "breath of life" citations, starting with Genesis 2:7: "And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul." Once you breath, then, you are ensouled goes the idea. Which is stricter or more "moralistic" than what some socio-humanists believe, that what we think of as a soul, is not formed until interaction with the world and society, especially language.

    So, for an article to say that the First Commandment makes not having an abortion an open and shut case, the audience of readers must be those who have come to the conclusion that embryos and fetuses have been ensouled before taking a breath.

    The web is filled with "History of Abortion" articles, and the one that the main article links to states, "In 1827, though, Illinois passed a law that made the use of abortion drugs punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment. Although other states followed the Illinois example, advertising for 'Female Monthly Pills,' as they were known, was still common through the middle of the 19th century."

    The problem with the above citation's context is that what prompted the Illinois law was harm these potions caused to pregnant women, not the fetus. We had no FDA until 1906.

    Yet none of these arguments for or against abortion have anything to do with the Supreme Court decision.