Supreme Court ends Roe v. Wade?

Well yes if the feds decided to nationalize it then they could. But when they do that it will just go back and forth as the fortunes of congress change. States are more stable in general so most of the country would be more stable if more things were left up to the states.

 

Subsidiarity is the way here. I’m of the opinion that laws ought to be made locally. The state level is the obvious choice for the legalization of this that or the other. Sometimes I don’t like what my state permits, and I admit it pains me to have to deal with the things my own state permits, but that doesn’t mean I suddenly and selectively hold a different opinion on what ought to be decided locally and what shouldn’t.

the state would not be conferring a “right” to abortion, they would simply be decriminalizing or regulating it, as they do with marijuana, or alcohol, or gambling, or guns.

 

Experience has often taught me the opposite lesson. Things that are inherently local, like building codes, zoning laws, etc., yes, those things are best left to local decision-makers. Things like anti-pollution laws, privacy and consumer protection, etc., those have to be federal. Bodily autonomy is so basic, that there cannot be 50 different versions of it and equal citizenship at the same time. Add the fact that those 50 different versions are just based on arbitrary lines on a map, and that’s just not an acceptable situation for a free country. Federalism was necessary in this country because we weren’t culturally unified enough to be a national republic. Subsidiarity in that instance is an unfortunate compromise, not an ideal in itself. And it didn’t work: the country still ended up in a civil war within a few decades, and the solution was the assertion of federal power over state sovereignty. Subsidiarity is only desirable if it's actually appropriate to the situation in the first place.

And there's more to it than that. The coming regime at the state level that'll be based on snitching on your neighbor for money without the neighbor enjoying the presumption of innocence, thereby further clogging the already clogged court system (which the people pushing this also don't seem to want to pay for, because low taxes), with accountability stopping with local moneyed potentates, I'm sorry but that's straight-up fascism. And what about private property, the sacred cow of the conservative right? There's little point in having private property if privacy itself is a dead letter. It blows my mind why anybody would want to live in a system like that. And anyone that thinks right-wingers are only interested in exercising power in this area at the state level are fooling themselves.

 

Here's a short, interesting video offering a classical Anglican perspective on the so called right to abortion

 

Whose body?
That’s the question that different localities can’t agree on. Blue states will say a woman’s (or in extreme cases a “birthing person”) and the red states a child’s.

That’s why I cannot see a federal solution in this case. No solution that will bring any sense of domestic tranquility anyways.

 

That's the easiest part. An adult woman's body exists independently of all other bodies; that of an unborn fetus does not, until viability is reached. Something that can exist only as a part of something else is not a person, even if its DNA is different and even if it's a potential person (as the fetus undoubtedly is). The mother and the unborn fetus occupy a different moral status and that is why the biblical penalty is greater for homicide than for a miscarriage that results from foul play. The red states are simply wrong; and because they are also in the minority, they should not be able to dictate policy on the issue to everyone else. It's really that simple.

In general, I don't approve of abortion morally. Post-viability, there needs to be a really good reason from a very short list, to terminate a pregnancy. I'm not opposed to certain restrictions that are rooted in established medical science. But blanket statements calling it "murder" have no biblical or philosophical basis. It is a secular ideology masquerading as religious conviction.

 

I’m not sure what you mean. Texas can’t force California to shut down abortion clinics any more than California force Texas to open any.

what’s the hard part in your opinion?

 

This is not the Anglican teaching.

Killing a fetus has always been considered a crime. Ensoulement happened after conception, so the modern pro-life movement is a little out of step with the historic teaching, but broadly speaking it is far more right than wrong. Once there is a human soul inside the fetus, it is now a human being (even if biologically dependent on the mother). Ending its life was a crime of manslaughter (somewhat less than murder, but far worse than anything else, like assault; and possibly meriting in capital punishment).

 

The hard part is getting them to understand that they're wrong, of course. I've brought up to anti-abortion friends before that there's no real biblical basis for their position, and all I get is a "dear in the headlights" expression. The conversation itself is impossible because there's no common frame of reference, even between Christians who are on opposite sides of the issue. Politics comes first to them, in my experience.

The next hardest part is clearing counter-majoritarian hurdles that are the Senate, the Electoral College, and the Supreme Court, to actually get popularly-supported platforms enacted.

Also, if Texas makes it crime to go out of state for the procedure, they can absolutely force California to issue an arrest warrant for those Texans accused of going to California for that purpose. And if Texas and Oklahoma introduce legislation in Congress on the subject, they can outvote California in the Senate by a 2-1 margin even though California has a significantly larger population than Texas and Oklahoma put together. There are plenty of ways a minority of the population can force their will on the majority via the states. That's one reason among many that the "states' rights" argument is disingenuous.

 

Which Apostle was pro-abortion? Which passage shows Jesus teaching that killing a child in utero is a human right? Where in scripture does the Holy Ghost reveal that the church is to be pro-choice? What a silly, pathetic and disingenuous argument to say abortion isn't called a sin in the Bible. Much like the Trinity or Sacrament, the word may not be there but the idea clearly is. The church has uniformly taught it for 2000 years.

From the Didache: "You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born."

People who argue differently are out of step and out of their depth.

 

The embryo has human DNA, but it's different DNA from the mother's. The embryo may even have a different blood type than the mother. It is illegitimate for a mother to claim that the embryo within her is merely a piece of her own body. The embryo is a human individual in an early stage of development, and the mother is responsible to exercise reasonable care of it. Whether the embryonic human being can yet survive outside the womb or not is irrelevant in light of its existence as a separate human being.

 

The people of this nation first established Articles of Confederation, making it a loose grouping of very independent states, because they recognized how dangerous a strong federal government is. Unfortunately that federal government was too weak to even establish taxes or adequately organized national defense, so they cautiously (and with much trepidation) expanded the federal powers with the present Constitution. But they soon passed the Bill of Rights in an attempt to further safeguard the states and the citizens from undue intrusion and power-grabbing. This general sentiment of desiring strong-as-possible states and a weak-as-practicable fed should have stood as a red-light warning for future generations. Regrettably, future generations did not heed their predecessors and they allowed the fed, slowly but inexorably, bit by bit, to take hold of more and more power over the states and their citizens. The federal government has become a juggernaut, a million-tentacled behemoth, assuming and exercising ever-increasing control.

It is no surprise that people forgot the mistakes of the past and were doomed to repeat them. It does amaze me, though, to see how adamant some people are that the fed needs still more power, and the states (as well as the people) are idiots for not giving up more of their rights to the uber-benevolent Uncle Sam.

 

Many women who've had abortions deeply regret the act afterward, and they often are haunted by feelings of guilt and remorse for the rest of their lives. The conscience implanted by God tells them that abortion is morally wrong, and I doubt the consciences of women who did this "before fetal viability" suffered any less remorse than those who killed their babies at a later stage of development.

Fetal viability is a moving target; as medical science improves, viability is moved earlier and earlier. If one were to plot it on a graph, the "vanishing point" would be at conception; eventually it may well be scientifically possible to preserve viability that early. Using "fetal viability" as a standard for deciding when life begins is nonsensical; how can one say that the baby at 3 weeks' gestation is not human life today, if 20 years from now the baby at 3 weeks' gestation is human life? That is a non-standard standard, a moving target.

Life's existence is not properly a subject for adjudication. Life simply is, no matter what any judge, lawyer, or woman might think or decree. The embryo is not dead; it is alive. The embryo is not an animal or parasite or tumorous growth; its humanity is identifiable by its DNA. By process of elimination, that embryo must be a live human. It need not be cognizant of its humanity; a mindless, drooling imbecile that cannot feed him/herself is still a live human being, and we don't "abort" such a person, we care compassionately for him or her.

Is the pro-life position politically motivated? Not on your life.

On the other hand, many in the "pro-choice" crowd would love to "abort" the pro-lifers, up to 100 years' gestation.

 

Oh goodness, I forgot that I must agree with you 100%, otherwise I must be a "soldier of Moloch". Multiplying insults doesn't magically turn mere assertions into argument. Enough of the ad hominem attacks (how many times am I going to have to say that here?); go back and re-read what I actually said, pal:

An adult woman's body exists independently of all other bodies; that of an unborn fetus does not, until viability is reached. Something that can exist only as a part of something else is not a person, even if its DNA is different and even if it's a potential person (as the fetus undoubtedly is). The mother and the unborn fetus occupy a different moral status and that is why the biblical penalty is greater for homicide than for a miscarriage that results from foul play. The red states are simply wrong; and because they are also in the minority, they should not be able to dictate policy on the issue to everyone else. It's really that simple.

In general, I don't approve of abortion morally. Post-viability, there needs to be a really good reason from a very short list, to terminate a pregnancy. I'm not opposed to certain restrictions that are rooted in established medical science. But blanket statements calling it "murder" have no biblical or philosophical basis. It is a secular ideology masquerading as religious conviction.​

• I never said abortion wasn't a sin, I said it wasn't murder.
• Plenty of things can be sins without being murder.
• You're the one making the blanket assertions; produce your evidence: cite the Scripture that explicitly backs up what the Didache says.

 

Ok. But you should explain why God thinks this is acceptable.

Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. 1 Sam15:3.

 

Or this:

Numbers 5:11–22 (REB): The Lord told Moses 12 to say to the Israelites: ‘When a married woman goes astray and is unfaithful to her husband 13 by having sexual intercourse with another man, and this happens without the husband’s knowledge, and without the woman being detected because, though she has been defiled, there is no direct evidence against her and she was not caught in the act, 14 and when in such a case a fit of jealousy comes over the husband which makes him suspect his wife, whether she is defiled or not; 15 then the husband must bring his wife to the priest together with the prescribed offering for her, a tenth of an ephah of barley-meal. He must not pour oil on it or put frankincense on it, because it is a grain-offering for jealousy, a grain-offering of protestation conveying an imputation of guilt.
16 ‘The priest must bring her forward and set her before the Lord. 17 He is to take holy water in an earthenware vessel, and take dust from the floor of the Tabernacle and add it to the water. 18 He must set the woman before the Lord, uncover her head, and place the grain-offering of protestation in her hands; it is a grain-offering for jealousy. Holding in his own hand the ordeal-water which tests under pain of curse, 19 the priest must put the woman on oath and say to her, “If no man has had intercourse with you, if you have not gone astray and let yourself become defiled while owing obedience to your husband, then may your innocence be established by the ordeal-water. 20 But if, while owing him obedience, you have gone astray and let yourself become defiled, if any man other than your husband has had intercourse with you,” 21 (the priest shall here put the woman on oath with an adjuration, and shall continue) “may the Lord make an example of you among your people in adjurations and in swearing of oaths by bringing upon you miscarriage and untimely birth;* 22 and let this ordeal-water that tests under pain of curse enter your body, bringing upon you miscarriage and untimely birth.” The woman must respond, “Amen, Amen.”​

 

Here it’s not even a crime; it’s a tort:

Exodus 21:22–27 (REB): When, in the course of a brawl, a man knocks against a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage but suffers no further injury, then the offender must pay whatever fine the woman’s husband demands after assessment. 23 But where injury ensues, you are to give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, bruise for bruise, wound for wound.
26 When a man strikes his slave or slave-girl in the eye and destroys it, he must let the slave go free in compensation for the eye. 27 When he knocks out the tooth of a slave or a slave-girl, he must let the slave go free in compensation for the tooth.​

 

Does anyone know of an equivalent passage anywhere in the Bible which would apply to a husband who has secretly cheated on his wife? Was there any trial by ordeal that adulterous husbands were forced to go through? If not, why not?
.

 

Prooftexting from the Old Testament is the last resort of a desperate theologian to make God's Word say something it emphatically doesn't. None of these passages discuss abortion, the murder of a child in utero by the child's mother.

• 1 Samuel 15:3 refers to Samuel's message to King Saul to send his army to attack the Amalekites who had brutally attacked Israel without provocation...nothing related abortion even mentioned here...
• Numbers 5:11–22 lays out the test used for discerning adultery among the ancient Israelites. A woman suspected of adultery would swear an oath of her fidelity before a priest. The penalty for giving that oath falsely is God's curse. The passage you quote interprets the curse to be a miscarriage but the KJV describes it as rotting genitals and a swollen belly... but again no reference to a woman electing to murder her child in the womb.
• Lastly, Exodus 21:22–27 addresses the penalty when a man causes a woman to miscarry while engaged in a fight... again, wholly distinguishable from a woman's intentional murder of her child via abortion. In fact, the element of intent is completely missing from the passage, suggesting this is an issue of negligence or recklessness on the man's part rather than a willful and intentional act.

Thus, none of these passages are relevant to the uniform and historic teaching of the Church on the issue of abortion. More importantly, nothing here refutes the church's teaching that abortion is a violation of the moral law against murder.

Abortion is murder and, God willing, we are finally dragging this nation out of the blood bath of nearly 2400 babies slaughtered on a daily basis and on the way to making abortion illegal again.

 

I have begun reading the draft opinion, and it's quite instructive from a legal standpoint. I wonder, @Invictus , are you reading it, too? I think it addresses your 'privacy right' concerns in considerable detail.