Letter to the faithful on the Notification sent to Speaker Nancy Pelosi

It is quite possible that scripture became 'inspired' because it was inspired, even though the vessels through which it came to us had all sinned and were themselves imperfect. The sum total of all the sometimes apparently contradictory statements in scripture are collectively inspired, but you can't pick and chose which bits you want to bolster any particular brand of religious thinking or dogma. That is what many 'fundies' try to do with scripture. It becomes their personal Pick 'n' Mix, with the added quality of being irrefutably authoritative, the perfect ally to their cause.
.

 

It's an opinion possibly supported by some scripture. What is your way of understanding scripture and forming opinions?

 

Come on. She wrote:

That means the child would not be a person, and subject to killing, until he/she takes a breath. How can it even be a serious, valid opinion that a baby minutes away from birth, or even a baby that has been born but hasn't yet taken a breath, may be killed and trashed? In what universe is this morally acceptable? It certainly isn't legal in this country, not even with Roe v Wade in place. Even those particular justices recognized that a human person came into being long before that point in gestation.

 

Birth-personhood is the most natural conclusion from the Scriptures, reason, and the U.S. Constitution. It does not mean that the unborn can/should be “killed and trashed” moments before birth. No one is saying that. You guys are so hung up on identifying personhood with the soul, and nothing else, that you are incapable of reasoning coherently on the subject, or recognizing the plain facts that are right in front of you.

 

Which explains why it was absent from Christian teaching for 1900 years, right?

According to Aristotle the fetus acquires the human essence (ensoulement) upon the movement of the heart. That’s pretty much a checkmate.

The US Constitution has nothing to say on this, by law. See the 10th Amendment, which is why there’s never been legislation for this on a federal level. There couldn’t have been. Roe V. Wade is an immoral and unconstitutional judicial overreach, which should return this question back to its proper level.

But there’s been plenty of legislation on this on the State level. Dozens of legal rulings. Hundreds of years of legal history. All of them against you. Common law and the American jurisprudence are solidly against you on this.

 

I'm not quite sure what that comment means, but yes, that's my opinion, if not my way. My way is actually Jesus, but I do have opinions about things that aren't clearly delineated in Scripture or can be interpreted in different ways. I think that is probably what you do too, as does anyone who has an opinion.

 

Was Adam a person until he breathed? Certainly he became a person only after God breathed LIFE into him. Before that it was not a 'HE', not an image or likeness of God, it was just dirt.

You are actually mistaken though to assume that I believe, because of that fact of scripture, that babies that have not yet BREATHED have no right to life. They do and so do those still inside their mother's womb, IN MY OPINION.

However I am not trying to pass laws that impose MY opinion upon an entire nation by regulating them in such a way and by such a law that would make it illegal to terminate the development of even a one week old foetus under any and all circumstances, (or even at conception), which extreme forms of USA Pro-Lifers seem to be in favour of.

Terminations obviously need to be regulated by the state and should not be allowed to be undertaken indiscriminately. However if no terminations were allowed BY LAW, as envisaged by some Pro-Lifers, then the Ancient Rome practice of abandonment would probably increase in the USA, along with dangerous increases in back street abortions carried out by money hungry quacks and amateurs, who would have no regard for US Law whatever. You would find yourselves with a worse situation on your hands than you unfortunately even have at present, under your current inadequate regulation.
.

 

I wonder how many “pro-lifers” on here support the politicians and policies that make tragedies like the one in Uvalde possible? Judging from the effects of those policies, one would think they believe birth is the point where the “right to life” stops.

 

If a man believes that the fetus is a soul, he's naturally going to judge it. But your point remains that it's the woman's body. That's why I couldn't vote on an outright ban on abortions at the federal level. It's a tough matter, so I probably wouldn't vote at all. My take on the issue is that if Roe v Wade is judicial overreach, it must be overturned and abortion left to the states. There will obviously by a push by Pelosi and whomever else to make it federal law. I suspect it will be become federal law, and places like Planned Parenthood will be funded by tax-payer money. So my priority is to live my life in a way that won't involve me with abortion unless it's medically necessary.

 

Science proclaims that a distinct human being comes into existence the moment the egg is fertilized. Embryologists Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller wrote in 2000 that the moment of fertilization is “a critical landmark” at which “a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed”.

Then there's this:

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life." Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943​

An embryo is an individual (albeit a developing individual, but aren't we all developing?) and a separate organism from the host mother, and it becomes an individual at the very moment of fertilization (conception); it is "a new life". A new human individual life. I could provide more quotes, but these should suffice. Modern medical science teaches us that a new human life begins at conception. Anyone who says the human zygote is not a new, distinct, separate human life is a science denier (oh the horror, the progressives' own phrase comes home to roost!).

The laws of every nation and the laws of God prohibit the taking of a human life without just cause. US law is finally taking a "baby step" toward catching up with science on this issue with the overturn of Roe v Wade.

Even the people behind the big pro-abortion groups know this is true. Consider the following statement by Bernard Nathanson, who co-founded NARAL (one of the most influential abortion advocacy groups in the world) and who once served as medical director for the largest abortion clinic in America. Way back in 1974, he wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine in which he stated, "There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy..." Some years later he wrote again: "There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother—and is therefore a unified whole."

The Bible may not speak directly to the question of 'when does personhood attach', but the Bible does say, "Thou shalt not kill" (meaning the taking of human life without just cause). We now know (science proves) that abortion is the killing of a distinct, innocent, human life without just cause. No woman should get a choice (and no reasonable woman should want such a choice) of killing other human beings.

 

What a lame argument. I've never seen a gun point itself at a person and pull its own trigger. What "made the tragedy in Uvalde possible" was a sick and/or evil individual.

Gosh, what made the tragedy of Abel's death possible? Was it the rock or knife or whatever? I thought it was the evil heart of Cain that caused the slaying of Abel. I don't recall God blaming the implement Cain picked up.

 

The US press shows its bias when they write about stuff like this. If a malefactor is not white and male, you get headlines like "Car mows down 10 pedestrians". Really? The car just came alive and ran people down? Or was it a person in the car who did that? Or take the lazy "Guns kill x number of innocent children every year." Really? Those inert lumps of metal just jump up and shoot people of their own accord?

Increasingly you have to approach American (and British, and Australian) media as the Soviets used to approach Pravda: you know it's mostly propaganda and lies; you have to do the math and find out what the truth is behind the lie by figuring out what they're not saying. Or you know if they do not report on something at all, if it's just deafening silence, then you know something serious is going on.

If you think this is just conspiracy-theorizing, just look at the stories about inflation since 2020. "It's negligible!" Then: "It's transitory!" Then: "It's not that high!" Then: "It's high but we're turning the corner!" Then: "Squirrel!" Then you get puff pieces about how inflation is actually a positive thing because blah blah blah. Meanwhile people are cutting back on food to afford gas to go to work, and wondering if they're going to have the money to heat the house come winter.

 

Honestly? This is probably the best move for her. TEC would welcome her with open arms, she could still trot out the "devout Christian" hambone for the rubes, and she could dump all over the RC church for driving her away. Her leaving would save the RC church a lot of unwanted publicity and public vitriol, too. It's really a win-win for everybody involved.

 

A predictably 'knee jerk' reaction from a Pro-Lifer, gun lobbyist, to a perfectly reasonable suggestion. The suggestion was that the proliferation and easy access to guns of all descriptions in a society with little regulation, restriction or policing of gun ownership, resulting in sick and evil individuals having little difficulty in gaining access to them, has resulted in the deaths of many very young human beings, who in almost any other country other than America, with its almost total absence of restrictions to availability of all sorts of firearms, from hand guns to assault rifles, (specifically designed to kill human beings as efficiently and effectively as possible), has exposed even still developing young human beings to sudden avoidable death. Avoidable in most cases had guns not been so easily obtained by sick and evil individuals because of the LAXITY of sensible restrictions on gun ownership by a state that is controlled and hampered, in its power to legislate, by enthusiastic gun owners and their political lobbying association, which seem to care little about the young lives of developing human beings once they enter the society controlled by the gun owning lobby in the USA.

This same 'gun owning lobby' in the USA seems to have contained a large number of individuals who believed their 'faith' in God would protect them from a deadly virus thus exempting them from needing to wear 'illegally - imposed' face masks, yet reasoned that their 'faith' in God would NOT protect them from sick or evil individuals carrying 'legally obtained' assault rifles, thus leading them to the irrational conclusion that a further proliferation of assault rifles WILL better protect them from sick and evil individuals armed with legally - freely available assault rifles.

America is a truly weird Nation, viewed from the outside.
.

 

This is very close to how I stand in that I am all for life whenever possible. Most Christians that I know don't believe that animals have souls but I value their lives too. For decades I was a vegetarian because of this and to this day I don't eat a lot of meat. But I do eat it now because I believe that we are omnivorous by nature. I prefer fish to mammals because the latter just have such soulful eyes, and if I had to kill my own meat, I probably couldn't do it. But I respect all life. I even feel bad when I kill insects and spiders - and I despise spiders.

What does this mean? Well, I know it isn't the same thing, but it means I respect life and I would love for the fetus to have life and would hate to see abortions become a form of contraception, especially when there are much better forms available. But, if there is a grave necessity for an abortion, then I think it is the choice of the 'fetus bearer' to make, not of some law or religion, and especially not of some man. If there is a sin attached (which I am not sure there is IMO) then it is a personal one, not a group consensus one. Christians have a lot of differing opinions on this too, so leave it up to the woman.

I think instead of focusing on the unborn fetus, religious people and lawmakers might spend more time focusing on the children that have already been born and try to save them from poverty, starvation, physical or sexual abuse (especially by religious people! who should know better) - and oh yeah, from gun violence.

As for @Ananias' comment about media, Australian media is no better or worse than anywhere else, but one thing Australia has done is to regulate guns better than the US and when we did that, massacres stopped. The USA seems absolutely blind to what is happening with regard to gun violence over there. It's insane. When you have to talk about arming teachers or removing back doors (hello? fire danger much?), then things really have become surreal.

 

Of course. I think practically everyone agrees that it's between the mother and her physician (even if the physician is a man! ) when the mother's life or physical safety are at stake, with the caveat that the normal and natural preference of a godly woman (and of a sensible physician who has sworn an oath to do no harm to any human being) would be to try and save both lives if possible.

That's exactly what abortion has become nowadays, don't you see it? Abortion is treated as easy contraception. Women think, why bother insisting on a condom or being careful or avoiding wanton fornication on the spur of the moment, when all I have to do is get rid of "it" later?

 

Fine by me. We Americans don't want to let ourselves wind up like Argentina or Iraq or any of the other countries that took away everyone's guns and then their people have no way to rid themselves of a dictatorial regime.

Banning guns is a band-aid on the festering sore of the real problem: moral decay. By anti-gunners' logic, we should ban all sharp knives (because some people have gone on stabbing rampages), all motor vehicles (because some people have used theirs to mow down pedestrians on purpose), and all stones (everyone knows how deadly they can be, just look at David vs Goliath). All are deadly weapons in the hands of sick or evil people.

 

Are you trying to say that the man has no part in this? Why is the woman chastised for no condom or other contraception, why not the man? What are the consequences for a man in this situation?

And no, I don't see abortion used as a primary method of contraception. You honestly think women want to go through a surgical procedure for contraception? As a woman who had a D&C (dilate and curette) after a miscarriage, I can assure you it was not a pleasant or painless experience for me. So, no I think this is simply another one of those hyped up and fear mongering tactics used to vilify women for their choices. It is a real shame that this kind of argument is being used. And why is the laughing emoticon being used to discuss this painful topic?

 

Argentina or Iraq? Come on. Try New Zealand or Australia or other sensible countries that can live without every citizen being armed to the teeth.

 

Scotland: Thomas Watt Hamilton (Dunblane Massacre).
Norway: Anders Breivik
Christchurch, NZ: Brendan Harrison Tarrant
Australia: Martin Bryant (Port Arthur massacre), Peter Miles (Osmington shootings)

Mass shootings happen in places with strict gun control too. There's actually very little correlation between gun violence and anti-gun laws (because obviously criminals and crazy people don't care about the laws anyway).

But all this obscures the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is not a government-granted privilege to be granted or taken away. It is a natural right not to be infringed upon. Our own Constitution words it in just this way for a reason.

Lots of people jump on the militia clause, but US legal tradition holds that it is a dependent clause on the natural right, not a reason for it. The government does not grant that right; it simply recognizes it as an advantage considering the necessity of having an armed militia.