Opinion on the Roe v. Wade Leak

[temporal1]

Let's not forget Luke 1:41-44
Not a "fetus" in the womb, a "babe" in the womb.

God bless you.
What havoc has resulted following RvW! Of epic proportions. Biblical proportions!
If this were fiction, it would be rejected as “too far gone.”

At this point in the story Elizabeth was six months pregnant with John but Jesus had just been conceived.
This should provide us with some food for thought!

No kidding.

If Neto sees this, i’m wondering about his experiences with the Banawa in Brazil. Specifically, before being introduced to Christianity, how did they view pregnancy, the unborn?

It’s my understanding, even remote and pagan peoples knew humans come from humans, nothing else, no other way.

RvW tempted sin -
through corporate greed pairing with human desire for (most of all) personal convenience - people pay for what they WANT.
honestly, for enough profit, people will convince up is down, etc. [this is fact.]

the whole thing spiraled beyond imagination. RvW was initially sold on promises of “safe+rare.” it became “safe+routine.”
for profits. outside of corporate profits, it’s hated and illegal. [that’s a big clue!]

even animals know to protect+nourish their young.

the love of money .. 1 Timithy 6:10

[Soloist]

its interesting that in our first world countries we suddenly are running out of young people to care for the elderly. Three solutions have been tried by countries. 1: increase births, 2: import workers, 3 kill off the elderly.

Our society has swallowed a lie that babies can be mistakes and stopped at leisure. After you have an established job in your career field you can have a baby. Oh wait, you need to continue killing the extras just to have a chance at one. Have they no shame?

IVF is sinful, abortion is sinful. A woman's place is taking care of the home, the children and the husband. The lies of the post modern world have told a woman she can have children at her time after she is successful, that she can live life without consequence of her decisions. That if this "partner" doesn't value her, she should just move on to the next guy (or the other way around).

Many lies are also fed to a man as well... Suffice to say that God's way is best but requires giving up these so called liberties that people demand..

Eph 5: 33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

It's clear from Scripture that a woman can work and can sell, but her first duty is to her home and children and not her profession. Thus, work should not be such that it interferes with that. In my wife's opinion, she'd rather have children around her death bed than coworkers, so she's happy with this setup. There may be situations that require the wife to work, but this is not the ideal and a church should try to do what they can to help her to make sure her children are well cared for and she can have valuable time to nurture, admonish, and enjoy them.

While some will argue for abortion repeatedly, followers of God will not kill their young and that should never be debated, it is a fact. It is sin and needs repented of if one will follow the God I serve.

[Josh]

A single mother who fornicates and has a child out of wedlock made a sinful, wicked decision.

as did the man who impregnated her. do not let him off the hook.

I suggested to someone, only party serious, that perhaps abortion could be legal for the mother but treated like manslaughter for the father. We have the technology to prove paternity. For every abortion, a biological father would stand trial.

If a man compels an abortion, sure.

Note that I think fornicating should be illegal and in no sts cases a capital offence.

[Josh]

A single mother who fornicates and has a child out of wedlock made a sinful, wicked decision.

as did the man who impregnated her. do not let him off the hook.

I’m pretty opposed to men fornicating.

However that’s not the topic here. The topic is whether or not third trimester abortions should be allowed to be illegal in some states. I think they should be.

There is no valid argument for why a woman should be allowed to kill her child.

[Josh]

I suggested to someone, only party serious, that perhaps abortion could be legal for the mother but treated like manslaughter for the father. We have the technology to prove paternity. For every abortion, a biological father would stand trial.

What part of that were you serious about? The current system allows the biological father no say in whether or not the child may be aborted. And why-ever would you want it to be legal for the "mother"?

It's a thought experiment to see how people respond if the burden of unwanted pregnancy would be shifted away from women and onto men. It's not hard to find people who want to shift it off women onto no one, or rather onto the unborn, but I find few are comfortable holding men to account.

I’d be very comfortable with this. God’s perfect law makes it clear how he want fornication and “playing the harlot” dealt with. In most cases the answer was the death penalty, in a handful of scenarios a forced marriage with no opportunity for divorce.

[Falco Underhill]

I happen to be reading the leaked draft right now online, and i am not finished. (I think its like 99 pages long.) But I am already learning a lot from it! Here's one little tidbit I'd like to share. On page 33 the draft informs us ...

... that States have increasingly adopted "safe haven" laws, which generally allow women to drop off babies anonymously; and that a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home.

So I googled whether Pennsylvania has any safe haven laws. That linked to the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services website. Here is what it says —
​

Not Ready to be a Mom? We can help you.
Afraid to tell anyone you're pregnant? Don't know what to do with the baby?

If you're not ready to take care of a newborn and don't have anyone to ask for help, there's a place where you can take your baby to ensure his or her safety and health. Under the Safe Haven law, you may bring your newborn (up to 28 days old) to any Pennsylvania hospital, to a police officer at a police station, or an emergency services provider at an EMS station.

As long as the baby is unharmed and not a victim of any crime, you will not be in trouble. The baby will be examined by a doctor and provided any medical care needed. The local county children and youth agency will take custody of the baby and find him or her a loving family.

https://www.dhs.pa.gov/secretsafe/Pages/default.aspx

There is also a phone number to call. I'll bet the Children and Youth agency will work with these women, too, if they want.

Then I googled "How many states have safe haven laws?" Here is what came up immediately —

50 states


Currently, all 50 states have safe haven laws on the books, varying between the age limit, persons who may surrender a child, and circumstances required to relinquish an infant child. In most cases, parents can leave newborns in safe locations without having to disclose their identity or without being asked questions.Oct 9, 2018

This is great news!

So, why on earth have pro-choice advocates been complaining women have no options? Didn't they know?

That argument is gone!

[Josh]

A couple in my church just adopted a baby. The mother decided she wanted it up for adoption and they went to the hospital whilst the social workers figured out all the paperwork and both parents relinquished their rights (I suspect the father didn't want to pay child support, but that's just my own suspicion).

There are so many couples eager to adopt that a baby up for adoption gets whisked into an adoptive family quite quickly. There is nothing at all to fear. Even chemically dependent babies, ones with disabilities, etc. are adopted and there are waiting lists. At this point in America's history, no baby born is "unwanted".

The topic of older children being "unwanted" is not germaine to this discussion - abortion is about killing babies, not about killing toddlers or adolescents. If we had an epidemic of parents (legally) killing their 5 year olds or 10 year olds, then I would be speaking up that Christians should be adopting 5 or 10 year olds.

[Falco Underhill]

The topic of older children being "unwanted" is not germaine to this discussion - abortion is about killing babies, not about killing toddlers or adolescents. If we had an epidemic of parents (legally) killing their 5 year olds or 10 year olds, then I would be speaking up that Christians should be adopting 5 or 10 year olds.

I read that antifa threw a molotov cocktail into a crisis pregnancy center, leaving graffiti that warned if it wasn't safe to abort babies they weren't safe either. It really doesn't appear antifa is interested in leaving women a "choice." What are they going to do now, throw molotov cocktails into the Children and Youth Agency buildings?

[Josh]

The topic of older children being "unwanted" is not germaine to this discussion - abortion is about killing babies, not about killing toddlers or adolescents. If we had an epidemic of parents (legally) killing their 5 year olds or 10 year olds, then I would be speaking up that Christians should be adopting 5 or 10 year olds.

I read that antifa threw a molotov cocktail into a crisis pregnancy center, leaving graffiti that warned if it wasn't safe to abort babies they weren't safe either. It really doesn't appear antifa is interested in leaving women a "choice." What are they going to do now, throw molotov cocktails into the Children and Youth Agency buildings?

Social workers deal with violence directed at themselves and their facilities all the time - attempts to do so in my area here are frequent from disgruntled "clients". This is dealt with swiftly by law enforcement and the justice system, as it should be. (This can make visits for foster parents "interesting" when a birth parent is banned from the designated government-run visiting facilities because they threatened to "burn the place down", and also banned from the nearby McDonald's by management for antisocial behaviour.)

This is a reason I am in favour of responsible government that doesn't tolerate violence and public anti social behaviour, regardless of if the violence is on the left or right wing side of things. Unfortunately our country is moving farther away from that, not towards it.

[Falco Underhill]

Okay, here's an update on the leaked draft and what it means for the things we've been discussing.

The leaked Supreme Court draft explicitly overturns Roe v Wade. It thoroughly demolishes its arguments and explains why it was bad law, a naked power grab, and unworkable anyway.

It even quotes noted constitutional scholars, including liberal ones such as Laurence Tribe, who argued in scholarly papers why it was bad law.

It explains why precedent is no guarantee a bad law can't be overturned and gives examples of when the Court overturned bad law before.

It deals directly with the substantive due process issue. It saves the substantive due process doctrine by laying out standards for deciding when a right can be said to be protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

The standards are drawn directly from precedent.

Accordingly, it lays out that the Due Process Clause protects two categories of substantive rights.

1. Rights guaranteed by the first 8 amendments.
2. A select list of rights that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

For a right to fall into any of these 2 categories there are 2 conditions that must first be met. The court must determine whether it is ...

1. deeply rooted in our history and traditions
2. essential to our nation's "scheme of ordered liberty."

These are the standards that must be applied to determine whether a right that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution is nevertheless protected by the 14th Amendment.

The draft goes through the arguments made in Roe, thoroughly explaining why it failed to meet these standards.

I won't go further into the details of the arguments right now, but my opinion, as a nonexpert armchair lawyer?

As an authoritative precedent that the Court must follow from here on out it should serve as a pretty good check/restraint on judicial activism anywhere in the future.

Assuming this draft turns out to be the real thing, it's a brilliant decision. (Just my opinion.)