Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

[DCharlton]

If the Sexual Revolution of the late 20th century had not occurred, and if parts of the church had not been pulled into the swirling orbit its uncompromising demands, would the idea of abortion have been such a topic of debate among us today?  Or are there those who feel it was inevitable and that the Bible all along supported it and we just hadn't caught up with its real message?  Or, that abortion is one of the neutral topics upon which the Bible is just too vague to be dogmatic?  How did we get here? 

I think abortion is one of the first fault lines in what has become the obvious incompatibility between a Christian world view and 20th Century and early 21st Century American culture.  To adopt the Sexual Revolution, one must first adopt a secular view of what it means to be a human being, of what it means to have a body, of the purpose of life, and of sex.  Once that is done, it becomes very difficult to argue that abortion is wrong. 

Speaking from a male/masculine perspective, if abortion is wrong, so is sex outside of marriage, and so is viewing sex as a form of recreation. We can blame a lot of it on Hugh Hefner.  I'm afraid that very few men, even men who profess to be Christian, are currently willing to revert to a traditional Christian view of sex.  It's comparable to what is required of men who convert from a pagan religion to Christianity.

I believe that more and more there is a 'paganization' of the church-at-large and of many so-called Christians.  Aside from sexual and procreative mores, we began to see this even in the sanctuaries of some churches as the outside secular world of entertainment was pulled inside in an effort to woo and win over the so-called "seekers."  The church, in too many cases, is increasingly indistinguishable from the outside culture.  Because we see the decline in the number of people in the pews we panic and try to find areas of compromise so that those outside in the pagan culture will feel more comfortable.  But if what the pagan views inside the church seems no different than what he sees outside the church, why would he commit? 

On the sexual front some of us have fought, for years, an uphill and losing battle.  We realize that in ever increasing numbers our people, especially our younger people, are making choices very much at odd with the church's traditional teaching and practice.  And because church is not important they are jettisoning that for other activities.  They don't need the church, so why would they succumb to its ethical requirements?

Yet some in the church make these 'adjustments' and then attempt to look for justification in the scriptures.  It all feels very backwards.

As one who grew up in the 1970s, I can see how far the Christian view had already eroded by the time I started paying attention.  I learned to take a lot of things for granted that would have been unthinkable for my parents when they were children.  Perhaps the reason that defenders of abortion are so adamant is because they have a better understanding of what a true rejection of abortion entails than most Christians do.  Perhaps that is the reason that the defenders of alternate lifestyles are so set on rejecting the whole Christian view of sex, including marriage and monogamy, rather than merely "reforming" it.  They see that the things are inseparable. 

[David Garner]

1) Viability as discussed in Roe and it’s grotesque progeny is NOT “when the soul enters the body.” It is when the baby can live outside the womb.

2) File this under “follow the science”:  https://www.newsweek.com/science-lesson-justice-sotomayor-opinion-1655850

[Brian Stoffregen]

I was relating an argument from the early Roman Catholic church that had a less biblical view of "soul".

Which Roman Catholic belief was that?  Can you name names?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment names names.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Am I a viable human being? For my continued life I am dependent on the medical/pharmaceutical industry that is far beyond my capability to replace on my own. Most obviously, I, as a diabetic, am dependent on a continual supply of insulin that I cannot produce myself, either in my pancreas or through other means at my disposal. I don't know how long the rising blood sugar would take to kill me, but probably weeks, not years. Similarly, my high blood pressure without my meds would do me in. So, since I cannot fully take care of myself but am absolutely dependent on others to be viable, am I a viable human? If that viability is the crucial determinate of personhood and human rights, have I lost those rights?

Are you able to survive outside the womb? If so, you are viable.

[Brian Stoffregen]

We all agree that abortion changes a living thing into a dead thing. There is no argument there. At issue is whether the thing so reduced from life to death is a human being or not. Actually, that isn’t even at issue among serious people. The mere fact that we know it is so when the baby is wanted makes the case, even apart from the scientific fact of it. The pro-choice side must change the subject in order to pretend the argument is about some other topic, make up a distinction between beings that are human organisms and those that are human persons, claim that the mother’s desire to have the baby or not actually confers or withholds personhood on it, or engage in some other obfuscation of the matter.

It's more subtle than that. The question is whether or not the thing that goes from life to death is a viable human being. The issue of viability (or when the soul enters the fetus in some long-ago discussions) was part of Roe v. Wade. It is part of our ELCA's Social Statement on Abortion.

Why is that the question? Paralytics, infants, the elderly and infirm-- all kinds of people are not viable on their own. But even conceding the poorly reasoned logic of Roe v. Wade, the distinction between living and dead does not apply to the discussion except as the obvious result of killing somebody.

As the lawyer, Dave Garner, noted viability was defined as "able to live outside of the womb." Paralytics, infants, elderly, and infirmed, are all able to live outside of the womb.

[DCharlton]

I was relating an argument from the early Roman Catholic church that had a less biblical view of "soul".

Which Roman Catholic belief was that?  Can you name names?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment names names.

Well that article covers pagan, Patristic, Medieval, Roman Catholic and Protestant eras.  Which particular set of ideas did you have in mind?  I was expecting you to mention Traducianism and Creationism as two of the options.  How do Augustine and Aquinas fit into all of this?  What does the CCC say?  Is Ensoulment a theological term?

[James S. Rustad]

As the lawyer, Dave Garner, noted viability was defined as "able to live outside of the womb." Paralytics, infants, elderly, and infirmed, are all able to live outside of the womb.

(CNN)A baby born weighing less than a pound has beaten the odds and celebrated his first birthday, becoming the most premature baby to survive, according to Guinness World Records.

When Richard Scott William Hutchinson was born five months prematurely -- recognized by Guinness as the world's most premature baby -- his doctors prepared his parents for the worst.

Does that move viability to 20 weeks?

What happens as medicine improves and 19-week-old babies can survive outside the womb?

18 weeks?

17 weeks?

Earlier?

[Dan Fienen]

Brian, you have treated us to word studies on especially the Greek but also a little Hebrew on their words for breath, breathing, wind, and spirit or soul. You have suggested that the human soul should be closely associated with breathing and breath. You have even called the Third Person of the Trinity, God's Holy Breath and implied that the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity in Jesus began when God's Holy Breath breathed Him into Jesus when He started to breathe after birth. Was all of this cute word games, idle speculation, or were you seriously asserting any of that?


Do you assert that the human is without a soul until the first breath after birth? That that is the moment of ensoulment?


Do you assert that the Incarnation began only with Jesus' first breath after birth and before that He was just an ordinary gestating baby?


Do you assert that the Third Person of the Trinity is literally the Breath of God?


And what does all this have to do with the abortion debate, especially as it pertains to the Supreme Court Case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization?


Do you assert that presumed viability of the developing child outside the womb should be the dividing line at which time the developing baby acquires human rights, presumably before that point it had the status of a clump of human tissue?


If so, on what basis should that be the dividing line?

[Marshall Hahn]

As the lawyer, Dave Garner, noted viability was defined as "able to live outside of the womb." Paralytics, infants, elderly, and infirmed, are all able to live outside of the womb.

The definition of "viability" used above is a legalese construct that is as arbitrary as defining a slave as 3/5 of a "person" for taxation purposes in the 1787 Compromise.  Biologically, "viable", in itself, means "capable of normal growth and development."  A fetus, in normal circumstances, (that is, without the presence of some extreme medical condition) is eminently viable within the natural environment of the womb.  Only when the fetus is forcibly removed from that environment does it cease its normal growth and development.  On the other hand, the vast majority of human beings only remain "viable" because we are able to create an artificial environment that allows us to continue to thrive.  Right now, without the artificial environment created by the fossil fuels heating the church I am sitting in, I would cease being "viable" very quickly, given the freezing temperature outside. 
So it is a rhetorical trick to say "See!  The fetus is not 'viable' because when I remove it from the womb it dies!  Therefore, I am justified in removing it from the womb, because it cannot live on its own."  When, in fact, it can and will "live on its own" unless some violent action is taken against it.  I am less viable than a fetus - return me to the "natural environment" of an Iowa winter and I would not survive for long.

Marshall Hahn

[David Garner]

As the lawyer, Dave Garner, noted viability was defined as "able to live outside of the womb." Paralytics, infants, elderly, and infirmed, are all able to live outside of the womb.

The definition of "viability" used above is a legalese construct that is as arbitrary as defining a slave as 3/5 of a "person" for taxation purposes in the 1787 Compromise.  Biologically, "viable", in itself, means "capable of normal growth and development."  A fetus, in normal circumstances, (that is, without the presence of some extreme medical condition) is eminently viable within the natural environment of the womb.  Only when the fetus is forcibly removed from that environment does it cease its normal growth and development.  On the other hand, the vast majority of human beings only remain "viable" because we are able to create an artificial environment that allows us to continue to thrive.  Right now, without the artificial environment created by the fossil fuels heating the church I am sitting in, I would cease being "viable" very quickly, given the freezing temperature outside. 
So it is a rhetorical trick to say "See!  The fetus is not 'viable' because when I remove it from the womb it dies!  Therefore, I am justified in removing it from the womb, because it cannot live on its own."  When, in fact, it can and will "live on its own" unless some violent action is taken against it.  I am less viable than a fetus - return me to the "natural environment" of an Iowa winter and I would not survive for long.

Marshall Hahn

Accurate.  It is an arbitrary word, like "fetus," that is intended to dehumanize a human being.

[Matt Hummel]

I have read similar findings previously.

https://cruxnow.com/interviews/2019/12/medical-discoveries-about-pregnancy-could-shed-light-on-mary-as-mother-of-god

[David Garner]

I have read similar findings previously.

https://cruxnow.com/interviews/2019/12/medical-discoveries-about-pregnancy-could-shed-light-on-mary-as-mother-of-god

That is amazing.  All creation declares the glory of God.

It's utterly fascinating to me how the "follow the science" people flee from the science as if it were poison when it comes to this issue.  Ultimately, I can only conclude that they want what they want, and when science stands in the way of power it is no longer a friend, but an enemy that must be ignored or, failing that, destroyed.  It's apparent in other areas too, notably the current transgender movement.

[Charles Austin]

I am inclined to do a "Woo Hoo!," were I the sort of person who did that. But instead a tongue in cheek reflection.
The governor of California is taking the Texas anti-abortion law as a suggestion on how he can enact heavy-duty gun control measures in his state.
Like it, I do; though the foundation is more that a little worrisome. Because it goes like this.
   The Supreme Court has seen a constitutional reason for a woman's right to have an abortion and has so ruled. It is a ruling on the Constitution.
   Texas says "not in our state," and has made possible a vigilante-style posse to bring the force of Texas law (not the U.S. Constitution, which the law opposes) on anyone helping the woman seeking an abortion.
   So I ask gun-lover Second Amendment folks, especially the "pro-life" ones....
   If Texas can say the right-to-an-abortion part of the constitution as ruled by the Supreme Court doesn't apply down there along the Rio Grande, why couldn't California or Connecticut say the right-to-own-guns doesn't apply in those states and let people turn in gun-owners? And if you are quaffing coffee with a neighbor and spot a gun rack in his basement, call the law and you get a big reward.

[peter_speckhard]

I am inclined to do a "Woo Hoo!," were I the sort of person who did that. But instead a tongue in cheek reflection.
The governor of California is taking the Texas anti-abortion law as a suggestion on how he can enact heavy-duty gun control measures in his state.
Like it, I do; though the foundation is more that a little worrisome. Because it goes like this.
   The Supreme Court has seen a constitutional reason for a woman's right to have an abortion and has so ruled. It is a ruling on the Constitution.
   Texas says "not in our state," and has made possible a vigilante-style posse to bring the force of Texas law (not the U.S. Constitution, which the law opposes) on anyone helping the woman seeking an abortion.
   So I ask gun-lover Second Amendment folks, especially the "pro-life" ones....
   If Texas can say the right-to-an-abortion part of the constitution as ruled by the Supreme Court doesn't apply down there along the Rio Grande, why couldn't California or Connecticut say the right-to-own-guns doesn't apply in those states and let people turn in gun-owners? And if you are quaffing coffee with a neighbor and spot a gun rack in his basement, call the law and you get a big reward.

Your inability to distinguish Roe v. Wade from the Constitution is your problem. That’s the flaw in your comparison. When the Texas law or any other such pro-life law comes before the SCOTUS, the justices will have to decide whether to uphold Roe. They have no standing to overturn the 2nd Amendment. So both Texas and California would get challenged, but only Texas would have a chance of prevailing.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Exactly. It's A specific 2nd Amendment, Charles, versus a manufactured penumbra right.

So, "Woo Hoo!" all you want. Newsom's absurd idea isn't going anywhere.