XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel
XPost: talk.abortion, alt.christnet.christianlife

Michael Ejercito wrote:

HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

Michael Ejercito wrote:

HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

Michael Ejercito wrote:

https://ethicsalarms.com/2025/05/28/re-abortion-another-bias-makes-you-stupid-op-ed-in-the-nyt/

Re Abortion: Another �Bias Makes You Stupid� Op-Ed in the NYT
May 28, 2025 / Jack Marshall


It�s kind of funny when headline writers are so clueless and biased that >>>>> what they think is a �res ipsa loquitur� story proving one thing
actually reveals something completely different.

The headline on a Times op-ed ed last week was �A Brain-Dead Woman Is >>>>> Being Kept on Machines to Gestate a Fetus. It Was Inevitable.� (I�m
using my last gift link of the month on this one, so you�d better read >>>>> it!) The writer was Kimberly Mutcherson, a professor at Rutgers Law School.

The entire piece radiates contempt for the concept of treating the
unborn as human lives, which, you know, they are and rather undeniably >>>>> so. Readers are informed that Adriana Smith is brain dead, and has been >>>>> connected to life support machines for more than 90 days to save the >>>>> life of her baby. Smith was nine weeks pregnant when she died from
multiple blood clots in her brain.

�Her fetus�s heart continued to beat,� writes the professor, as if it >>>>> was an abandoned car with a functioning carburetor. Georgia, she
explains, is one of those crazy, fetus-worshiping states where a nascent >>>>> human being is deemed a human life that can�t be snuffed out on a whim >>>>> if it has a heartbeat. This, to the op-ed�s author, the headline writer >>>>> and the New York Times is completely unfathomable.


�Legislators did not seem to have considered a situation in which a
pregnant woman is legally dead,� she sneers. Funny, I don�t see why the >>>>> death of the mother compels the decision that the child she is carrying >>>>> should be considered a non-person and a life not worth saving. The
professor quotes the dead woman�s mother as saying, �We want the baby. >>>>> That�s a part of my daughter. But the decision should have been left to >>>>> us � not the state.� Wait: don�t we all believe that it is a proper
function of the state to protect the lives of human beings and to pass >>>>> laws that embody that duty? Do families have the option of letting the >>>>> children of parents who are killed die from neglect because it�s the >>>>> family�s �choice�?


What is stunning (depressing, annoying, telling) about Mutcherson�s
essay is that she can�t grasp why anyone would argue that a brain dead >>>>> mother should be kept alive so a vulnerable human being can become
strong enough to live a life outside her womb. Many quotes in the op-ed >>>>> make that clear, like�

�Reproductive justice advocates have long been clear that abortion law >>>>> is never only about abortion. It is about the exercise of control over >>>>> all pregnant women, regardless of whether they plan to carry their
pregnancies to term. That�s why the anti-abortion movement has pursued a >>>>> broad agenda of legal personhood for embryos and fetuses.� My comment: >>>>> �The Horror�! These misguided people think that a human being�s life >>>>> should be saved if at all possible. The monsters! This is the �It isn�t >>>>> what it is,� �Handmaiden�s Tale� propaganda of the political left, not >>>>> objective analysis. Anti-abortion advocates think that living human
beings shouldn�t be killed, that�s all. The position has nothing to do >>>>> with �controlling� the people who want to kill them any more than laws >>>>> against murder are �about the exercise of control� over citizens who >>>>> would like to kill someone.
�This kind of catastrophic event was inevitable, given the expansive and >>>>> imprecise laws written by legislators who generally lack medical
expertise, and the inability of politicians to fully predict every
emergency situation.� My comment: The professor isn�t referring to the >>>>> mother�s death as the �catastrophic event,� but rather the brain dead >>>>> woman�s body being kept functioning so her baby can be born. I can
conceive of valid arguments for why this should be considered bad policy >>>>> or a situation requiring special legislation. But what�s the
catastrophe? The author is incapable of comprehending that in a
utilitarian analysis, a Kantian analysis favoring human life, and
reciprocity principles (�If you were the fetus, what would you want the >>>>> hospital to do?�), the situation is thoroughly defensible.
�Emory University Hospital, once Ms. Smith�s place of employment, would >>>>> not be legally allowed to remove organs from a brain-dead person without >>>>> family consent if this person hadn�t previously registered her wish to >>>>> be a donor, even if doing so could save or improve dozens of lives.
However, according to Ms. Smith�s mother, the hospital informed her
that, because of the fetus her daughter was carrying, it could not
legally withdraw the artificial means of keeping her body functioning.� >>>>> My comment: So? The professor thinks that�s an apt analogy: the dead >>>>> woman�s organs can�t be harvested without her prior consent, so they >>>>> will be allowed to die along with her. But a liver isn�t a human being. >>>>> Never mind; abortion advocates can�t concede that what is at stake in an >>>>> abortion decision is a second human life. If they do, they know what >>>>> abortion becomes.
�Knowing the tremendous work that the body of a pregnant woman must do >>>>> to sustain and nourish a pregnancy, the harm to the fetus from being >>>>> trapped inside a body without a functioning brain cannot be known with >>>>> certainty.� My comment: Consequentialism, the refuge of the ethically >>>>> inert: �It�s a bad decision because it might not work.�
Mutcherson concludes by calling the situation �dystopian��there�s �The >>>>> Handmaiden�s Tale� mentality again. She can see no benefit or reason to >>>>> try to save a human life. Bias has not only rendered her stupid, but so >>>>> morally and ethically blind she can�t see the other side of a genuine >>>>> ethics conflict.

"It's written that GOD punished David&Bathsheba w/ a full-term
abortion for their adultery. Thus, abortion reminds us that the
adultery of http://AntiChrist45.com (#TrumpIsTheAntiChrist) is the sin >>>> to stop..."

Source:
https://x.com/WDJW/status/1926364784917676335

The absolutely only godly way to stop the sin of adultery (thereby
stopping abortions) is by holding up our #1 Example of living
http://WonderfullyHungry.org (Luke 24:42-3).

Indeed.

Indeed, I am http://WonderfullyHungry.org (Philippians 4:12) for food
right now (Luke 6:21a) and hope you, Michael, and others reading this, >>>> also have a healthy appetite for food right now too.

So how are you ?

I am wonderfully hungry!

While wonderfully hungry in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy
8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, are rapture ready (Luke
17:37 means no COVID just as eagles circling over their food have no
COVID) and pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6)
Father in Heaven continues to give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy
Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) so that we'd have much more of His Help to
always say/write that we're "wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways
including especially caring to "convince it forward" (John 15:12) with
all glory (Psalm112:1) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba, DEO), in
the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO !

Source:
https://newsgrouper.org/alt.bible.prophecy/638202/638213

Thank you for noting that I have no COVID.

Just please to do likewise as our LORD Jesus & I have done for you,
Michael, and http://go.WDJW.net/ConvinceItForward (John 15:12) to be https://bit.ly/Wonderfully_Hungrier more blessed by GOD right now
(Luke 6:21a):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MK66v5lh4M

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)