Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas – https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/01/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court
I still remember the chorus of glee that arose from a mass of Irish people when the laws concerning abortion were relaxed allowing more possibility for women to end the lives of their unborn children. I think they saw it as a kindness and a relief for women under pressure, that more could now feel free to stop pregnancies they may not be ready for.
The media and the people couch evils in euphemisms, phrase their views in ways that obscure the truth of what occurs. It reminds me of an immature child thinking he can hide from someone if he simply closes his eyes. In a world so selfish, since he can’t see anything, then the people looking for him can’t see him either.
What is abortion? In effect, it is only one thing. It is the ending of an individual human life by deliberate and artificial means. It is not a natural death, but it is a killing, a slaying, a destruction of human life where the agent is another human being. It is the slaughter of innocent human life, a life that had committed no crime.
How is this deliberate death of an innocent human life hidden in words? The word “abortion” is one way. It is not defined as the purposeful killing of one person by another. It’s wonderfully given the following definitions. “induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus” or “the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.” The lack of any humanity to any of these words, the nigh-mechanistic verbiage, tends to isolate the reader from necessary consequences. That is until a person actually thinks about it. But isn’t this akin to headlines, the way people nowadays seem to just read headlines and short tweets, not seeking to go any deeper, not putting any effort into taking the time to think about things? Reading the headline “abortion” or seeing terms like “end pregnancy” or “removing embryos” thoughtlessly can very easily comfort a person because there is no “person” or “humanity” in such terms. The headline-reading person can just get along with the day since a person is free to do such dispassionate things.
But what about when I think about it? The removal of an embryo? Doesn’t that mean to take a developing human out of its life-sustaining protection, hence killing the human life? Oh, no! Let’s not think about an innocent human. “Ending pregnancy?” What was the woman pregnant with? A fish? An amphibian? A reptile? Are we just talking about an animal? No, a human can only be pregnant with another human! Is the life inside the mother the same as the life of the mother? No, since there are marked differences between the human life in the womb and the female that is carrying the that human life. So ending a pregnancy is about ending the life of another person, purposely, deliberately. It’s about killing. It’s only a “fetus?” Read this.
Week 11: Baby’s genitals develop
At the beginning of the 11th week of pregnancy, or the ninth week after conception, your baby’s head still makes up about half of its length. However, your baby’s body is about to catch up.
Your baby is now officially described as a fetus. This week your baby’s face is broad, the eyes widely separated, the eyelids fused and the ears low set. Buds for future teeth appear. Red blood cells are beginning to form in your baby’s liver. By the end of this week, your baby’s external genitalia will start developing into a penis or a clitoris and labia majora.
By now your baby might measure about 2 inches (50 millimeters) long from crown to rump — the length of the short side of a credit card — and weigh almost 1/3 ounce (8 grams).
Mayo Clinic (n.d.), “Fetal development: The 1st trimester.” Available at: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302# (Accessed: 2nd Sept 2021)
“Your baby is a fetus?” So that would mean that when a woman “terminates a pregnancy” and “destroys the fetus,” she’s killing her baby? I guess there is a good (meaning “clever”) reason why abortion advocates avoid using such words as “killing babies.” Close the eyes. Put the fingers in the ears. Use different labels for the same thing. I guess that, for some, it’s ok to kill babies as long as the government (another bunch of humans) says so, right?
But in light of “using different labels for the exact same action,” let me now dissect portions of the article I shared at the beginning.
Just look at the picture used by the online paper.
Take particular notice of these two people.
“KEEP ABORTION LEGAL!” That’s on one of the placard. This relates to how immoral a particular government is. To keep, in this context, is to maintain something that is already in place. “Abortion” is killing babies. “Legal” means that a bunch of people called “government” establish that thing or principle as protected by their edict or say-so, under threat of force or death. So one person, a woman, wants a bunch of powerful people to maintain what they’ve already done, to use that manpower, that threat of harm, to protect those who kill babies. Nice!
Next to the woman with the previous placard is a man. On his placard is a bunch of confused messages. “NO UTERUS: NO OPINION! MY BODY; MY CHOICE! KEEP ABORTION SAFE/LEGAL!” Can you see why this male holding this placard is so odd, especially in these times of the threat of vaccine mandates and enforced lockdowns (house arrests) and medical tyranny with mask mandates and social distancing? First he promotes the idea that if a person has no uterus, they should have no opinion on the matter. This is called a logical fallacy, a failure in reasoning. In particular, it is called argumentum ad hominem (circumstantial). It is a diversion, an argument that distracts for the main point, the point being whether political power should be used to protect baby killers or the lives of the babies. The argument focuses instead on an irrelevant circumstantial aspect of a person, their sex or gender, as if to render their opinion null and void. Since the point is a political one, then the fact that a person has a uterus has nothing to do with whether they have the mental, moral or emotional tools to make a just decision.
He adds “my body; my choice.” Again, considering that people are now being forced or coerced to wear masks, stay apart from one another, to take medical interventions, it is odd that this guy screams for bodily autonomy when it comes to killing another body, that of the baby. That’s an example of the twisted moral world we live in today.
Then he finishes with the appeal to keep abortion safe/legal. I’ve already dealt with the “legal” euphemism. But keeping abortion safe? Safe for who? Oh yes, the mother. Because killing a baby is the opposite of safety, right? It’s like saying “keep killing safe!” Moronic!
Look at the title of the piece, “Most extreme abortion law.” How is it extreme? Well, as the article details,
Senate Bill 8, ushered through the Republican-dominated Texas legislature and signed into law by the Republican governor, Greg Abbott, in May, bars abortion once embryonic cardiac activity is detected, which is around six weeks, and offers no exceptions for rape or incest.
Tuma, M., (2021), ‘Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas.’ The Guardian. 2nd Sept 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/01/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court. Accessed: 2nd Sept 2021
The source documentation of the bill can be found here (https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/2021).
So this “extreme” bill says you can’t kill babies if a heartbeat is detected. That is what is so extreme! The article is filled with complaints and statements of aghast that such a “terrible” bill could be given political power. But, as my brother wisely said, the point of the article is not goodness or morality. The issue is not what is right and what is wrong. The only issue is political power and how it is wielded. It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about power.
But I guess the mantras of “black lives matter” and “all lives matter” can only be patent lies because, obviously, they don’t if they are unborn, right?
I do enjoy reading the colour commentary and the innately evil language of the writer. It makes me chuckle at least.
“… opening the floodgates to harassing and frivolous lawsuits from anti-abortion vigilantes …”
“Unfortunately, many people who need access the most will slip through the cracks, …” (“access” means doors open to killing babies, can’t let any of those critters escape, right?)
“It is unbelievable that Texas politicians have gotten away with this devastating and cruel law that will harm so many.” Note how it is devastating and cruel (emotive langauge) to not kill babies, and it causes harm to avoid the killing of babies. I guess it is cruel to the women who, in most cases aside from the small percentage of rape, opened their legs, allowed the seed of life into them, but now don’t want human life growing in them, despite the contrary actions leading up to the conception.
“It will prevent the majority of Texas women (85%) from accessing abortion care, as most aren’t aware they are pregnant as early as six weeks.” Don’t you love the term “abortion care” when you actually think about what that means? Isn’t that an oxymoron or contradiction of sorts?
Joe Biden is said to have supported “abortion rights” and even called the right to abortion “a constitutional right established under Roe v Wade.” But wasn’t the american constitution fabricated in the 18th century whilst Roe v Wade occurred in the late 20th century? But despite the anachronism, think about abortion as a right. It’s your right to end another human life. Wow! That’s america, huh? It makes it even funnier when people say that soldiers fought and killed for people to have their rights. I guess killing begets killing, right?
“We are all going to comply with the law even though it is unethical, inhumane, and unjust,” Dr Ghazaleh Moayedi, a Texas abortion provider and OB-GYN, said. “It threatens my livelihood and I fully expect to be sued. But my biggest fear is making sure the most vulnerable in my community, the Black and Latinx patients I see, who are already most at risk from logistical and financial barriers, get the care they need.”
ibid.
Just reading these words and thinking about them. It almost boggles the mind. The law that prohibits killing living human beings is “unethical, inhumane, and unjust.” Woe to those who calls evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20). But that goes for much of society. But remember, just as this “doctor” speaks, black lives matter; latino lives matter. Just remember that.
“Many abortion-seeking women are expected to be delayed until later in pregnancy.” Abortion-seeking women. My God.
I’m gonna stop there. I’ve seen and said enough about this. But I do believe that a nation, a people, thirsty for the blood of the innocent should drown in it. No apologies.
Leaving that aside, I was watching some trash recently. I get sick of inundating myself with serious stuff, real life stuff, so I try watching fiction. Unfortunately, I tend to overthink what I’m consuming so I don’t really get the intended enjoyment and only get food for more thought. On the other hand, I tend to see over-acting, the utter fakeness of the fiction (why else would it be called fiction? Duh.) the CGI, the attempts at emotional manipulation, etc.
Anyway, in this piece of fiction, an animation, a character called “the Incredible Hulk,” who is meant to be indestructible or immortal or whatever, is killed by some “villain” placing some growing device on his heart, which then expands proportionally, exploding out of his body, causing it to explode in a sea of green blood. It’s depicted quite visually or graphically. No, I don’t know if it’s still meant to be a kids’ show. The scene depicts his uncertain surprise as his chest expands “abnormally,” “unnaturally” crushing his head. The moving pictures focus on his eye as it opens wide with emotional energy. The blood suddenly ruptures and spews out from his joints as the rest of him simply explodes.
My eyes look on this and send the messages to my brain about what it sees. My mind absorbs all of this. It is meant to look shocking, meant to prod and stab the heart of the person watching. “What an awful way to go.”
That is, until the overthinker pokes out his head. And he asks, what did I just see? Did I see a monster die horribly? Did I see a man die? No, not at all. There was no real man, no real monster, no real eye, no real blood, no real enlarging heart. There was nothing except the creation of someone’s imagination put into moving art form. There was nothing except the visual representation of computer graphics.
So if what I’m watching is less than water vapour, less than a breath of air, … no, not if. So, based on the fact that I’m watching nothing but pretence, what is there in which to invest my emotions? What need is there for fear, shock or concern? If I shouldn’t invest my money and physical toil into fictions that give no good return in terms of wealth, why would I invest my mental and emotional toil on like fictions?
I know, I know I’ve written about such things before. And I know, the definition of entertainment is to distract and to hold one’s attention. Job done! But I still ponder on the nature of what I watch, as if it troubles me. Maybe it troubles me. But what is the “it” that troubles me? That’s the question.
Seven Laws Blog UK 
9 replies on “Baying for blood and ponderings on illusion”
We must stop Texas from banning infanticide! Getting a tiny bit closer to following the law of Justice is seen as unjust. Fools…
Totally agree. What idiots!
Your middle sentence, “Getting a tiny bit closer to following the law of Justice is seen as unjust.” Very interesting wording. I think I see your point. And it’s a good point! > WordPress.com >
Dinim questions (from a conversation with someone): do people who repent for their violations of the seven laws get excecuted? Why is someone who steals a penny executed?
The Rabbinical authorities of our generation wrote that the Torah Laws concerning an obligation for Noahide Courts to administer capital punishment apply only if the majority of the society’s population believes in the One True God and specifically observes the Seven Noahide Commandments as Divine commandments that they accept upon themselves. A Gentile who steals a penny is executed because there is no set minimum amount for the Noahide prohibition of theft. I hope this helps.
If someone murders someone with premeditation, is convicted in a righteous court and then sorrowfully repents, they can say sorry to God all they want, and he may forgive them, but should that remove the penalty as given by the courts? He is not asking forgiveness from the courts as he did the court no wrong. And getting forgiveness from God also doesn’t remove the penalty. That’s not to say there is no point in being sorry and repenting to God as that has its own benefit, but what does that have to do with the legal case?
When the person you were speaking to asks, “why is someone who steals a penny executed?” couldn’t that be asked for any of the crimes listed in the seven laws? In fact, that could be asked of any legal system, of any law. Why is a robber imprisoned for robbing in the current system? Why is someone who drives in a bus lane fined in the UK? Why is a homosexual executed in certain cultures? Why is someone executed for breaking the sabbath?
Most of the time, crimes are crimes and penalties are penalties because that is what was decided, even if we don’t know the reasoning. In the case of the seven laws, they were generated from God, a trustworthy source.
When it comes to someone stealing a penny, I think the person’s focus is on the penny, as if it is just as small thing? “Well, he only did a small thing, so why such a heavy price?” But what did he do? The point isn’t the penny. The point is the stealing. When it comes to the seven laws, it’s about an act that was done intentionally and that was witnessed. We’re not talking about someone picking up a penny from the street. We’re talking about someone purposefully going into someone else’s possession, knowing it wasn’t theirs, and then taking it for themselves. That’s not a small thing. Stealing is not a small matter. And just focusing on the size of what was stolen is akin to arguing that you only slept with another person’s wife one time. Or you could argue that you only killed a disabled and orphaned baby. The issue is the morality of the act and who sets the punishment.
Now I will admit that I’m not wholly sure that every single breaking of the seven laws compels a court to execute the criminal. But I need to ponder and study on that further. But even if the strict standard was that every seven law criminal must die in a righteous court, then, based on the requirements given to indict a person, meaning who intentional it was and whether there was an actual and proper witness, I think God’s morality and legality is wholly fine, because of Who is giving it.
Damn, I was sure I was gonna make another point … Oh yeah, the community. Now remember that the court that keeps such standards is part of a community that keeps such standards. This is not a tyranny because it is the people who should create the courts that uphold the seven laws. Maimonides’ writing on the topic implies this, I believe.
“How must the gentiles fulfill the commandment to establish laws and courts? They are obligated to set up judges and magistrates in every major city to render judgement concerning these six mitzvot and to admonish the people regarding their observance.
A gentile who transgresses these seven commands shall be executed by decapitation.” (https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1188354/jewish/Melachim-uMilchamot-Chapter-9.htm)
So you see it starts with the community first setting up the judges, and then we can talk about execution. If the community is like how the world is today, where they have no moral standard and are sloppy in terms of thinking and judging so finding a decent witness is gonna be very difficult, and the people are not in the moral place to accept the seven, then the punishments of the seven are not going to be upheld. So there is a whole context to the keeping of the law of Justice. For now, the seven laws are moral standards for us to live by and are also standards by which to see how far the current society as fallen to the point where someone has to ask “why would I be punished for stealing for a small thing?” That’s because they’ve lost or they do not have the moral instinct against stealing in the first place. That’s just my opinion.
There is a prohibition against changing the correct judgment in any way according to the Divine Code, Third Edition, page 673. Note that Gentiles can be sentenced to the death penalty for murder (including abortion) even nowadays. Note also that if the item has no monetary value, the Gentile is exempt from capital punishment.
If an item has no monetary value, the thief is not liable? Something sounds wrong there. That sounds either incomplete or wrong.
It’s not wrong. See the Divine Code, Second Edition, page 568, footnote 9.
No. I don’t mean you quoted it wrong. I found what you said already in the Divine Code. I’m saying the principle itself, the conclusion reached by Weiner, that’s what I’m talking about. That’s what sounds wrong.