Will require a new federal solution that can compromise across chasm of differing viewpoints of our citizenry and maintain support constitutionally as interpreted by the Roberts court. But Congress will remain deadlocked and a constitutional amendment is not in sight. It will be the slow process of incremental federal court decisions case by case for quite a while. Slow grind of our federal republic, as our founders intended for difficult governing. I do believe our founders would want the legislative breach to resolve this, but difficult issues usually go to the courts. Difficult times are here on many fronts. Time for work to be accomplished.
The next front is when some states pass a "personhood" amendment for their state constitutions, granting full rights to the unborn. This will be countered by some extremists who wish to grant personhood to rivers, apes, and elephants. The argument is "if fetuses have personhood, so do animals." There's logical merit to the argument, from a legal standpoint. And if that's what it takes (conservatorship and legal status for elephants) to protect the unborn, I'd probably hold my nose and accept it.
Thanks for sharing your opinion regarding abortion Steve. Nice to know you alone have been given to us to determine the "Godly" from the "Ungodly." From my vantage point, I would prefer to leave that to my God to decide, not you and certainly not the now newly anointed political arm of the GOP, the supreme court. It truly is troubling to see how arrogant some have become, believing they alone have the ability to judge others. Hoping you are right, hate to think you pissed off God by assuming his role as arbiter of right and wrong.
It’s not a question of godly versus not godly, it’s a question of Christian values superseding the values of Jews, Hindi, Buddhists, Muslim and many other faiths that don’t hold to your same worldview. In the Pentateuch, an unborn fetus is property, and the soul isn’t introduced until birth. Are you saying Jews aren’t godly?
Please tell me how Psalm 139, part of the Old Testament, supports the unborn as property. If you are going to speak for all Jews, please by all means give details.
Funny I figured if anyone would know what the Pentateuch was it would be the converted Jew. I guess I have to explain it to you. You see the Pentateuch includes the first 5 books of the Hebrew bible. Psalm 139 is not considering part and as such wouldn't be applicable to the discussion within the comment. Just venturing a guess I would say the passage he is mentioning is actually Exodus 21. Would you care to comment on that or just continue to throw out random verses?
While you are doing that you can expand on how the Talmud considers a fetus to be "just water" until 40 days of gestation. Or how a fetus isn't considered separate from the females body until that first breath.
Incorrect. Jews use all books of the Tan’ach to form doctrine. Not just the Torah though it is the center of Jewish law. The Talmud is rabbinic opinion (like SCOTUS rulings) and subject to change. Also, Jews have differing opinions on many important matters. There is much nuance that you miss or ignore. During every Shabbat service, there is a reading from both the Torah and the prophets, and Psalms is integrated into the liturgy. Psalm 139 is considered inspired Scrupture, as well as Jeremiah. Jewish experts in the law do not guess, they reason. In modern Israel abortion is legal but only in the first trimester, and only with medical reason. Much of Israeli society is secular/leftist and it’s not hard to find a doctor to grant a reason. America has a lot of work to do.
You have proved my point. As a Jew I find your question to be an insulting beg of the question. The differences are indeed irreconcilable, Jews have the same Old Testament as Christians but they do not interpret it the same. I think there are Godly Jews just as there are ungodly Christians.
Jun 25, 2022·edited Jun 25, 2022Liked by Chris J. Karr
Thank you. Only nationalistic christians and power hungry catholics view the fetus in this backwards ignorant way. It's used to control. As it has always been. In fact it goes further than that. The reason abortion has become so precious to people like Steve is because he can pretend to be godly while losing nothing. Being against abortion costs him nothing.
Controlled yes. Inhabited no. There is a reason these power hungry christians have to constantly lie and abuse their power. Why they have to make sure people are angry or hateful to some other group. They have used the same playbook since the inception of the cult. Keep people ignorant, keep them angry about some threat out there to their way of life, and most of all, lie. It won't be long for the US to follow Europe's example and kick them out to the fringes where they belong.
Let’s see if that’s correct. We now have a map to guide us state by state. And if by fringe you mean Christians who engage in hate and fear mongering, they should be cast out to the fringe. But the millions who do their best to love their neighbors, these will flourish where they are planted. I’ll also predict this: Europe will one day have revival of real and genuine Christianity.
I always thought the difference between the Godly and the ungodly was how you treat the stranger in your midst. When a young girl arrives at church with a little stranger in utero but no husband, how you treat that stranger determines your godliness. And the church has a magnificent record of treating such women with compassion, understanding and warmth. Godly indeed.
Here's a comment in praise of Down's children and others children with disabilities.
I have 8 grandkids. When one of them turned 3 or 4 (one forgets, heh) her mom was looking around for a pre-school for her. I bumped into a lady who wondered it she would like to be a peer leader (wot?) for a class of developmentally disabled young children. Basically they wanted someone very verbal (non stop talking heh) who was sociably. OK, then. Let's do this!
It was wonderful. The granddaughter didn't really realize the kids were different. She chatted them up like they were hung on her every word and they did. The class was heavily Downs. The sweetest kids of them all. For some reason Downs kids have the sweetest spirit. Anyway it was a terrific success for both the grand and the kids.
We are a fallen world. We have a mix of baddies and good. We also have a world of people who are helpless and those who are helpful. We are moving toward eliminating those who are less than perfect so the helpful must step up.
Jun 26, 2022·edited Jun 26, 2022Liked by Chris J. Karr
If it's something that cannot be reconciled, then perhaps it is best to err on the side of religious liberty and self-determination and leave it to the individual to decide for themselves the correct course of action.
Given your unique religious background in two traditions and the strength of your faith, there's a lot here about protecting the most defenseless, but I'm curious how you reconcile your faith with the proposition that than an omnipotent being will resolve all this at some indeterminate time in the future, but continues to permit abortion to exist, which would seem to make your supernatural higher-ups complicit in the neglect of the defenseless souls who never really get an opportunity to live. Seems rather harsh for the souls assigned to the fertilized eggs that are prevented from further development due to something like a miscarriage or a Plan B pill.
From a secular perspective, the standard that makes the most sense to me is one that begins recognizing fetal rights and humanity upon development of a central nervous system capable of feeling pleasure and pain. From a piece that I JUST finished:
"As a middle-aged man who has been in a stable marriage most of my adult life, abortion is not and has not ever been a Tier One Issue for me when it comes to my political choices and disposition. I hold stronger opinions on how the Roe Era was enacted and the second-order effects that caused than any strong position on the issue itself. (I think it was a useful issue to have for culture warriors, and it took away attention from other issues unfairly.) I’m strongly pro-contraceptive and see no moral issue with products like 'day after pills' that terminate a pregnancy shortly after it’s begun. On the flip side, I do see moral issues with waiting until the moment of birth before child can enjoy the protection of the State. I believe that someone injuring a pregnant woman a week before birth is committing just as heinous of a crime as someone injuring a new mother and her child a week after birth. If pushed to choose a 'line' where terminating a pregnancy voluntarily crosses from acceptable to problematic (for me), I’d probably draw the line where the unborn child has a sufficiently-developed nervous system where it can feel pain as a complete living being. I have no problems with moving that line in cases of rape and incest, where the woman had limited agency in preventing the circumstances that led to her pregnancy. I support full exceptions in the case where the mother’s physical health may be in serious risk, or the fetus exhibits severe birth defects where the child won’t survive after birth, but I also don’t support abortions in cases where the child may have a genetic issue such as Down’s Syndrome and can be supported and raised into adulthood. (Knowing families that have members with Down’s Syndrome and having had friends with that condition, I know that it’s no cakewalk for the family dealing with it - I’m 100% in favor of the State stepping in to support these families financially and in whatever other ways they may need assistance.)"
"Ardent Pro-Choice and Pro-Life supporters will both find plenty in the previous paragraph to critique. How do we know when a fetus experiences pain, and why do you not apply that standard to your diet? You eat plenty of things that can and do experience pain. Why should a pregnancy that began with rape or incest enjoy fewer protections than one that was planned? The potential child did not initiate the sexual assault. I could fill an entire post with the objections and issues in my position, which is why my squishy abortion stance has not been something that I’ve pushed on others or used my votes to choose one candidate over another - I’m whatever the opposite of a Single Issue Voter is on this issue. I’m fortunate to be in a position in life where this is an issue that has minimal effect on my life. I also recognize that there are others for whom the overnight evaporation of their ability to terminate their pregnancies is of immediate major concern, which brings me to the topic of this Note."[1]
The rest of the piece is an appeal for folks stunned by this decision to take another look at Federalism in anticipation of a Republican Congress and President Ron de Santis, so not especially germane to whether this is a topic that can be settled. I think even among your fellow Pro-Life compatriots, the issue won't be settled (especially the exceptions for rape and incest), which will surprise a lot of folks should a Rapture occur and everyone's brought up for Judgement.
That said, it may be more productive to let this issue get settled in each of the fifty-plus "laboratories of democracy" and revisit whether policies such as those advanced by Senator Romney[2] might be opportunities for agreement and collaboration for folks that fall on both sides of the abortion debate.
Roe vs. Wade has never been the number one issue for me because I know that abortion will never be eliminated. My view is that abortion is not a Constitutional matter and, therefore, it is up to the states to establish the rules. That should be the case in all but the 30 or so issues enumerated in the Constitution. Abortions in the case of rape and incest and a few other conditions Steve mentioned can be justified.
Does become a constitutional issue because society has a wide, differing and strongly felt opinion on a serious topic. Court cases will keep reaching the Supreme Court.
The court decided there was no constitutional right to abortion. In other cases, they might rule differently. They might even rule differently on the same issue if a different argument is presented. Of course, a few whiny Senators will continue to claim they were lied to during confirmation hearings. Supreme Court justices are human, and they spout platitudes about settled case law until they can seize on an argument they agree with in order to make changes.
Will require a new federal solution that can compromise across chasm of differing viewpoints of our citizenry and maintain support constitutionally as interpreted by the Roberts court. But Congress will remain deadlocked and a constitutional amendment is not in sight. It will be the slow process of incremental federal court decisions case by case for quite a while. Slow grind of our federal republic, as our founders intended for difficult governing. I do believe our founders would want the legislative breach to resolve this, but difficult issues usually go to the courts. Difficult times are here on many fronts. Time for work to be accomplished.
The next front is when some states pass a "personhood" amendment for their state constitutions, granting full rights to the unborn. This will be countered by some extremists who wish to grant personhood to rivers, apes, and elephants. The argument is "if fetuses have personhood, so do animals." There's logical merit to the argument, from a legal standpoint. And if that's what it takes (conservatorship and legal status for elephants) to protect the unborn, I'd probably hold my nose and accept it.
Thanks for sharing your opinion regarding abortion Steve. Nice to know you alone have been given to us to determine the "Godly" from the "Ungodly." From my vantage point, I would prefer to leave that to my God to decide, not you and certainly not the now newly anointed political arm of the GOP, the supreme court. It truly is troubling to see how arrogant some have become, believing they alone have the ability to judge others. Hoping you are right, hate to think you pissed off God by assuming his role as arbiter of right and wrong.
Speaking of judgmental. Steve's opinion is well thought out.
Absolutely God-like Curtis.
It’s not a question of godly versus not godly, it’s a question of Christian values superseding the values of Jews, Hindi, Buddhists, Muslim and many other faiths that don’t hold to your same worldview. In the Pentateuch, an unborn fetus is property, and the soul isn’t introduced until birth. Are you saying Jews aren’t godly?
Please tell me how Psalm 139, part of the Old Testament, supports the unborn as property. If you are going to speak for all Jews, please by all means give details.
Funny I figured if anyone would know what the Pentateuch was it would be the converted Jew. I guess I have to explain it to you. You see the Pentateuch includes the first 5 books of the Hebrew bible. Psalm 139 is not considering part and as such wouldn't be applicable to the discussion within the comment. Just venturing a guess I would say the passage he is mentioning is actually Exodus 21. Would you care to comment on that or just continue to throw out random verses?
While you are doing that you can expand on how the Talmud considers a fetus to be "just water" until 40 days of gestation. Or how a fetus isn't considered separate from the females body until that first breath.
Incorrect. Jews use all books of the Tan’ach to form doctrine. Not just the Torah though it is the center of Jewish law. The Talmud is rabbinic opinion (like SCOTUS rulings) and subject to change. Also, Jews have differing opinions on many important matters. There is much nuance that you miss or ignore. During every Shabbat service, there is a reading from both the Torah and the prophets, and Psalms is integrated into the liturgy. Psalm 139 is considered inspired Scrupture, as well as Jeremiah. Jewish experts in the law do not guess, they reason. In modern Israel abortion is legal but only in the first trimester, and only with medical reason. Much of Israeli society is secular/leftist and it’s not hard to find a doctor to grant a reason. America has a lot of work to do.
You have proved my point. As a Jew I find your question to be an insulting beg of the question. The differences are indeed irreconcilable, Jews have the same Old Testament as Christians but they do not interpret it the same. I think there are Godly Jews just as there are ungodly Christians.
Thank you. Only nationalistic christians and power hungry catholics view the fetus in this backwards ignorant way. It's used to control. As it has always been. In fact it goes further than that. The reason abortion has become so precious to people like Steve is because he can pretend to be godly while losing nothing. Being against abortion costs him nothing.
So you’re claiming 25 states are inhabited and controlled by backward and ignorant people. The U.S. must be the worst place on earth.
Controlled yes. Inhabited no. There is a reason these power hungry christians have to constantly lie and abuse their power. Why they have to make sure people are angry or hateful to some other group. They have used the same playbook since the inception of the cult. Keep people ignorant, keep them angry about some threat out there to their way of life, and most of all, lie. It won't be long for the US to follow Europe's example and kick them out to the fringes where they belong.
Let’s see if that’s correct. We now have a map to guide us state by state. And if by fringe you mean Christians who engage in hate and fear mongering, they should be cast out to the fringe. But the millions who do their best to love their neighbors, these will flourish where they are planted. I’ll also predict this: Europe will one day have revival of real and genuine Christianity.
And which beliefs are "real and genuine"? Is that an objective or subjective determination?
I always thought the difference between the Godly and the ungodly was how you treat the stranger in your midst. When a young girl arrives at church with a little stranger in utero but no husband, how you treat that stranger determines your godliness. And the church has a magnificent record of treating such women with compassion, understanding and warmth. Godly indeed.
Here's a comment in praise of Down's children and others children with disabilities.
I have 8 grandkids. When one of them turned 3 or 4 (one forgets, heh) her mom was looking around for a pre-school for her. I bumped into a lady who wondered it she would like to be a peer leader (wot?) for a class of developmentally disabled young children. Basically they wanted someone very verbal (non stop talking heh) who was sociably. OK, then. Let's do this!
It was wonderful. The granddaughter didn't really realize the kids were different. She chatted them up like they were hung on her every word and they did. The class was heavily Downs. The sweetest kids of them all. For some reason Downs kids have the sweetest spirit. Anyway it was a terrific success for both the grand and the kids.
We are a fallen world. We have a mix of baddies and good. We also have a world of people who are helpless and those who are helpful. We are moving toward eliminating those who are less than perfect so the helpful must step up.
If it's something that cannot be reconciled, then perhaps it is best to err on the side of religious liberty and self-determination and leave it to the individual to decide for themselves the correct course of action.
Access to abortion will be reconciled through our government process over time. It may or satisfy views that are at opposite ends.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not the reconciliation Steve is talking of.
Given your unique religious background in two traditions and the strength of your faith, there's a lot here about protecting the most defenseless, but I'm curious how you reconcile your faith with the proposition that than an omnipotent being will resolve all this at some indeterminate time in the future, but continues to permit abortion to exist, which would seem to make your supernatural higher-ups complicit in the neglect of the defenseless souls who never really get an opportunity to live. Seems rather harsh for the souls assigned to the fertilized eggs that are prevented from further development due to something like a miscarriage or a Plan B pill.
From a secular perspective, the standard that makes the most sense to me is one that begins recognizing fetal rights and humanity upon development of a central nervous system capable of feeling pleasure and pain. From a piece that I JUST finished:
"As a middle-aged man who has been in a stable marriage most of my adult life, abortion is not and has not ever been a Tier One Issue for me when it comes to my political choices and disposition. I hold stronger opinions on how the Roe Era was enacted and the second-order effects that caused than any strong position on the issue itself. (I think it was a useful issue to have for culture warriors, and it took away attention from other issues unfairly.) I’m strongly pro-contraceptive and see no moral issue with products like 'day after pills' that terminate a pregnancy shortly after it’s begun. On the flip side, I do see moral issues with waiting until the moment of birth before child can enjoy the protection of the State. I believe that someone injuring a pregnant woman a week before birth is committing just as heinous of a crime as someone injuring a new mother and her child a week after birth. If pushed to choose a 'line' where terminating a pregnancy voluntarily crosses from acceptable to problematic (for me), I’d probably draw the line where the unborn child has a sufficiently-developed nervous system where it can feel pain as a complete living being. I have no problems with moving that line in cases of rape and incest, where the woman had limited agency in preventing the circumstances that led to her pregnancy. I support full exceptions in the case where the mother’s physical health may be in serious risk, or the fetus exhibits severe birth defects where the child won’t survive after birth, but I also don’t support abortions in cases where the child may have a genetic issue such as Down’s Syndrome and can be supported and raised into adulthood. (Knowing families that have members with Down’s Syndrome and having had friends with that condition, I know that it’s no cakewalk for the family dealing with it - I’m 100% in favor of the State stepping in to support these families financially and in whatever other ways they may need assistance.)"
"Ardent Pro-Choice and Pro-Life supporters will both find plenty in the previous paragraph to critique. How do we know when a fetus experiences pain, and why do you not apply that standard to your diet? You eat plenty of things that can and do experience pain. Why should a pregnancy that began with rape or incest enjoy fewer protections than one that was planned? The potential child did not initiate the sexual assault. I could fill an entire post with the objections and issues in my position, which is why my squishy abortion stance has not been something that I’ve pushed on others or used my votes to choose one candidate over another - I’m whatever the opposite of a Single Issue Voter is on this issue. I’m fortunate to be in a position in life where this is an issue that has minimal effect on my life. I also recognize that there are others for whom the overnight evaporation of their ability to terminate their pregnancies is of immediate major concern, which brings me to the topic of this Note."[1]
The rest of the piece is an appeal for folks stunned by this decision to take another look at Federalism in anticipation of a Republican Congress and President Ron de Santis, so not especially germane to whether this is a topic that can be settled. I think even among your fellow Pro-Life compatriots, the issue won't be settled (especially the exceptions for rape and incest), which will surprise a lot of folks should a Rapture occur and everyone's brought up for Judgement.
That said, it may be more productive to let this issue get settled in each of the fifty-plus "laboratories of democracy" and revisit whether policies such as those advanced by Senator Romney[2] might be opportunities for agreement and collaboration for folks that fall on both sides of the abortion debate.
[1] https://www.notesfromthevoid.cc/p/note-59-the-return-of-the-ninth-and
[2] https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2022/6/19/23172622/mitt-romney-marriage-family-monthly-payments-taxes-personal-choice
Also, thanks for sharing the S.E. Cupp thread. I saw the Navarro clip and was under the impression that I misheard something.
Roe vs. Wade has never been the number one issue for me because I know that abortion will never be eliminated. My view is that abortion is not a Constitutional matter and, therefore, it is up to the states to establish the rules. That should be the case in all but the 30 or so issues enumerated in the Constitution. Abortions in the case of rape and incest and a few other conditions Steve mentioned can be justified.
Does become a constitutional issue because society has a wide, differing and strongly felt opinion on a serious topic. Court cases will keep reaching the Supreme Court.
The court decided there was no constitutional right to abortion. In other cases, they might rule differently. They might even rule differently on the same issue if a different argument is presented. Of course, a few whiny Senators will continue to claim they were lied to during confirmation hearings. Supreme Court justices are human, and they spout platitudes about settled case law until they can seize on an argument they agree with in order to make changes.