Forum (Articles)	Offer	Partners	Rules	Tips	SaveTheWorld:FAQ	Begin!	Donate

Statement of Facts #6 from:

Reversing_Landmark_Abomination_Cases

Saving Babies from judges & voters
Saving Souls from ‘Scrupulous Neutrality’ about Religion

by proving in courts of law and in the Court of Public Opinion that:

 The right to live of a baby and of a judge are equal
 The Bible & reality-challenged religions are NOT equal

A strategy of Life that relies on the Author of Life
for pro-life, pro-Bible Lawmakers, Leaders, Lawyers, and Laymen

by Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Finding #6: The full humanity of a tiny physical body is hard for many to grasp. But what separates us from animals isn’t physical, and has no known preconscious stage.

The Supreme Court has never disagreed with Roe v. Wade’s definition of “person” as including “infused with a soul”. ^[1] “Consciousness” is another word for what distinguishes us from animals, that has no physical explanation. Dictionaries list several differences. ^[2]

Unlike animals whose behavior is consistent within breeds, indicating a lack of meaningful conscious “choice”, we can choose between widely different behaviors, from that of angels to that of demons. We can choose contrary to our own physical needs: we can sacrifice our own interests for another, ^[3] which is how John 15:13 defines “love”. Or we can choose to destroy our bodies to serve hate. ^[4]

Such differences are what justifies greater legal protection of humans than of animals. ^[5]

Since a “soul” without consciousness has never been theorized and can’t be imagined, ^[6] the consensus of fact finders is, in effect, that abortion kills babies with conscious souls. The lack of any physical explanation for a conscious soul rules out any basis for inferring immaturity of consciousness from physical immaturity.

Courts require witnesses to “affirm” that they will “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. America’s definition of “establishment of religion” must allow Americans in every venue, including courts, to tell the whole truth – to affirm reality. Courts must stop punishing people for telling the whole truth – in any venue – just because the whole truth favors God.

Courts must stop censoring a whole category of witnesses to the full humanity of unborn babies. Courts can’t “reject evidence as cumulative when it goes to the very root of the matter in controversy or relates to the main issue, the decision of which turns on the weight of the evidence.” ^[7] Many “jurors” in this “case” (voters and lawmakers) are persuaded by witnesses who are falsely ruled “irrelevant”.

The consensus of Roe, of dictionaries, and of common knowledge about the differences between us and animals that have no known pre-conscious stage is consistent with the claim of Psalm 22:10 that an unborn baby could place his trust in God.

It is consistent with the report in Luke 1:44 that a baby at 6 months heard a righteous voice [and/or felt the righteous Presence of God] and responded with joy, ^[8] a response not everybody chooses, indicating that even the capacity for choosing between good and evil precedes birth.

Roe v Wade was not out of line to “hold” that “those trained in... theology” who study souls, as well as doctors who study bodies, were appropriately consulted by SCOTUS to clarify who to count as human with an unalienable right to life.9 ^[9]

All this testimony indicates that when a baby is killed by dismemberment, acid, or sucking out the brain, it is not some non-sentient animal, some pre-human “potential life”, but a self-aware conscious soul that feels the pain, understands the cruelty, and if out-of-body near-death experiences are real, sees who is doing it, along with God.

Even considering the body only, there is no objective line between birth and conception distinguishing “humans” from “nonpersons”, or between “meaningful life” and life which courts are free to terminate. ^[10] Without such a line, there can be no stage of gestation at which killing a baby can be objectively distinguished from murder. No baby is safe while that line remains arbitrary. ^[11] The failure of some people, and of some religions, to grasp the full humanity of babies at any given stage is a dangerous basis for permitting killing, since as many fail to grasp the full humanity of many groups of born persons.

This mountain of consensus is not “canceled” by the fact that some religions justify abortion by claiming that “souls” do not enter babies until long after fertilization, or even long after birth. <ref>More about “Some religions justify abortion by claiming that “souls” do not enter babies until long after fertilization...”
     Islam
     “Verily, the creation of one of you is brought together in the mother’s womb for forty days in the form of a drop (nutfah), then he becomes a clot ('alaqah) for a like period, then a lump for a like period, then there is sent an angel who blows the soul into him.” — Hadith #4, Imam al-Nawawī’s Forty Hadith, Ibn Hajar al-Haytamī, al-Fath al-mubīn bi sharh al-arba'īn
     Based on this Hadith, “The Hanafi madhab places the point of ensoulment at 120 days after conception” according to Wikipedia’s article on “Ensoulment”. Surahs of the Koran are quoted that do not give the time of ensoulment (when a soul enters a baby). 15:31 says “do not kill your children....” 8:151 says “do not kill the soul which God has forbidden....”
     Roe v. Wade correctly ignored Islam as a trusted source of information about souls and babies. The preceding Hadith is stone-age superstitious on its face, and Islam is the last religion to admire for its equal rights for all humans.
     Hinduism. The following paragra

↑
More about “Part of Roe’s definition of ‘person’ was ‘infused with a soul’.”
“These disciplines [philosophy, theology, civil law, canon law] variously approached the question [of “when life begins”] in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became ‘formed’ or recognizably human, or in terms of when a ‘person’ came into being, that is, infused with a ‘soul’ or ‘animated.’” Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113, 133
↑
     More about “Dictionaries list several differences (between us and animals).”
     Judges look everywhere but in a dictionary to learn what Americans who ratified the 14th Amendment understood the word “person” to mean. In 1868, Webster’s dictionary, published in 1828, was the only American dictionary.
https://webstersdictionary1828.com. “Person: 1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child. A person is a thinking intelligent being.
     “Child: 1. A son or a daughter; a male or female descendant, in the first degree; the immediate progeny of parents; applied to the human race, and chiefly to a person when young. The term is applied to infants from their birth...To be with child [means] to be pregnant. Genesis 16:11, Gen 29:36.”

     One of the modern dictionaries listed at freedictionary.com includes “soul” as part of a definition of “person” or of “human”. It lists four other qualities unique to humans: we are conscious, we can reason, we have a sense of morality, and a “mind”.

Collins English Dictionary, 2014.

     Person: 1. an individual human being
     5. (Philosophy) philosophy a being characterized by consciousness, rationality, and a moral sense, and traditionally thought of as consisting of both a body and a mind or soul.
     Human: 3. having the attributes of man as opposed to animals, divine beings, or machines: human failings.

     noun: a human being; person

     A “person” is a “human”, distinguished from animals by “capacity for speech”, “Kindness” to a degree beyond the capacity of animals, and “weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans”. This last phrase is ironic, since humans are worlds ahead of animals in their capacity! How are we more “fragile”, “imperfect”, or “weak”? Not in any serious physical sense; yet the ability of humans to feel these things, which we can’t imagine any animal feeling, points to an amazing quality of Consciousness.

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, 2010: Person: “A living human.”
     Human: Noun. 1. A member of the primate genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other apes by a large brain and the capacity for speech.

     Adjective: 2. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
     3. Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he’s only human; human frailty.
     Collins English Dictionary, 2014
     1. aware of one’s own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
     2. fully aware of something: not conscious of the passage of time....
     4. known to oneself; felt: conscious guilt.

     Conscious, aware, cognizant refer to a realization or recognition of something about oneself or one's surroundings.... to be conscious of one’s own inadequacy.... implies having knowledge about some object or fact based on reasoning or information

     We can “think”, in a way animals can’t; in this sense, “thought” means “consciousness”. We are “aware”.We have “free will” (Even Calvinists admit of a kind of human “choice” absent in animals). We can “give value” to an idea, meaning to prioritize – to choose.

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 2016

     Conscious: aware; capable of thought or will: a conscious decision; cognizant: She was conscious of the stranger standing close to her.
     2. Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.
     3. Subjectively known or felt: conscious remorse.
     4. Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate:
     b. aware of one’s surroundings, one’s own thoughts and motivations, etc

     2. a. aware of and giving value or emphasis to a particular fact or phenomenon:

     Our “soul” is “capable of moral judgment”. If animals have such a capacity, they must be swimming in perpetual guilt for what they do to each other! Our “soul” is also widely believed to survive the death of our bodies. </blockquote>Abused, Confused, & Misused Words by Mary Embree 2013 by Mary Embree
     Soul: a. A part of humans regarded as immaterial, immortal, separable from the body at death, capable of moral judgment, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.
     b. This part of a human when disembodied after death.
     American Heritage Dictionary 2016
     Soul: 1. (Theology) the spirit or immaterial part of man, the seat of human personality, intellect, will, and emotions, regarded as an entity that survives the body after death.
     2. (Theology) Christianity the spiritual part of a person, capable of redemption from the power of sin through divine grace
     Collins English Dictionary 2014
     1. the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical.
     2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come.
     3. the disembodied spirit of a deceased person.
     Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002
     Soul: 1. The vital principle or animating force within living beings: breath, divine spark, élan vital, life force, psyche, spirit, vital force, vitality.
     2. The essential being of a person, regarded as immaterial and immortal: spirit.
     3. A member of the human race: being, body, creature, homo, human, human being, individual, life, man, mortal, party, person, personage.
     4. The most central and material part:</blockquote>
↑ More about “Love, as defined by John 15:13, [means] to sacrifice one’s interests for another.” John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
↑ More about “we can choose to destroy our bodies to serve hate”
     Our Capacity to destroy our own bodies – to choose against our own physical needs, proves the part of us which is ultimately in control is not our physical bodies. Our “wills”, or “minds”, or “souls”, behave as if they came from another dimension than the physical, and treat our bodies as their tool, not their master.
     This is true whether our anti-body choices are motivated by hate as in the terrorist facing the “glory” of facing a hail of bullets, or by shame as in the Judas who sees his crime and can’t bear the shame, by lack of understanding of the meaning of life as in the wealthy pop idol who drowns himself in drugs to deaden his imagined meaninglessness, or the love of the Christian martyr who shares love and meaning with enemies of love and meaning known to torture anyone who talks about it.
     Suicide verses:
     2 Samuel 17:23 And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose, and gat him home to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his father.
     Matthew 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
     A famous “choice” verse:
     Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
↑ More about “...greater legal protection of humans than of animals...”
Although most of our laws protect humans more than animals, among irrational exceptions is the penalty for taking a single eagle egg compared with the penalty for an abortionist who has murdered 60,000 babies over his career, as late term abortionist George Tiller had claimed on his website before he was shot to death by Scott Roeder, who is now serving a 25 year prison sentence for it.
Though two consecutive Attorney Generals tried to prosecute him, courts threw it out. But the clear penalty for taking an eagle egg: “A violation of the Act can result in a fine of $100,000 ($200,000 for organizations), imprisonment for one year, or both, for a first offense. Penalties increase substantially for additional offenses, and a second violation of this Act is a felony.” https://www.fws.gov/law/bald-and-golden-eagle-protection-act
↑ More about “a ‘soul’ without consciousness has never been theorized and can’t be imagined”
I can’t decide whether to acknowledge, as an exception to this statement, this statement in Wikipedia’s article on “Ensoulment”: “Aristotle's epigenetic view of successive life principles (‘souls’) in a developing human embryo—first a vegetative and then a sensitive or animal soul, and finally an intellective or human soul, with the higher levels able to carry out the functions also of the lower levels—was the prevailing view among early Christians, including Tertullian, Augustine, and Jerome.” The statement is followed by two notes saying “need quotation to verify”, and two more saying “failed verification”. But at least whoever posted the claim in Wikipedia theorized it, although I am skeptical whether anyone can actually imagine a pre-conscious soul.
Subsequently the article alleges that the Greek version of the Old Testament – the Septuigint, which was relied on by early Christians, clearly translates Exodus 21:21-22 as if causing death of an unborn baby triggers only a fine – not execution of the offender. So “the LXX could easily have been used to distinguish human from non-human fœtuses and homicidal from non-homicidal abortions, yet the early Christians, until the time of Augustine in the fifth century, did not do so.” Wikipedia’s article on Aristotle doesn’t mention the claim about pre-conscious souls.
↑ More about “Courts can’t “reject evidence as cumulative when...the decision...turns on the weight of the evidence.”
     “When Does the Number of Experts Used By One Side Become Cumulative?” by Christine Funk, May 25, 2020 (www.expertinstitute.com/ resources/insights/when-does-the-number-of-experts-used-by-one-side-become-cumulative/)
     Excerpts: (In Shallow v. Follwell,) (https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/ supreme-court/2018/sc96901.html) Plaintiffs argued that the testimony of the four experts was cumulative, as the testimony of each expert overlapped that of some or all of the other testifying experts. ...
     Evidence is relevant “if it tends to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” However, courts must still engage in a balancing test to determine whether the relevant evidence poses the risk of unfair prejudice, cumulativeness, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or is an undue delay or waste of time. Where the cost of admitting otherwise relevant evidence “substantially outweighs” the benefits, the evidence should be excluded.
     ...[Evidence is “cumulative”] when evidence “relates to a matter so fully and properly proved by other testimony as to take it out of the area of serious dispute.” [But courts can’t] “to reject evidence as cumulative when it goes to the very root of the matter in controversy or relates to the main issue, the decision of which turns on the weight of the evidence.”
     ...An excessive number of expert witnesses can create the risk that the trier of fact will simply resolve inconsistencies in expert opinions by merely counting the number of witnesses each side calls, rather than providing due consideration to the credibility and quality of each expert’s opinion. While not the only measure, one measure of prejudicial testimony is where the testimony tends to “lead the jury to decide the case on some basis other than the established propositions of the case.” federal rule, which states:
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

     Because what is and what is not considered cumulative is, by and large, a [subjective] judgment call, attorneys and experts would be wise to delineate their differences for the court prior to the beginning of testimony.
↑ More about “a baby at 6 months...felt the... Presence of God and responded with joy...indicating that even the capacity for choosing between good and evil precedes birth.”
     John the Baptist leaped for joy at six months – 26 weeks. Today through ultrasound we can see “at twenty weeks” that “ “facial expressions begin to appear consistently, including ‘negative emotions.’” See Alessandra Pionetelli, Development of Normal Fetal Movements: The First 25 Weeks of Gestation p. 80 (2010).(Amicus Brief of American College of Pediatricians filed in Iowa’s heartbeat law case, https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/18325/briefs/5788/embedBrief
     Luke’s report tells us more than just the capacity of a baby to feel happy or sad. He tells us what made little John happy. Too many people today “delight in lies”, Psalm 62:4, “delight in war”, Psalm 68:30, and “rejoice to do evil, and delight in the frowardness [twisted deceit] of the wicked” Proverbs 2:14. The Psalmist made a different choice: “thy law is my delight” Psalm 119:77.
     That’s the choice little John made. Good, over evil. Luke 1:39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; 40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. 41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
     Roe v. Wade “opened the door” to a Bible study of abortion as part of our national debate, by claiming that the reason “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins” is because “the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer” since, after all, doctors and preachers can’t agree: “those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus”.
     It’s not just that Roe “opened the door”, which is the name for a technical legal principle that lawyers use in court to get around a judge’s “in limine” order to not say certain words or offer certain evidence. This is no “loophole” around the 1st Amendment prohibition of establishing a religion.
     Roe couldn’t legalize abortion without neutralizing somehow public concern that babies of humans might turn out to be humans. Justice Blackmun understood there are two sources of authority on that issue: medicine, which documents that unborn babies have physical human bodies, and theology, which documents that unborn babies have souls made in the Image of God. That is why Roe devoted many pages of selective evidence and tortured logic to justify its conclusion that doctors and preachers can't agree, so how can mere Supreme Court Justices know? (For their exact words, see Finding #1, Footnote #3.)
     The most recent Christian that they consulted was Thomas Aquinas who died in 1274 AD! Most important, they didn’t consult God! One citation to one Bible verse is in one footnote, neutralized by not an analysis but an insinuation. So to patch up SCOTUS’ confusion about whether God can agree with Himself, you can find my prolife Bible study in Appendix E of my book, http://www.saltshaker.us/ HowStatesCanOutlawAbortion.pdf (in a Way that Survives Courts). Another great Bible study by the Jewish Prolife Foundation, from their Amicus Brief submitted in Dobbs V. Jackson, closes this footnote.
     What was Blackmun thinking, to paint doctors and preachers as greater authorities than himself on the dispositive fact question in abortion policy, and then to torture historical facts to FANTACIZE serious disagreement? What Roe was correct about, and that many prolifers today are incorrect about, is that leaving out the Biblical evidence really does leave prolifers with an unnecessarily weak argument.
     Let’s admit it, it really is hard to grasp the full humanity of a single fertilized egg. I didn't come by the conviction automatically or naturally; I had to study and believe Scripture until my incredulity over protecting such a tiny little thing melted away. I AM FAR FROM ALONE.
     But the “personhood focus” of the Scripture is not on the physical, but on the soul. So why will Bible believers give the public every other reason for saving unborn lives than the one that was strong enough to persuade them? 50 years, and mass murder of babies is still fully legal in almost every state! So much evil runs free, after God is censored and then forgotten! This really is about more than “just” infanticide. It’s about every other political issue about which God’s views are clear. And it’s not “just” about the future and survival of our nation. It’s about Heaven and Hell for eternity. Not just for others, either.
     See Footnote #4 of Statement #11 for a discussion of the constitutionality of quoting Bible verses in a bill of a state legislature.
     Here is the Bible study submitted in an Amicus Brief in Dobbs v. Jackson by the Jewish Prolife Foundation. It is one of the few, of the 140 briefs filed in that case, that argues not only for the repeal of Roe but for the end of legal abortion in every state. Justice Kavanaugh, in Dobbs, complained about one of the Amici which argued for that result. He called that goal “wrong”. Here is the study:
.... Jeremiah 22:3 admonishes us to avoid causing pain and death to the powerless: “Do what is right and just; rescue the wronged from their oppressors; do nothing wrong or violent to the stranger, orphan or widow; don’t shed innocent blood in this place.”

     Amici implore the Court to study our arguments in this filing and thereby find the moral authority and conviction to overturn Roe, Doe and Casey. Indeed, to apply the protective elements of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to all children.
     Judaism Is The Original Pro-Life Religion. It Was The First Religion In Human History To Sanctify Human Life From Conception To Natural Death And To Prohibit Child Sacrifice.
     Judaism has a strong legal tradition of protecting human life and prohibiting the murder of innocents. Jewish law and tradition emphasize and support the moral right to life for all human beings at every stage of development based on the understanding that all people are created in the image of God; therefore, each of us has intrinsic value and worth with a destiny to fulfill God’s vision for humanity on Earth. Psalm 139:13-16 reveals this: ‘For you created my inmost being: you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . .My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to me.’
     …. All of us who are able to do so have the duty to enforce this right of the child in the womb: Leviticus 19:16: ‘Do not stand idly by when your neighbor’s life is at stake.’
     …. The Almighty gives clear instructions on the life issue in Deuteronomy 30:19: ‘This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.’
     …. Maimonides declared in his compilation of Jewish law, the Mishneh Torah: ‘The definition of murder according to the Noahide Laws includes a person “who kills even one unborn in the womb of its mother,” and adds that such a person is liable for the death penalty.’”
     The Talmud (Sanhedrin 57b) says that an unborn child is included in the Noahide prohibition of bloodshed that is learned from Genesis 9:6-7: (from a direct translation of the original text), ‘He who spills the blood of man within man shall have his blood spilt for in the image of God made He man. And you, be fruitful, and multiply; swarm in the earth, and multiply therein.’ The Talmud interprets ‘the blood of man in man’ to include a fetus, which is the blood of man in man.
     …. Clearly, the Jewish religion prohibits child sacrifice, the modern day version being abortion, as stated in the Torah: Leviticus 18:21: ‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.’ Psalm 106:35-38: ‘They mingled with the nations and adopted their customs. They worshiped their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to false gods. They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood.’
     Rabbinical opinion prohibits even helping non-Jews abort – even for “physical abnormalities”.
     Rabbi Chananya Weissman: “It should not need to be debated that unborn children have the right to be born, and the lives of the elderly and infirm are no less precious than the lives of society’s most fortunate. The rich and powerful do not have the right to decide the value of anyone’s life, nor when someone has ‘already lived their life’ and it’s time for them to go. That is strictly the purview of God, who forbids us to make such distinctions or calculations, even for the alleged ‘greater good.’ It is always for the greater evil. It is always to displace God. The Torah teaches that every life is a unique world, and every moment of every life is infused with the potential to achieve great spiritual heights.”

     Rabbi Pinchas Teitz: (Commenting on Deuteronomy 21:7): “Shedding innocent blood in Jewish life is so reprehensible that at times even those not responsible for the act of murder who hear of such an incident must dissociate themselves from it. This is expressed by the recitation of the elders of the city in whose proximity a dead man is found. In the eglo arufo ceremony that the Torah mandates, they must wash their hands, saying: ‘Our hands did not shed this blood,’ even though there is no reason to assume that they were directly involved in the death. How, then, are we to respond with less than shock to the killing of 100,000 fetuses through abortion in Israel, year after year? This is certainly a sin against Torah . . . It is a crime against Jewry, against mankind, and even against the Land itself—for the Torah clearly warns that the Land, in its sensitivity to corruption, can tolerate no bloodshed.”

     The Jewish Prolife Foundation brief says that in Jewish law, the only time abortion is permitted is to save the life of the mother. The brief doesn’t give a reference from the Bible, but a footnote explains, “One who is ‘pursuing’ another to murder him or her. According to Jewish law, such a person must be killed by any bystander after being warned to stop and refusing.” This describes a kind of self defense or defense of others. Scriptures I think of that illustrate this principle are: 2 Samuel 2:18-23, where Abner begged Asahel not to attack him, but Asahel refused so Abner killed him. Or Exodus 22:2 which excuses a homeowner for killing a thief who breaks in at night.
     I particularly appreciate the brief’s analysis of Exodus 21:22-25, the ONLY citation of the Bible included in Roe v. Wade, in a footnote. The brief says: “A note about Exodus 21:22-25, the mistranslation of which has led many to conclude that Judaism condones the mass slaughter of infant life.”
     Unfortunately the brief doesn’t quote the passage so we can see what translation is relied on. Here is the Jubilee version, followed by the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (LITV):

Exodus 21:22 If men strive and hurt a woman with child so that she aborts but without death, he shall be surely punished according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him, and he shall pay by the judges. 23 And if there is death, then thou shalt pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Jubilee)
     Exodus 21:22 And when men fight, and they strike a pregnant woman, and her child goes forth, and there is no injury, being fined he shall be fined. As much as the husband of the woman shall put on him, even he shall give through the judges. 23 But if injury occurs, you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 branding for branding, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (LITV)

     The Jewish Prolife Foundation brief continues:

“This conclusion [that Judaism condones the mass slaughter of infant life] is entirely false. The verse describes a case in which fighting men in close proximity to a pregnant woman inadvertently cause a miscarriage. The Torah [allegedly] specifies that the guilty party would be prosecuted for involuntary [accidental] manslaughter only if the pregnant woman herself dies. If the infant in the womb dies, they must pay only a monetary fine.
     “Long used by abortion advocates to reframe abortion as legal in Judaism, this text is not a license to [deliberately] abort infant life; rather, it is a reference to involuntary manslaughter requiring an adjudicated fine. It is not a capital crime.

     Actually I am confused because the brief just said if the baby dies the man who caused it is not executed but pays a fine; but next the brief quotes “Jewish Pro-Life Foundation board member, Rabbi Shlomo Nachman” as proving that “if other damage ensues, i.e. the baby is born with some deformity or born dead, then the standard penalties will apply, ‘an eye for eye, tooth for tooth’. If the child dies as a result, the men are guilty of the murder, a life for a life. The text makes no sense any other way.”’

“...This verse must be carefully understood. Many translations read ‘and a miscarriage occurs’ rather than as ‘a premature birth results’ as I have it here. The passage, in my opinion, is to ‘a premature birth’ when the context is considered. The text actually says that if the child ‘departs’ [“yasa”] the womb and no other damage ensues from the event. In other words, if because of the struggle the baby is born early but is otherwise fine, then the men may be required to pay damages for their carelessness but no more. ‘But if other damage ensues,’ i.e. the baby is born with some deformity or born dead, then the standard penalties will apply, ‘an eye for eye, tooth for tooth’. If the child dies as a result, the men are guilty of the murder, a life for a life. The text makes no sense any other way. The Hebrew term shachol references an abortion or miscarriage. That word is not used here. There is conclusive evidence that both Torah and Rabbinic halacha regarding the pre-birth child as fully human and subject to the same protections and respect as all other people.”

     (I will further note that the penalty is to be decided by a jury. I take this as so the jury can take into account eyewitness testimony about how deliberately the woman was struck. Did a man deliberately aim his fist at her? Did she insert herself into the dispute so much as to make her injury unavoidable?)
     More Scripture:

“Our tradition teaches us to advocate for vulnerable and victimized targets of abuse and murder. Proverbs 31:8 demands, ‘Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.’ We acknowledge the harms done by abortion and speak out to prevent them.”

     “It is now confirmed that men grieve lost fatherhood, resulting in broken relationships and dysfunctional family life. We heed Jeremiah 29:6, emphasizing the importance of the family even in difficult times: ‘Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease.’”
     “Judaism’s biblical tradition identifies the child in the womb as precious, valuable and unique. Isaiah 49:1: ‘Before I was born the Lord called me; from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.’ And Jeremiah 1:5: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet of nations.’”
     Evidence of the regard for unborn human life in Jewish law: “when human life is endangered, a Jew is required to violate any Sabbath law that stands in the way of saving that person. The concept of life being in danger is interpreted broadly; for example, it is mandated that one violate the Sabbath to take a woman in active labor to a hospital. Jewish law also not merely permits, but demands, that the Sabbath be violated in order to save infant life in the womb. As lifesaving activity is the only situation in which a Sabbath violation is permitted, were the infant child not deemed alive by the Torah, this behavior would be entirely prohibited.”
     “Abortion industry practices dramatically contrast with Jewish ethics and moral guidelines in business, cleanliness, sexual propriety, responsibility to protect friends and neighbors from harm, honesty, and women’s safety.
     “Exodus 23:7 admonishes us: ‘Keep away from fraud, and do not cause the death of the innocent and righteous; for I will not justify the wicked.’
     “Abortion providers have long been exempted from standard medical practices and regulatory oversight. They perpetuate sex crimes by routinely failing to report evidence of sexual assault and sex trafficking. They fail to provide informed consent to patients and fail to counsel patients on alternatives to the abortion procedure or possible immediate and long-term negative consequences of the procedure.”
     …. “Judaism prohibits desecrating the human body, but abortion destroys a human body, and the harvesting of baby parts for profit defies Jewish respect for the dead.”

     “Today, the Justices have all the information needed to fully understand and acknowledge the status of the infant life, and have done so in Gonzales, at 159, 160. From conception onward, children in their mother’s womb manifest humanity to such an extent that only a decision that protects their lives and futures is humane and just.”

     The conclusion is the most magnificent I have read, which it would not have been without quoting God:

“We must end abortion, an appalling crime against humanity. To begin the process of reconciliation with our Creator, to restore the dignity of those who have perished, and to return our country to a life affirming nation. Amici ask the Court to rise above political concerns and to contemplate the Divine promise bestowed upon every human being as pledged in Jeremiah 29:11: ‘For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.’”

     “But abortionists quote Scripture to support murder, too!” Christians moan, as if terrified that any Scripture they quote in public will just be “canceled” by the verses quoted from the other side.
     Of all the things to worry about, take that off your list! The Dark Side isn’t that good with Scripture. Be inspired by this Jewish amicus brief, which took the opportunity of a case before the Supreme Court to disprove the rather common myth that "the Jewish religion approves of abortion". It appealed less to Jewish theologians than to the Scripture without which Jewish theologians would have no basis for their existence. Similarly, several denominations self-identifying as "Christian" publicly extol baby killing! But let the Scriptures they quote, if any, guide the public discussion.
     It's a good thing to get public discussion going about the correct meaning of the Bible! God's Word is able to speak for itself, to hearts who want the truth. Stop censoring God out of concern for God's reputation if His Word is made known!

Kristan, Students for Life, October 23, 2023: It’s no secret that the devil and his followers LOVE abortion. Last year, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan-Grisham’s ‘Abortion Hotline’ was caught using TAXPAYER DOLLARS to refer women to the Satanic Temple for abortions.

     In 2022, California Gov. Gavin Newsom promoted his state’s extreme abortion policies on Texas billboards using SCRIPTURE to make it appear that abortion can coincide with Christian theology.
     Now, even more pro-abortion billboards have begun popping up along I-55 from Louisiana to Illinois saying, ‘God’s Plan Includes Abortion.’ When I saw this, it reminded me of Matthew 4:6, where the devil tries, and fails, to use Scripture to tempt Jesus to sin. Satan’s tactics haven’t changed.</blockquote>
     Kristan should have cited Newsom’s verse. It sounds more intimidating before you hear what it was. It was “Love your neighbor as yourself; there is no greater commandment than these.” Mark 12:31.
     That’s supposed to persuade Christians to murder their babies? Out of “love” for them? Can an application of a verse this far from making sense be “refuted” any more thoroughly than it refutes itself?
     (See image of billboards at https://www.thecentersquare.com/texas/article_9d59cc08-4bea-11ed-8923-c3b53379208d.html)
     The bottom billboard was funded by Gavin Newsom’s campaign. The top billboard was funded by a Texas church in response. How is it that a pagan uses Scripture but a church, in response, doesn’t?
↑ More about “Roe v Wade was not out of line to ‘hold’ that ‘those...’ who study souls...were appropriately consulted by SCOTUS...”
We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 159 (1973)
↑ More about “... there is no objective line between birth and conception distinguishing ... between ‘meaningful life’ and life which courts are free to terminate”
“In Roe, this Court determined that the state’s interest in the protection of human life became compelling at viability, relying on the fetus’ ‘capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb.’ Id. at 163. By contrast, in Cruzan this Court rejected the idea of ‘meaningful life,’ holding that ‘a State may properly decline to make judgments about the ‘quality’ of life that a particular individual may enjoy, and simply assert an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life to be weighed against the constitutionally protected interests of the individual.’ Cruzan, 497 U.S. at 282; Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 729 (1997) (quoting Cruzan and holding that the state ‘has an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life’) (emphasis added). See also Britell v. United States, 372 F.3d 1370, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (‘It is not the role of the courts to draw lines as to which fetal abnormalities or birth defects are so severe as to negate the state's otherwise legitimate interest in the fetus' potential life.’); State v. Final Exit Network, Inc., 889 N.W.2d 296, 305-06 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016) (‘The state has a compelling interest in the preservation of D.D.’s life, and the prevention of her suicide, regardless of her incurable [non-viable] condition.’)”
This excerpt is from the amicus brief in Dobbs submitted by Dr. Robin Pierucci, M.D. [1]
↑ More about “...there can be no stage of gestation at which killing a baby can be objectively distinguished from murder. No baby is safe while that line remains arbitrary.”
     I first heard the idea of “post-natal abortion” in 1997. I posted the website urging it and my analysis, at www.saltshaker.us/AmericanIssues/Life/Joke.htm. My headline: “Is post-natal abortion funny?” I couldn’t tell if its promoters were serious or were prolifers making a point. They were serious. Here are their FAQ’s 26 years ago:
     www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4432/page1.html, (no longer online and not archived at archive.org) actually offers “Join us! E-mail to Free Melissa! and protect a woman's right to choose!”
     Melissa Drexler was the young woman who delivered a baby 6/24/96 in the bathroom during a prom and returned to the prom as if Nature’s Call had been just a routine call.
     Click on “What can I do?” and you will be advised,
“make sure that you are living consistently! Use your reproductive freedom or lose it! Sex without consequences, easily available abortion and condoned infanticide are your rights as an American citizen!”

     “page2.html” offers answers to “The Most Commonly Asked Questions about Post-Natal Abortion”. “What is Post-Natal Abortion?
     “Post-Natal Abortion is a technique which has been used for thousands of years by women who desired to excercise [sic] their reproductive rights. In fact, studies have shown that it is the safest and also the most effective means of terminating a pregnancy that has ever been devised.
     “But is it Safe?
     “As was mentioned, post-natal abortion is believed to be the safest method of terminating a pregnancy currently available. While all abortion procedures involve some risk to the woman, there has never been a reported death due to post-natal abortion. “How Effective is it?
     “There is a certain amount of risk involved in most late-term abortion procedures. With methods such as a Saline abortion (where saline fluid is injected into the womb, burning the fetus and causing a spontaneous abortion), a live birth may occur. However, post-natal abortion is particularly suited to avoid this complication. Because the abortion actually occurs outside of the womb and at the discretion of the woman, she is in complete control over the ‘product of conception’ and may perform the abortion technique at her convenience. And unlike other techniques, if there are complications, the woman may simply apply the procedure again to obtain the desired results.
     “Is a medical license necessary to perform this procedure?
     “No. No medical training is necessary. This method of abortion is so simple, safe and effective that anyone may perform it. Thus a woman may avoid the stigma of entering a clinic where ‘protesters’ are attempting to hamper her in the exercise of her reproductive freedom.
     “When may it be applied?
     “Post-natal abortion should be used only in the time between when the fetus leaves the birth canal and when it reaches ‘viability.’ “When does viability occur?
     “This is an area of great debate. Until science resolves this, viability will continue to be a fuzzy area. For now, we offer a sinple test -- If the fetus is not able to survive on its own (including preparation and consumption of food, the ability to make a living, and cleaning up its own living space) it is not viable and therefore not a legally defined ‘person.’ In these cases, post-natal abortion is a perfectly moral choice.
     “How does it work?
     “The term ‘post-natal abortion’ actually covers many different procedures. One of the most common is the Manual Respiratory Manipulation method. In this procedure the mother stops the flow of air to the lungs of the fetus by digitally manipulating the throat of the fetus. This usually [sic] produces a post-natal abortion within minutes. This is the method which Melissa Drexler used. Other procedures included in ‘post-natal abortion’ include:
     “Fetal Aqua Submersion
     “Fetal Cranial Interruption and
     “Fetal Roadside Abandonment.”
     There are links to over a dozen news articles about Drexler, offered without comment. I downloaded one that looked the most straightforward, and concluded any proponent of Post Natal Abortion could easily pass on this article without the need of comment.

     It was published in the Asbury Park Press 6/25/97, titled “Death at the prom” By James W. Prado Roberts, Staff Writer.

     Today there are many search returns for “After birth abortion”. Wikipedia’s article says the book “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” “attracted media attention and several scholarly critiques.”
     The movement is serious.
     Michael Tooley, “In Defense of Abortion and Infanticide,” in The Ethics of Abortion, (New York: Prometheus Books, 2001), admits that “even newborn humans do not have the capacities in question....it would seem that infanticide during a time interval shortly after birth must be viewed as morally acceptable.”
     The narrow definitions of “personhood” that they invent, in order to deny it to babies, end up excluding most of mankind.
     Tyrants measure the human worth of others by their “value” to themselves. The Bible, alone, identifies children, women, babies, immigrants, prisoners, pagans – everyone, as equally valuable to God, which puts their oppressors in God’s crosshairs.
     So what if “Blue State” voters continue their journey away from God far enough to legalize “After Birth Abortion”? Will 10-year-olds be safe? Not according to the logic in the preceding 1997 article. Babies and older children, and even adults, have been sacrificed to “gods” for thousands of years.
     “Apocalypto” is a 2006 movie by Mel Gibson about the human sacrifice of the Maya that continued until the Spanish came. Wikipedia’s review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypto) reports that

“The ending of the film was meant to depict the first contact between the Spaniards and Mayas that took place in 1511 when Pedro de Alvarado arrived on the coast of the Yucatán and Guatemala, and also during the fourth voyage of Christopher Columbus in 1502. “Mayanist David Stuart stated that human sacrifice was not rare and based on carvings and mural paintings, there are ‘more and greater similarities between the Aztecs and Mayas.’ ” And “Archaeological sites indicate that the Mayans used several methods for sacrifice such as ‘decapitation, heart excision, dismemberment, hanging, disembowelment, skin flaying, skull splitting and burning.’ ”
     But “Guernsey points out that the film is seen through the lens of Western morality and states that it is important to examine ‘alternative world views that might not match our own 21st century Western ones but are nonetheless valid.’ ”

     “Western morality”. In other words, relatively Biblical morality. The “world views” of demons “are nonetheless valid.”
     A modern example of child sacrifice is in Iran. “During the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988, Iran used boys as young as 9 in human wave attacks and to clear minefields. These children were sent into battle without weapons but with ‘keys to paradise’ hung around their necks. They were often bound together by ropes in groups of 20 to prevent desertions.” (www.foxnews.com/world/iran-using-child-soldiers-attempt-stop-protests-biden-administration-urged-sanction-regime-report ) This October 25, 2022 article was about Iran still using child “soldiers” to “stop protests” against the government.
     (Image, shown not here, but shown in the book from which this Statement is excerpted: www.Saltshaker.US/ReversingLandmarkAbominationCases: King Ahaz, of Jerusalem, sacrifices a baby. Not clearly shown: the fires making the idol’s hands red hot. Shown: musicians drowning out the baby’s screams.)

[1] 
More about “Part of Roe’s definition of ‘person’ was ‘infused with a soul’.”
“These disciplines [philosophy, theology, civil law, canon law] variously approached the question [of “when life begins”] in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became ‘formed’ or recognizably human, or in terms of when a ‘person’ came into being, that is, infused with a ‘soul’ or ‘animated.’” Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113, 133

[2] 
More about “Dictionaries list several differences (between us and animals).”
Judges look everywhere but in a dictionary to learn what Americans who ratified the 14th Amendment understood the word “person” to mean. In 1868, Webster’s dictionary, published in 1828, was the only American dictionary.
https://webstersdictionary1828.com. “Person: 1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child. A person is a thinking intelligent being.
“Child: 1. A son or a daughter; a male or female descendant, in the first degree; the immediate progeny of parents; applied to the human race, and chiefly to a person when young. The term is applied to infants from their birth...To be with child [means] to be pregnant. Genesis 16:11, Gen 29:36.”

One of the modern dictionaries listed at freedictionary.com includes “soul” as part of a definition of “person” or of “human”. It lists four other qualities unique to humans: we are conscious, we can reason, we have a sense of morality, and a “mind”.

Collins English Dictionary, 2014.

Person: 1. an individual human being
5. (Philosophy) philosophy a being characterized by consciousness, rationality, and a moral sense, and traditionally thought of as consisting of both a body and a mind or soul.
Human: 3. having the attributes of man as opposed to animals, divine beings, or machines: human failings.

noun: a human being; person

A “person” is a “human”, distinguished from animals by “capacity for speech”, “Kindness” to a degree beyond the capacity of animals, and “weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans”. This last phrase is ironic, since humans are worlds ahead of animals in their capacity! How are we more “fragile”, “imperfect”, or “weak”? Not in any serious physical sense; yet the ability of humans to feel these things, which we can’t imagine any animal feeling, points to an amazing quality of Consciousness.

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, 2010: Person: “A living human.”
Human: Noun. 1. A member of the primate genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other apes by a large brain and the capacity for speech.

Adjective: 2. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
3. Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he’s only human; human frailty.
Collins English Dictionary, 2014
1. aware of one’s own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2. fully aware of something: not conscious of the passage of time....
4. known to oneself; felt: conscious guilt.

Conscious, aware, cognizant refer to a realization or recognition of something about oneself or one's surroundings.... to be conscious of one’s own inadequacy.... implies having knowledge about some object or fact based on reasoning or information

We can “think”, in a way animals can’t; in this sense, “thought” means “consciousness”. We are “aware”.We have “free will” (Even Calvinists admit of a kind of human “choice” absent in animals). We can “give value” to an idea, meaning to prioritize – to choose.

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 2016

Conscious: aware; capable of thought or will: a conscious decision; cognizant: She was conscious of the stranger standing close to her.
2. Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.
3. Subjectively known or felt: conscious remorse.
4. Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate:
b. aware of one’s surroundings, one’s own thoughts and motivations, etc

2. a. aware of and giving value or emphasis to a particular fact or phenomenon:

Our “soul” is “capable of moral judgment”. If animals have such a capacity, they must be swimming in perpetual guilt for what they do to each other! Our “soul” is also widely believed to survive the death of our bodies. </blockquote>Abused, Confused, & Misused Words by Mary Embree 2013 by Mary Embree
Soul: a. A part of humans regarded as immaterial, immortal, separable from the body at death, capable of moral judgment, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.
b. This part of a human when disembodied after death.
American Heritage Dictionary 2016
Soul: 1. (Theology) the spirit or immaterial part of man, the seat of human personality, intellect, will, and emotions, regarded as an entity that survives the body after death.
2. (Theology) Christianity the spiritual part of a person, capable of redemption from the power of sin through divine grace
Collins English Dictionary 2014
1. the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical.
2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come.
3. the disembodied spirit of a deceased person.
Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002
Soul: 1. The vital principle or animating force within living beings: breath, divine spark, élan vital, life force, psyche, spirit, vital force, vitality.
2. The essential being of a person, regarded as immaterial and immortal: spirit.
3. A member of the human race: being, body, creature, homo, human, human being, individual, life, man, mortal, party, person, personage.
4. The most central and material part:</blockquote>

[3] More about “Love, as defined by John 15:13, [means] to sacrifice one’s interests for another.” John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

[4] More about “we can choose to destroy our bodies to serve hate”
Our Capacity to destroy our own bodies – to choose against our own physical needs, proves the part of us which is ultimately in control is not our physical bodies. Our “wills”, or “minds”, or “souls”, behave as if they came from another dimension than the physical, and treat our bodies as their tool, not their master.
This is true whether our anti-body choices are motivated by hate as in the terrorist facing the “glory” of facing a hail of bullets, or by shame as in the Judas who sees his crime and can’t bear the shame, by lack of understanding of the meaning of life as in the wealthy pop idol who drowns himself in drugs to deaden his imagined meaninglessness, or the love of the Christian martyr who shares love and meaning with enemies of love and meaning known to torture anyone who talks about it.
Suicide verses:
2 Samuel 17:23 And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose, and gat him home to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his father.
Matthew 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
A famous “choice” verse:
Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

[5] More about “...greater legal protection of humans than of animals...”
Although most of our laws protect humans more than animals, among irrational exceptions is the penalty for taking a single eagle egg compared with the penalty for an abortionist who has murdered 60,000 babies over his career, as late term abortionist George Tiller had claimed on his website before he was shot to death by Scott Roeder, who is now serving a 25 year prison sentence for it.
Though two consecutive Attorney Generals tried to prosecute him, courts threw it out. But the clear penalty for taking an eagle egg: “A violation of the Act can result in a fine of $100,000 ($200,000 for organizations), imprisonment for one year, or both, for a first offense. Penalties increase substantially for additional offenses, and a second violation of this Act is a felony.” https://www.fws.gov/law/bald-and-golden-eagle-protection-act

[6] More about “a ‘soul’ without consciousness has never been theorized and can’t be imagined”
I can’t decide whether to acknowledge, as an exception to this statement, this statement in Wikipedia’s article on “Ensoulment”: “Aristotle's epigenetic view of successive life principles (‘souls’) in a developing human embryo—first a vegetative and then a sensitive or animal soul, and finally an intellective or human soul, with the higher levels able to carry out the functions also of the lower levels—was the prevailing view among early Christians, including Tertullian, Augustine, and Jerome.” The statement is followed by two notes saying “need quotation to verify”, and two more saying “failed verification”. But at least whoever posted the claim in Wikipedia theorized it, although I am skeptical whether anyone can actually imagine a pre-conscious soul.
Subsequently the article alleges that the Greek version of the Old Testament – the Septuigint, which was relied on by early Christians, clearly translates Exodus 21:21-22 as if causing death of an unborn baby triggers only a fine – not execution of the offender. So “the LXX could easily have been used to distinguish human from non-human fœtuses and homicidal from non-homicidal abortions, yet the early Christians, until the time of Augustine in the fifth century, did not do so.” Wikipedia’s article on Aristotle doesn’t mention the claim about pre-conscious souls.

[7] More about “Courts can’t “reject evidence as cumulative when...the decision...turns on the weight of the evidence.”
“When Does the Number of Experts Used By One Side Become Cumulative?” by Christine Funk, May 25, 2020 (www.expertinstitute.com/ resources/insights/when-does-the-number-of-experts-used-by-one-side-become-cumulative/)
Excerpts: (In Shallow v. Follwell,) (https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/ supreme-court/2018/sc96901.html) Plaintiffs argued that the testimony of the four experts was cumulative, as the testimony of each expert overlapped that of some or all of the other testifying experts. ...
Evidence is relevant “if it tends to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” However, courts must still engage in a balancing test to determine whether the relevant evidence poses the risk of unfair prejudice, cumulativeness, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or is an undue delay or waste of time. Where the cost of admitting otherwise relevant evidence “substantially outweighs” the benefits, the evidence should be excluded.
...[Evidence is “cumulative”] when evidence “relates to a matter so fully and properly proved by other testimony as to take it out of the area of serious dispute.” [But courts can’t] “to reject evidence as cumulative when it goes to the very root of the matter in controversy or relates to the main issue, the decision of which turns on the weight of the evidence.”
...An excessive number of expert witnesses can create the risk that the trier of fact will simply resolve inconsistencies in expert opinions by merely counting the number of witnesses each side calls, rather than providing due consideration to the credibility and quality of each expert’s opinion. While not the only measure, one measure of prejudicial testimony is where the testimony tends to “lead the jury to decide the case on some basis other than the established propositions of the case.” federal rule, which states:
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

Because what is and what is not considered cumulative is, by and large, a [subjective] judgment call, attorneys and experts would be wise to delineate their differences for the court prior to the beginning of testimony.

[8] More about “a baby at 6 months...felt the... Presence of God and responded with joy...indicating that even the capacity for choosing between good and evil precedes birth.”
John the Baptist leaped for joy at six months – 26 weeks. Today through ultrasound we can see “at twenty weeks” that “ “facial expressions begin to appear consistently, including ‘negative emotions.’” See Alessandra Pionetelli, Development of Normal Fetal Movements: The First 25 Weeks of Gestation p. 80 (2010).(Amicus Brief of American College of Pediatricians filed in Iowa’s heartbeat law case, https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/18325/briefs/5788/embedBrief
Luke’s report tells us more than just the capacity of a baby to feel happy or sad. He tells us what made little John happy. Too many people today “delight in lies”, Psalm 62:4, “delight in war”, Psalm 68:30, and “rejoice to do evil, and delight in the frowardness [twisted deceit] of the wicked” Proverbs 2:14. The Psalmist made a different choice: “thy law is my delight” Psalm 119:77.
That’s the choice little John made. Good, over evil. Luke 1:39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; 40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. 41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
Roe v. Wade “opened the door” to a Bible study of abortion as part of our national debate, by claiming that the reason “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins” is because “the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer” since, after all, doctors and preachers can’t agree: “those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus”.
It’s not just that Roe “opened the door”, which is the name for a technical legal principle that lawyers use in court to get around a judge’s “in limine” order to not say certain words or offer certain evidence. This is no “loophole” around the 1st Amendment prohibition of establishing a religion.
Roe couldn’t legalize abortion without neutralizing somehow public concern that babies of humans might turn out to be humans. Justice Blackmun understood there are two sources of authority on that issue: medicine, which documents that unborn babies have physical human bodies, and theology, which documents that unborn babies have souls made in the Image of God. That is why Roe devoted many pages of selective evidence and tortured logic to justify its conclusion that doctors and preachers can't agree, so how can mere Supreme Court Justices know? (For their exact words, see Finding #1, Footnote #3.)
The most recent Christian that they consulted was Thomas Aquinas who died in 1274 AD! Most important, they didn’t consult God! One citation to one Bible verse is in one footnote, neutralized by not an analysis but an insinuation. So to patch up SCOTUS’ confusion about whether God can agree with Himself, you can find my prolife Bible study in Appendix E of my book, http://www.saltshaker.us/ HowStatesCanOutlawAbortion.pdf (in a Way that Survives Courts). Another great Bible study by the Jewish Prolife Foundation, from their Amicus Brief submitted in Dobbs V. Jackson, closes this footnote.
What was Blackmun thinking, to paint doctors and preachers as greater authorities than himself on the dispositive fact question in abortion policy, and then to torture historical facts to FANTACIZE serious disagreement? What Roe was correct about, and that many prolifers today are incorrect about, is that leaving out the Biblical evidence really does leave prolifers with an unnecessarily weak argument.
Let’s admit it, it really is hard to grasp the full humanity of a single fertilized egg. I didn't come by the conviction automatically or naturally; I had to study and believe Scripture until my incredulity over protecting such a tiny little thing melted away. I AM FAR FROM ALONE.
But the “personhood focus” of the Scripture is not on the physical, but on the soul. So why will Bible believers give the public every other reason for saving unborn lives than the one that was strong enough to persuade them? 50 years, and mass murder of babies is still fully legal in almost every state! So much evil runs free, after God is censored and then forgotten! This really is about more than “just” infanticide. It’s about every other political issue about which God’s views are clear. And it’s not “just” about the future and survival of our nation. It’s about Heaven and Hell for eternity. Not just for others, either.
See Footnote #4 of Statement #11 for a discussion of the constitutionality of quoting Bible verses in a bill of a state legislature.
Here is the Bible study submitted in an Amicus Brief in Dobbs v. Jackson by the Jewish Prolife Foundation. It is one of the few, of the 140 briefs filed in that case, that argues not only for the repeal of Roe but for the end of legal abortion in every state. Justice Kavanaugh, in Dobbs, complained about one of the Amici which argued for that result. He called that goal “wrong”. Here is the study:
.... Jeremiah 22:3 admonishes us to avoid causing pain and death to the powerless: “Do what is right and just; rescue the wronged from their oppressors; do nothing wrong or violent to the stranger, orphan or widow; don’t shed innocent blood in this place.”

Amici implore the Court to study our arguments in this filing and thereby find the moral authority and conviction to overturn Roe, Doe and Casey. Indeed, to apply the protective elements of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to all children.
Judaism Is The Original Pro-Life Religion. It Was The First Religion In Human History To Sanctify Human Life From Conception To Natural Death And To Prohibit Child Sacrifice.
Judaism has a strong legal tradition of protecting human life and prohibiting the murder of innocents. Jewish law and tradition emphasize and support the moral right to life for all human beings at every stage of development based on the understanding that all people are created in the image of God; therefore, each of us has intrinsic value and worth with a destiny to fulfill God’s vision for humanity on Earth. Psalm 139:13-16 reveals this: ‘For you created my inmost being: you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . .My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to me.’
…. All of us who are able to do so have the duty to enforce this right of the child in the womb: Leviticus 19:16: ‘Do not stand idly by when your neighbor’s life is at stake.’
…. The Almighty gives clear instructions on the life issue in Deuteronomy 30:19: ‘This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.’
…. Maimonides declared in his compilation of Jewish law, the Mishneh Torah: ‘The definition of murder according to the Noahide Laws includes a person “who kills even one unborn in the womb of its mother,” and adds that such a person is liable for the death penalty.’”
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 57b) says that an unborn child is included in the Noahide prohibition of bloodshed that is learned from Genesis 9:6-7: (from a direct translation of the original text), ‘He who spills the blood of man within man shall have his blood spilt for in the image of God made He man. And you, be fruitful, and multiply; swarm in the earth, and multiply therein.’ The Talmud interprets ‘the blood of man in man’ to include a fetus, which is the blood of man in man.
…. Clearly, the Jewish religion prohibits child sacrifice, the modern day version being abortion, as stated in the Torah: Leviticus 18:21: ‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.’ Psalm 106:35-38: ‘They mingled with the nations and adopted their customs. They worshiped their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to false gods. They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood.’
Rabbinical opinion prohibits even helping non-Jews abort – even for “physical abnormalities”.
Rabbi Chananya Weissman: “It should not need to be debated that unborn children have the right to be born, and the lives of the elderly and infirm are no less precious than the lives of society’s most fortunate. The rich and powerful do not have the right to decide the value of anyone’s life, nor when someone has ‘already lived their life’ and it’s time for them to go. That is strictly the purview of God, who forbids us to make such distinctions or calculations, even for the alleged ‘greater good.’ It is always for the greater evil. It is always to displace God. The Torah teaches that every life is a unique world, and every moment of every life is infused with the potential to achieve great spiritual heights.”

Rabbi Pinchas Teitz: (Commenting on Deuteronomy 21:7): “Shedding innocent blood in Jewish life is so reprehensible that at times even those not responsible for the act of murder who hear of such an incident must dissociate themselves from it. This is expressed by the recitation of the elders of the city in whose proximity a dead man is found. In the eglo arufo ceremony that the Torah mandates, they must wash their hands, saying: ‘Our hands did not shed this blood,’ even though there is no reason to assume that they were directly involved in the death. How, then, are we to respond with less than shock to the killing of 100,000 fetuses through abortion in Israel, year after year? This is certainly a sin against Torah . . . It is a crime against Jewry, against mankind, and even against the Land itself—for the Torah clearly warns that the Land, in its sensitivity to corruption, can tolerate no bloodshed.”

The Jewish Prolife Foundation brief says that in Jewish law, the only time abortion is permitted is to save the life of the mother. The brief doesn’t give a reference from the Bible, but a footnote explains, “One who is ‘pursuing’ another to murder him or her. According to Jewish law, such a person must be killed by any bystander after being warned to stop and refusing.” This describes a kind of self defense or defense of others. Scriptures I think of that illustrate this principle are: 2 Samuel 2:18-23, where Abner begged Asahel not to attack him, but Asahel refused so Abner killed him. Or Exodus 22:2 which excuses a homeowner for killing a thief who breaks in at night.
I particularly appreciate the brief’s analysis of Exodus 21:22-25, the ONLY citation of the Bible included in Roe v. Wade, in a footnote. The brief says: “A note about Exodus 21:22-25, the mistranslation of which has led many to conclude that Judaism condones the mass slaughter of infant life.”
Unfortunately the brief doesn’t quote the passage so we can see what translation is relied on. Here is the Jubilee version, followed by the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (LITV):

Exodus 21:22 If men strive and hurt a woman with child so that she aborts but without death, he shall be surely punished according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him, and he shall pay by the judges. 23 And if there is death, then thou shalt pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Jubilee)
Exodus 21:22 And when men fight, and they strike a pregnant woman, and her child goes forth, and there is no injury, being fined he shall be fined. As much as the husband of the woman shall put on him, even he shall give through the judges. 23 But if injury occurs, you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 branding for branding, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (LITV)

The Jewish Prolife Foundation brief continues:

“This conclusion [that Judaism condones the mass slaughter of infant life] is entirely false. The verse describes a case in which fighting men in close proximity to a pregnant woman inadvertently cause a miscarriage. The Torah [allegedly] specifies that the guilty party would be prosecuted for involuntary [accidental] manslaughter only if the pregnant woman herself dies. If the infant in the womb dies, they must pay only a monetary fine.
“Long used by abortion advocates to reframe abortion as legal in Judaism, this text is not a license to [deliberately] abort infant life; rather, it is a reference to involuntary manslaughter requiring an adjudicated fine. It is not a capital crime.

Actually I am confused because the brief just said if the baby dies the man who caused it is not executed but pays a fine; but next the brief quotes “Jewish Pro-Life Foundation board member, Rabbi Shlomo Nachman” as proving that “if other damage ensues, i.e. the baby is born with some deformity or born dead, then the standard penalties will apply, ‘an eye for eye, tooth for tooth’. If the child dies as a result, the men are guilty of the murder, a life for a life. The text makes no sense any other way.”’

“...This verse must be carefully understood. Many translations read ‘and a miscarriage occurs’ rather than as ‘a premature birth results’ as I have it here. The passage, in my opinion, is to ‘a premature birth’ when the context is considered. The text actually says that if the child ‘departs’ [“yasa”] the womb and no other damage ensues from the event. In other words, if because of the struggle the baby is born early but is otherwise fine, then the men may be required to pay damages for their carelessness but no more. ‘But if other damage ensues,’ i.e. the baby is born with some deformity or born dead, then the standard penalties will apply, ‘an eye for eye, tooth for tooth’. If the child dies as a result, the men are guilty of the murder, a life for a life. The text makes no sense any other way. The Hebrew term shachol references an abortion or miscarriage. That word is not used here. There is conclusive evidence that both Torah and Rabbinic halacha regarding the pre-birth child as fully human and subject to the same protections and respect as all other people.”

(I will further note that the penalty is to be decided by a jury. I take this as so the jury can take into account eyewitness testimony about how deliberately the woman was struck. Did a man deliberately aim his fist at her? Did she insert herself into the dispute so much as to make her injury unavoidable?)
More Scripture:

“Our tradition teaches us to advocate for vulnerable and victimized targets of abuse and murder. Proverbs 31:8 demands, ‘Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.’ We acknowledge the harms done by abortion and speak out to prevent them.”

“It is now confirmed that men grieve lost fatherhood, resulting in broken relationships and dysfunctional family life. We heed Jeremiah 29:6, emphasizing the importance of the family even in difficult times: ‘Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease.’”
“Judaism’s biblical tradition identifies the child in the womb as precious, valuable and unique. Isaiah 49:1: ‘Before I was born the Lord called me; from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.’ And Jeremiah 1:5: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet of nations.’”
Evidence of the regard for unborn human life in Jewish law: “when human life is endangered, a Jew is required to violate any Sabbath law that stands in the way of saving that person. The concept of life being in danger is interpreted broadly; for example, it is mandated that one violate the Sabbath to take a woman in active labor to a hospital. Jewish law also not merely permits, but demands, that the Sabbath be violated in order to save infant life in the womb. As lifesaving activity is the only situation in which a Sabbath violation is permitted, were the infant child not deemed alive by the Torah, this behavior would be entirely prohibited.”
“Abortion industry practices dramatically contrast with Jewish ethics and moral guidelines in business, cleanliness, sexual propriety, responsibility to protect friends and neighbors from harm, honesty, and women’s safety.
“Exodus 23:7 admonishes us: ‘Keep away from fraud, and do not cause the death of the innocent and righteous; for I will not justify the wicked.’
“Abortion providers have long been exempted from standard medical practices and regulatory oversight. They perpetuate sex crimes by routinely failing to report evidence of sexual assault and sex trafficking. They fail to provide informed consent to patients and fail to counsel patients on alternatives to the abortion procedure or possible immediate and long-term negative consequences of the procedure.”
…. “Judaism prohibits desecrating the human body, but abortion destroys a human body, and the harvesting of baby parts for profit defies Jewish respect for the dead.”

“Today, the Justices have all the information needed to fully understand and acknowledge the status of the infant life, and have done so in Gonzales, at 159, 160. From conception onward, children in their mother’s womb manifest humanity to such an extent that only a decision that protects their lives and futures is humane and just.”

The conclusion is the most magnificent I have read, which it would not have been without quoting God:

“We must end abortion, an appalling crime against humanity. To begin the process of reconciliation with our Creator, to restore the dignity of those who have perished, and to return our country to a life affirming nation. Amici ask the Court to rise above political concerns and to contemplate the Divine promise bestowed upon every human being as pledged in Jeremiah 29:11: ‘For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.’”

“But abortionists quote Scripture to support murder, too!” Christians moan, as if terrified that any Scripture they quote in public will just be “canceled” by the verses quoted from the other side.
Of all the things to worry about, take that off your list! The Dark Side isn’t that good with Scripture. Be inspired by this Jewish amicus brief, which took the opportunity of a case before the Supreme Court to disprove the rather common myth that "the Jewish religion approves of abortion". It appealed less to Jewish theologians than to the Scripture without which Jewish theologians would have no basis for their existence. Similarly, several denominations self-identifying as "Christian" publicly extol baby killing! But let the Scriptures they quote, if any, guide the public discussion.
It's a good thing to get public discussion going about the correct meaning of the Bible! God's Word is able to speak for itself, to hearts who want the truth. Stop censoring God out of concern for God's reputation if His Word is made known!

Kristan, Students for Life, October 23, 2023: It’s no secret that the devil and his followers LOVE abortion. Last year, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan-Grisham’s ‘Abortion Hotline’ was caught using TAXPAYER DOLLARS to refer women to the Satanic Temple for abortions.

In 2022, California Gov. Gavin Newsom promoted his state’s extreme abortion policies on Texas billboards using SCRIPTURE to make it appear that abortion can coincide with Christian theology.
Now, even more pro-abortion billboards have begun popping up along I-55 from Louisiana to Illinois saying, ‘God’s Plan Includes Abortion.’ When I saw this, it reminded me of Matthew 4:6, where the devil tries, and fails, to use Scripture to tempt Jesus to sin. Satan’s tactics haven’t changed.</blockquote>
Kristan should have cited Newsom’s verse. It sounds more intimidating before you hear what it was. It was “Love your neighbor as yourself; there is no greater commandment than these.” Mark 12:31.
That’s supposed to persuade Christians to murder their babies? Out of “love” for them? Can an application of a verse this far from making sense be “refuted” any more thoroughly than it refutes itself?
(See image of billboards at https://www.thecentersquare.com/texas/article_9d59cc08-4bea-11ed-8923-c3b53379208d.html)
The bottom billboard was funded by Gavin Newsom’s campaign. The top billboard was funded by a Texas church in response. How is it that a pagan uses Scripture but a church, in response, doesn’t?

[9] More about “Roe v Wade was not out of line to ‘hold’ that ‘those...’ who study souls...were appropriately consulted by SCOTUS...”
We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 159 (1973)

[10] More about “... there is no objective line between birth and conception distinguishing ... between ‘meaningful life’ and life which courts are free to terminate”
“In Roe, this Court determined that the state’s interest in the protection of human life became compelling at viability, relying on the fetus’ ‘capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb.’ Id. at 163. By contrast, in Cruzan this Court rejected the idea of ‘meaningful life,’ holding that ‘a State may properly decline to make judgments about the ‘quality’ of life that a particular individual may enjoy, and simply assert an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life to be weighed against the constitutionally protected interests of the individual.’ Cruzan, 497 U.S. at 282; Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 729 (1997) (quoting Cruzan and holding that the state ‘has an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life’) (emphasis added). See also Britell v. United States, 372 F.3d 1370, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (‘It is not the role of the courts to draw lines as to which fetal abnormalities or birth defects are so severe as to negate the state's otherwise legitimate interest in the fetus' potential life.’); State v. Final Exit Network, Inc., 889 N.W.2d 296, 305-06 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016) (‘The state has a compelling interest in the preservation of D.D.’s life, and the prevention of her suicide, regardless of her incurable [non-viable] condition.’)”
This excerpt is from the amicus brief in Dobbs submitted by Dr. Robin Pierucci, M.D. [1]

[11] More about “...there can be no stage of gestation at which killing a baby can be objectively distinguished from murder. No baby is safe while that line remains arbitrary.”
I first heard the idea of “post-natal abortion” in 1997. I posted the website urging it and my analysis, at www.saltshaker.us/AmericanIssues/Life/Joke.htm. My headline: “Is post-natal abortion funny?” I couldn’t tell if its promoters were serious or were prolifers making a point. They were serious. Here are their FAQ’s 26 years ago:
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4432/page1.html, (no longer online and not archived at archive.org) actually offers “Join us! E-mail to Free Melissa! and protect a woman's right to choose!”
Melissa Drexler was the young woman who delivered a baby 6/24/96 in the bathroom during a prom and returned to the prom as if Nature’s Call had been just a routine call.
Click on “What can I do?” and you will be advised,
“make sure that you are living consistently! Use your reproductive freedom or lose it! Sex without consequences, easily available abortion and condoned infanticide are your rights as an American citizen!”

“page2.html” offers answers to “The Most Commonly Asked Questions about Post-Natal Abortion”. “What is Post-Natal Abortion?
“Post-Natal Abortion is a technique which has been used for thousands of years by women who desired to excercise [sic] their reproductive rights. In fact, studies have shown that it is the safest and also the most effective means of terminating a pregnancy that has ever been devised.
“But is it Safe?
“As was mentioned, post-natal abortion is believed to be the safest method of terminating a pregnancy currently available. While all abortion procedures involve some risk to the woman, there has never been a reported death due to post-natal abortion. “How Effective is it?
“There is a certain amount of risk involved in most late-term abortion procedures. With methods such as a Saline abortion (where saline fluid is injected into the womb, burning the fetus and causing a spontaneous abortion), a live birth may occur. However, post-natal abortion is particularly suited to avoid this complication. Because the abortion actually occurs outside of the womb and at the discretion of the woman, she is in complete control over the ‘product of conception’ and may perform the abortion technique at her convenience. And unlike other techniques, if there are complications, the woman may simply apply the procedure again to obtain the desired results.
“Is a medical license necessary to perform this procedure?
“No. No medical training is necessary. This method of abortion is so simple, safe and effective that anyone may perform it. Thus a woman may avoid the stigma of entering a clinic where ‘protesters’ are attempting to hamper her in the exercise of her reproductive freedom.
“When may it be applied?
“Post-natal abortion should be used only in the time between when the fetus leaves the birth canal and when it reaches ‘viability.’ “When does viability occur?
“This is an area of great debate. Until science resolves this, viability will continue to be a fuzzy area. For now, we offer a sinple test -- If the fetus is not able to survive on its own (including preparation and consumption of food, the ability to make a living, and cleaning up its own living space) it is not viable and therefore not a legally defined ‘person.’ In these cases, post-natal abortion is a perfectly moral choice.
“How does it work?
“The term ‘post-natal abortion’ actually covers many different procedures. One of the most common is the Manual Respiratory Manipulation method. In this procedure the mother stops the flow of air to the lungs of the fetus by digitally manipulating the throat of the fetus. This usually [sic] produces a post-natal abortion within minutes. This is the method which Melissa Drexler used. Other procedures included in ‘post-natal abortion’ include:
“Fetal Aqua Submersion
“Fetal Cranial Interruption and
“Fetal Roadside Abandonment.”
There are links to over a dozen news articles about Drexler, offered without comment. I downloaded one that looked the most straightforward, and concluded any proponent of Post Natal Abortion could easily pass on this article without the need of comment.

It was published in the Asbury Park Press 6/25/97, titled “Death at the prom” By James W. Prado Roberts, Staff Writer.

Today there are many search returns for “After birth abortion”. Wikipedia’s article says the book “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” “attracted media attention and several scholarly critiques.”
The movement is serious.
Michael Tooley, “In Defense of Abortion and Infanticide,” in The Ethics of Abortion, (New York: Prometheus Books, 2001), admits that “even newborn humans do not have the capacities in question....it would seem that infanticide during a time interval shortly after birth must be viewed as morally acceptable.”
The narrow definitions of “personhood” that they invent, in order to deny it to babies, end up excluding most of mankind.
Tyrants measure the human worth of others by their “value” to themselves. The Bible, alone, identifies children, women, babies, immigrants, prisoners, pagans – everyone, as equally valuable to God, which puts their oppressors in God’s crosshairs.
So what if “Blue State” voters continue their journey away from God far enough to legalize “After Birth Abortion”? Will 10-year-olds be safe? Not according to the logic in the preceding 1997 article. Babies and older children, and even adults, have been sacrificed to “gods” for thousands of years.
“Apocalypto” is a 2006 movie by Mel Gibson about the human sacrifice of the Maya that continued until the Spanish came. Wikipedia’s review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypto) reports that

“The ending of the film was meant to depict the first contact between the Spaniards and Mayas that took place in 1511 when Pedro de Alvarado arrived on the coast of the Yucatán and Guatemala, and also during the fourth voyage of Christopher Columbus in 1502. “Mayanist David Stuart stated that human sacrifice was not rare and based on carvings and mural paintings, there are ‘more and greater similarities between the Aztecs and Mayas.’ ” And “Archaeological sites indicate that the Mayans used several methods for sacrifice such as ‘decapitation, heart excision, dismemberment, hanging, disembowelment, skin flaying, skull splitting and burning.’ ”
But “Guernsey points out that the film is seen through the lens of Western morality and states that it is important to examine ‘alternative world views that might not match our own 21st century Western ones but are nonetheless valid.’ ”

“Western morality”. In other words, relatively Biblical morality. The “world views” of demons “are nonetheless valid.”
A modern example of child sacrifice is in Iran. “During the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988, Iran used boys as young as 9 in human wave attacks and to clear minefields. These children were sent into battle without weapons but with ‘keys to paradise’ hung around their necks. They were often bound together by ropes in groups of 20 to prevent desertions.” (www.foxnews.com/world/iran-using-child-soldiers-attempt-stop-protests-biden-administration-urged-sanction-regime-report ) This October 25, 2022 article was about Iran still using child “soldiers” to “stop protests” against the government.
(Image, shown not here, but shown in the book from which this Statement is excerpted: www.Saltshaker.US/ReversingLandmarkAbominationCases: King Ahaz, of Jerusalem, sacrifices a baby. Not clearly shown: the fires making the idol’s hands red hot. Shown: musicians drowning out the baby’s screams.)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

Statement 6 + Footnotes

Reversing_Landmark_Abomination_Cases

Navigation menu

Find

Browse

This page

Tools