Revision as of 17:14, 29 October 2023

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. ^[7]

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.” ^[8] 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, ^[9] 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 ^[10]

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. ^[11] 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. ^[12] 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. ^[13] Their testimony need not be censored along with dismissing them for irrelevance, but their context should not be brushed aside when that context is a pattern of dehumanization, with unequal rights and laws if not extermination, of entire classes of millions of other people. ^[14]

American law rejects unequal law for disfavored groups, and will appropriately ignore rationales for unequal rights, while consulting the religion from which equal rights entered American law. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; refs with no name must have content The 1st Amendment prohibition against “establishment of religion” can’t mean the Right to Life and Equal Protection of the Laws must end because they establish rights unique to the Bible while hostile to other religions. Nor can it require censorship of truth because the truth favors God and the Bible. There can be “free exercise” of religions hostile to “equal protection of the laws” only to the extent their “exercise” does not threaten the rights of others or violate the laws enacted to protect them.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; refs with no name must have content

↑
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 must stop punishing people for telling the...truth...just because the...truth favors God.
     A 1963 book, Author of Liberty by Carl McIntire, explains the connection between censoring God, in our public forums where voters decide to fashion our laws after the principles of Heaven or of Hell, and a culture of lies, deceit, and fraud:
...moral degeneration...can be seen very clearly when we have a world that no longer seeks the truth. Lying, backbiting, slander, talebearing, and in short, all manner of violations of this Ninth Commandment [“Thou shalt not bear false witness”] abound on every hand. Hence, there is no peace or security. When men fear God, they will tell the truth. It is God who judges; it is God who sees and knows every lie and every thought. The fear of God will keep men clear, pure and true. The fear of God will enable them to love the truth. When the State [or the Supreme Court] sets itself up as God and no longer fears Him, manufacturing its own tales, creating its own “truth”, it rules out this commandment altogether. This is precisely what Russian censorship means today. [Update: Communist Chinese, North Korean, Facebook, and Biden administration-coordinated censorship.]

     When a man does not tell the truth, he is afraid to hear the truth told to another. When a man lives in a world of untruth, which he creates, he wants all others to subject to the same limitations and deceptions. The communistic state controls “truth” as it controls the individual and “his” property. It does not think that truth can stand alone, it must be socialized, too! It therefore enslaves “truth”, and there is no longer any such thing.
     When the State occupies such a position, degeneration is felt in every individual! Lying abounds, and for this reason the State has to use its iron hand to force individuals to tell the truth, under the fear of the most horrible kinds of penalty, so that even the State can be reasonably sure to tell its falsehood. The Ten Commandments are meaningless, and religion, therefore, is the “opiate of the people”! Marx was right if we accept his premise and system as true.

     How different this is from the free ordered world in which men fear God and tell the truth because they love God! The fear of the State will not lead men to be truthful, because the State cannot know, as God knows, when lies are being told. The fear of the total State is an abomination; the fear of the Living God – and every man should know this – is the beginning of wisdom.

     Natan Sharansky explains so even a spoiled American can understand, the utter emptiness, the “life” without Life, of not being allowed to say what you know, and knowing no one around you can either. Being tortured is an improvement.
     See his EpochTV.com interview at www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/natan-sharansky-on-todays-evil-empires-the-war-in-ukraine-soviet-communism-and-the-new-antisemitism-5103919
↑ 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.)
↑ 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 paragragraph, from Wikipedia’s article on “Ensoulment”, summarizes Hinduism’s view of when babies get souls – a claim lawmakers and courts will do well to ignore:
...many scriptural references [from Hinduism] such as the Charaka Samhita, Ayurveda’s most authoritative treatise on perfect health and longevity, states the soul doesn’t become attached to the body until the 7th month “the occupant doesn’t move into the house until the house is finished”, certainly not in the first trimester. The physical body is a biological growth undergoing constant reflexive testing and trial runs as it grows into a physiology capable of housing human consciousness.
↑ More about “...a pattern of...unequal rights...of entire classes of...people”
     What other religion than those influenced by the Bible vigorously calls for equal rights for all people? Doesn’t every other religion dehumanize entire people groups, reserving fewer legal rights for them than for “better” groups?
“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” – Pamela Geller’s ad on the sides of New York buses

     Does it seem ironic that civilization as we understand the concept today includes equal legal rights for all people, but that cannot exist where there is equal respect for all religions? When religions and philosophies hostile to our Freedoms are given equal influence in Congress and in courts with the religion of Freedom’s Founders, how can Freedom survive?
     We are intimidated by our First Amendment prohibition against “establishing” a religion. We think that means we are prohibited from establishing the truth. We think that means we have to believe the truth and lies equally. We must equally respect reality and superstition.
     I can “identify as a girl”, which makes me a girl, and the hospital will cut off whatever is appropriate for that designation; although when I made myself a badge saying “I identify as wearing a mask”, they still made me leave the hospital.
     Are equal rights for all better than fewer rights for unimportant people? Is freedom better than slavery? Are elected leaders better than dictators? Is free speech better than torturing critics?
     If “yes”, then without being accused of “establishing a religion”, may we publicly identify that religion which vigorously supports equal rights, freedom of religion and speech, and elections, and publicly contrast that with religions which pile legal burdens on inferior classes, support slavery, glorify tyranny, and torture critics?
     Are we allowed to publicly observe reality, even if we are lawmakers or judges deciding who to count as “people” to be protected from being murdered?
     “No! Not in public”, you scream! “That would be too distressing, because that would ‘establish religion’! America is not a theocracy!”
     You even quote scripture to prove you should never allow distressing talk like that, because talk like that puts you in danger of changing your mind! Here is the verse:

“...do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress [challenge] you….A people asked such questions before you; [In the past, when people did that,] then they became thereby disbelievers.”

     You didn’t know that was in Scripture, did you? But it is. Look it up for yourself: Surah 5:101-102. The Koran is not big on Freedom of Speech.
     If you are not already bouncing off the walls in frustration with me, just wait till you get to the end of this footnote! Because it gives a few quotes from the two most popular alternative religions to the Bible, which show their hostility towards “equal protection of the laws”, such that courts and Congress must not consult them as reliable guides to reality.
     I am not belaboring the pagan-ness of Hinduism with the slightest feeling of disrespect for the people who believe it. Especially if you are a Hindu, as is 2023 presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who chooses to live in America whose laws are far more influenced by the Bible than by the Gita! Thank you for your choice to live under these laws!
     My purpose, which I feel strongly is worth making, is to make very clear why the only religion that counts all humans as equal under laws is to be consulted on the matter of who counts as humans, while lawmakers and courts must dismiss as irrelevant who other religions count as humans. The quotes in the previous footnote clarify Hinduism’s opposition to equality for all born humans, which the United States has mercifully rejected in favor of what the world recognizes as Freedom.
     (By the way, I quote Wikipedia as evidence of Hinduism’s principles because it is a liberal source, and more friendly to Hinduism than conservative sources. The liberal-ness of their articles is evident from what seem like apologies for Hinduism throughout. The one on “Hinduism” actually begins with a claim that the Caste System most likely got its unfairness and rigidity from British occupation! But later the article contradicts that many times; I tried to pick quotes that were the least contradicted by the rest of the article.)
The DANGER of Truth Telling!
     Inaccuracy of what I am about to quote, from Islam’s Koran and Hinduism’s Gita, is not where I expect to make myself the target of media rage. I quote from common, widely available original sources. I don’t foresee a serious allegation of significant inaccuracy here.
     Misunderstanding of “establishment of religion” will get me some arrows, because courtroom redefinition of the right has been so thorough and successful that followers of The Truth politely step back from reality to avoid challenging the myths of the “fools” who “have said in their heart, there is no God”! Psalm 14:1, 53:1. Not smart, says the Bible, Psalm 2, but exceptions are rare and generally unpopular. But I believe I have made the case for the relevance of God well enough to survive courts, so I expect skeptics who honestly weigh the reasoning and evidence will see its merit.
     I foresee that the greatest hostility to this information will be not because it is inaccurate, but because it is accurate and irrefutable, and therefore capable of sparking violent rage from followers of that violent religion, for telling the truth about how violent they are, which is so ironic because logic would suggest they would appreciate their religion being portrayed correctly.

Hamas Founder’s Son Says Media Too ‘Afraid’ To Label Group As Terrorists, Fearing Religious War October 23, 2023, One American News: “Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a Hamas co-founder, declared on Monday that Hamas is even more dangerous than ISIS and that the mainstream media is reluctant to label the organization as terrorists and a genocidal religious movement for fear of starting a full-scale religious conflict.

     “Look at the division and the global confusion because of Hamas. They brought us to our knees somehow by their brutality and their barbarism. Brutality is even understating Hamas’ acts. Hamas is a religious movement, and they are a raging religious movement against Israel. The mainstream media cannot say this, because they are afraid to ignite a religious war. And what I say, it already is. They want to annihilate the Jewish people because they are Jewish people, because they are a Jewish state. They are driven by dark hatred toward a race, toward a nation. They have many tunnels. They used the funds and the aid that came to Gaza, they used it to dig tunnels,” he said. “It’s very hard to deal with this style of suicidal group of fighters who basically don’t appreciate life. They actually [are] looking forward to death.”

     Yousef, who denounced Islam to become a Christian and left the terrorist organization in the 1990s to secretly work as a spy for Israel’s Shin Bet internal security agency, claimed that since Hamas is neither a political nor national movement, negotiations with them are practically impossible. (www.oann.com/ newsroom/hamas-founders-son-says-media-too-afraid-to-label-group-as-terrorists-fearing-religious-war/)

     I don’t know if violence from worshipers of violence will be exceeded by opposition from fellow Christians terrified that my telling of truths that everybody already suspects if not knows will spark violence from worshipers of violence. A majority of Moslems are not personally violent, yet, thank God, (!) But a majority justify violence:

https://www.cygn.al/new-national-poll-muslim-americans-say-hamas-was-justified-in-attacking-israel-majority-of-americans-say-iran-should-be-held-accountable-majority-support-israels-right-to-self-defense/

     A majority of Muslim-Americans agree that Israel has a right to defend itself, but in stark contrast to other demographic groups, a majority disagree that Israel should invade Gaza, and a majority agree that Hamas was justified in its attack on Israel.
     A majority of Muslim-Americans (68.8%) agree that Israel has a right to defend itself, yet disagree (53.2%) that Israel should invade Gaza, and a majority (57.5%) agree that Hamas was justified in its attack on Israel. (For comparison with all Americans, 78.9%, 38.2%, 25.2%.)
     16.5% of Americans have a favorable view of Gaza. Republican, 14.8%, Democrat, 24.9% but Muslim-Americans, 52.1%.

     8.5% of Americans have a positive view of Iran; 25.9% of Muslim-Americans do.

     (Giving credit where due: though the percentage of Moslems who don’t justify violence is smaller than for other groups, there are still a lot who don’t. Romans 2 likewise gives credit to people who don’t profess, or know about God, yet who live as if they did. As nearly as statisticians can determine, 60% of Palestinians support the barbaric Hamas slaughter of Jews beginning October 7, 2023, but not 100%.)
     That fear of violence from worshipers of violence already silences many who know better. Most notably, President George W. Bush notorious for calling Islam a “religion of peace”. But that is another reason to “glorify” (give God credit). God is not just the “Author of Liberty”, as the national song “America” states, but liberty’s protector. God exists. And decides whether anyone gets to hurt us. Therefore, doing what God likes is the safest thing we can do. Although there is a cost at some level; telling too much Truth means a Cross for its tellers. Still, Truth is Life. “Life” without Truth is not Life. So here are a few facts, which you surely already suspect, or perhaps you know them better than I:
Hinduism
     From Hinduism’s “Caste System in India”: wiki/Caste_system_in_India

Varna, meaning type, order, colour, or class are a framework for grouping people into classes, first used in Vedic Indian society. It is referred frequently in the ancient Indian texts. There are four classes: the Brahmins (priestly people), the Kshatriyas (rulers, administrators and warriors; also called Rajanyas), the Vaishyas (artisans, merchants, tradesmen and farmers), and the Shudras (labouring classes). The varna categorisation implicitly includes a fifth element, those deemed to be entirely outside its scope, such as tribal people and the untouchables (Dalits).
     (Applications of the system included) Restrictions on feeding and social intercourse, with minute rules...Segregation,...the dominant caste living in the center and other castes living on the periphery. There were restrictions on the use of water wells or streets by one caste on another: an upper-caste Brahmin might not be permitted to use the street of a lower-caste group, while a caste considered impure might not be permitted to draw water from a well used by members of other castes....Occupation, generally inherited. Lack of unrestricted choice of profession....restrictions on marrying a person outside caste, but in some situations hypergamy [“dating or marrying a spouse of a higher caste”] allowed. ….[sub] castes rise and fall in the social scale, and old [sub]castes die out and new ones are formed, but the four great classes are stable. There are never more or less than four and for over 2,000 years their order of precedence has not altered.... [From 1000 to 600 BC] The Brahmins and the Kshatriyas are given a special position in the rituals, distinguishing them from both the Vaishyas and the Shudras. The Vaishya is said to be “oppressed at will” and the Shudra “beaten at will.”

     “The Bhagavad Gita is one of the most revered Hindu texts” [2] “The title has been interpreted as ‘the word of God’ [and as] ‘celestial song’.” The Gita documents at least the Kshatriya [soldier] caste as a “religious” “duty” (dharma) of Hinduism, which should be carried out with “no need for hesitation” even if it is a civil war in which the other side includes your own family and indeed your own religious teachers!

B’hagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 31. Considering your specific duty as a ksatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation. Verse 37. O son of Kunti, either you will be killed on the battlefield and attain the heavenly planets, or you will conquer and enjoy the earthly kingdom. Therefore get up and fight with determination.

     Wikipedia, Bhagavad Gita: “V. R. Narla, in his book length critique of the text titled The Truth About the Gita,... argues that the fact that the Gita tries constantly to make Arjuna kill his kin in order to gain a petty kingdom shows it is not a pacifist work. ….[He] compares the Krishna of the Gita with a modern day terrorist, who uses theology to excuse violence. Narla also cites D.D. Kosambi who argued that the apparent moral of the Gita is ‘kill your brother if duty calls, without passion; as long as you have faith in Me, all sins are forgiven...’.”

     B’hagavad Gita, 2:33 If, however, you do not fight this religious war, then you will certainly incur sins for neglecting your duties and thus lose your reputation as a fighter.

     This is a very pro-war theology! The opposite of virtuous for being a peacemaker, which Matthew 5:9 says makes one “blessed” (happy), Krishna calls the very desire for peace a “sin”! I didn’t even know Hinduism acknowledged the existence of “sin”. I thought they were relativists.

B’hagavad Gita, 2:34 People will always speak of your infamy, and for one who has been honored, dishonor is worse than death. 35.
     The great generals who have highly esteemed your name and fame will think that you have left the battlefield out of fear only, and thus they will consider you a coward. Verse 36. Your enemies will describe you in many unkind words and scorn your ability. What could be more painful for you?

     Krishna is talking like the “bad guys” in “Westerns” (cowboy movies) who taunt a “good guy” with “Yer yellow! Pick up that gun, ef ya call yerself a man! Coward! Ya ain’t worth spit!”
     Krishna says if even enemies, those most inclined to deliberately twist the truth to justify their hate, falsely accuse you, even those false accusations are worse than letting your family live! “What could be more painful for you?” How about arrows and swords piercing your body? It is nothing, no harm at all, to kill another man, but the mere threat of “unkind words” from “enemies” who have always spewed unkind words anyway, are so harmful as to compel you to slaughter your family! This guy Krishna would not get along in America, with our Freedom of Speech! This Krishna is not a “free speech” kind of guy!
     Jesus thought it quite foolish to kill another for “honor”! Describing what I take for a challenge to a duel, He said, “Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist [Wesley: “ the Greek word translated resist signifies standing in battle array, striving for victory. ”] not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, [as opposed to ] turn to him the other also.” (Jesus’ own submission to this principle: John 18:22-23)
     Krishna thinks we ought to return to the days of dueling! Iowa voters voted to repeal the archaic law against dueling in the Iowa Constitution, in 1992. If courts continue pulling down the Bible to the level of other religions, maybe they will make us put it back in!
     Verses 11-27 had explained how killing people doesn’t actually hurt anyone because all you are killing is mere bodies; souls are eternal. Which makes verses 34-36 the more astonishing: if you kill me, no big deal. But don’t call me names! How can I survive THAT?!
     What makes the verses ultra astonishing is the supposed goal of Hinduism: to suppress all “attachment” to any “desire” for anything. We are to worship Apathy Incarnate, and yet pull our guns on any low-life who dares disrespect us! Here is an amazing description of righteous apathy:

B’hagavad Gita, 14:21 Arjuna [the military commander] inquired: O my Lord, by what symptoms is one known who is transcendental to those modes? What is his behavior? And how does he transcend the modes of nature? 25 The Blessed Lord said: He who does not hate illumination, attachment and delusion when they are present, nor longs for them when they disappear; who is seated like one unconcerned, being situated beyond these material reactions of the modes of nature, who remains firm, knowing that the modes alone are active; who regards alike pleasure and pain, and looks on a clod, a stone and a piece of gold with an equal eye; who is wise and holds praise and blame to be the same; who is unchanged in honor and dishonor, who treats friend and foe alike, who has abandoned all fruitive undertakings--such a man is said to have transcended the modes of nature. 26 One who engages in full devotional service, who does not fall down in any circumstance, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman.

     We are supposed to not care whether we become wise or foolish. We are to care no more for gold than a clod of dirt. Contrast that with:

Proverbs 3:13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. 14 For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. 15 She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. 16 Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour. 17 Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. 18 She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her. 19 The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. 20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.
     21 My son, let not them depart from thine eyes: keep sound wisdom and discretion: 22 So shall they be life unto thy soul, and grace to thy neck. 23 Then shalt thou walk in thy way safely, and thy foot shall not stumble. 24 When thou liest down, thou shalt not be afraid: yea, thou shalt lie down, and thy sleep shall be sweet. 25 Be not afraid of sudden fear, neither of the desolation of the wicked, when it cometh. 26 For the LORD shall be thy confidence, and shall keep thy foot from being taken.

     God sees value in wisdom, and lesser value in riches, v. 16. God, by wisdom, created the Earth; but the Gita says we must see any value in wisdom. Indeed the process of creation is not understood by Hindus to involve consciously weighing possibilities and preferring one possibility over another. The Brahman Force just sort of made everything happen without caring if it did.
     We are supposed to “abandon all fruitive undertakings”. In other words, we are not supposed to do anything with the goal of being successful. We are not supposed to accomplish anything. We are not supposed to have any goals, or if we do, we are certainly not supposed to try to reach them. Without goals, we can’t be successful, but neither can we be failures, the Gita tells us.
Islam
     A husband should beat his wife if he thinks she wants to leave him: Koran 4:34 … “(as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places [stop having sex with them] and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely God is High, Great.”
     The testimony of two women equals that of one man: Koran 2:282 “...call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other....” That Surah (verse) is justified on a Moslem website with:

“This does not mean that a woman does not understand or that she cannot remember things, but she is weaker than man in these aspects – usually. Scientific and specialized studies have shown that men’s minds are more perfect than those of women, and reality and experience bear witness to that.... there are some women who are far superior to men in their reason and insight, but they are few, and the ruling is based on the majority and the usual cases.” (https://islamqa.info/en/answers/20051/why-is-the-witness-of-one-man-considered-to-be-equal-to-the-witness-of-two-women)

No Freedom of Speech in Islam:

Koran 5:101-102 “O you who have believed [in Islam], do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress [challenge] you….A people asked such questions before you; [In the past, when people did that,] then they became thereby disbelievers.” (Qur’an) - See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2014/12/after-years-of-being-taught-to-hate-jews-muslim-discovers-he-is-jewish.html/#sthash.VAjlOphK.dpuf

No Freedom of Religion

8.12 When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve [in Islam]. Therefore strike off their heads and off every fingertip of them.

     Question: Does Islam allow any kind of Freedom of Religion? It seems peace is granted only so long as unbelievers “repent” and “pay the poor rate”, which missionaries tell me is, in practice today, an enormous tax that leaves Christians in the most degrading poverty and helplessness. It is not physical aggression of a Christian for which he is to be “fought”, but openly questioning Islam, v. 12-13. By contrast, when the Samaritans were rude to Jesus, and Jesus’ apostles offered to use their miraculous powers to slay them, Jesus rebuked them: Luke 9:55 “...Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. 56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.”
     By contrast, the Bible, just like U.S. law today, allows freedom of religious speech and thought, and freedom of religious practice up until the point where “serving” another god involves committing crimes. Deuteronomy 13, for example, doesn’t outlaw pagan belief, or speech, but “serving” other gods; burning your child to death was the most common way to “serve” the gods of Bible times, which is, by our laws, a crime.

9.5 So when the sacred months [Ramadan] have passed away, then slay the idolaters [Christians who worship the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which the Koran says is polygamy] wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer [5 times a day to Allah] and pay the poor-rate [an oppressive tax that leaves people very poor], leave their way free to them; [let them live] surely God is Forgiving, Merciful.
     Fight those who do not believe in God [Allah], nor in the latter day [the belief that in the end times the Mahdi will arise and conquer the world for Islam with Jesus’ help, beheading all who “disbelieve”], nor do they prohibit what God and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book [Bible], until they pay the tax [a horrible tax that leaves people destitute] in acknowledgment of [our] superiority and they are in a state of subjection [slavery].

No Forgiveness

9.113 It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe that they should ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even though they should be near relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are inmates of the flaming fire.
     5.41 “O Messenger! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say ‘We believe’ with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews -- men who will listen to any lie -- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places: they say, ‘If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!’ If any one’s trial is intended by Allah, thou hast no authority in the least for him against Allah. For such – it is not Allah’s will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment.” (5:41)

     A Muslim should hate even family members who are not Muslims: “There has already been for you an excellent pattern in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah. We have denied you, and there has appeared between us and you animosity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone.” (60:4).
Allah transforms disobedient Jews into apes and pigs (2:63-66; 5:59-60; 7:166).

     This surah was the subject of a question submitted to a Muslim site hoping to provide sensible answers to questioners about Islam. The question and answer: “https://islamqa.info/en/answers/14085/are-the-monkeys-and-pigs-that-exist-nowadays-humans-who-have-been-transformed” ?
     “Could you please tell me about monkeys. Are they humans who were turned into monkeys for disobeying Allahs commandments? if so which people were they and what did they do?”
     The answer acknowledges surahs saying people were turned into monkeys and pigs, and agrees that is really what happened, but the monkeys today weren’t people from the past because the monkeys that were former people lost their ability to reproduce! Which actually doesn’t answer whether monkeys today might be people recently turned into monkeys. Oh well. I guess we will never know?
     This should help us understand how much to trust Islam today as a reliable guide to reality – the Koran itself, and its modern defenders.
     Questions I have asked Moslem leaders:
     Does there exist a translation of these verses which is true to the text yet which encourages Muslims to live in peace and cooperation with Christians and Jews?
     Do there exist verse-by-verse commentaries of the Qu’ran, like we have of the Bible, where I can look up these verses and have explained how these verses actually support peace with “people of the Book”?
     When you pray for “victory over those who disbelieve”, in the mantra which you recite many times a day over almost every event in your lives, do you mean physical victory? Do you believe Christians and Jews “disbelieve”?
     So far, I have had lengthy dialog with a half dozen Moslem leaders, which came to an end when I asked these questions. One of them is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQRxbmBRjNU.

     Headlines from the Palestinian/Israel war of October, 2023, comparing the barbarity of the Palestianians with the barbarity demanded by the Koran, supporting the controversial theory that the Palestinians are actually following the Koran https://gellerreport.com/2023/10/in-israel-babies-discovered-with-their-heads-cut-off.html/?lctg=36933672
     “The Israeli soldiers discovered babies with heads cut off”
     “The Israeli soldiers discovered families butchered altogether, women raped, children killed while playing, babies with heads cut off” Hamas beheaded babies in accordance with Islamic texts and teachings. Quran 47:4: So, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike at their necks…
     The bodies were discovered lying on the floors in their homes, some without heads after Hamas gunman stormed a residential area in Kfar Aza on Saturday. IDF soldiers were not able to reach the homes until today as they continued to fight gunman and clear booby traps that had been laid in and outside the homes. Israeli Major General Itai Veruv said: “It is something that I never saw in my life.”
     Watch i24NEWS Correspondent Nicole Zedek report from Kibbutz Kfar Aza, a quarter-mile from the Gaza border. Here she recounts the atrocities that were committed in the small community which remains an active scene as soldiers clear booby traps and recover the bodies of dozens of victims.

     https://gellerreport.com/2023/10/photos-emerge-of-jewish-children-burned-alive-by-hamas.html/?lctg=36933672 (This is a link to photos of “Jewish Children Burned Alive By Hamas”)

     https://gellerreport.com/2023/10/watch-hamas-terrorist-admit-true-motive-for-kidnapping-babies-and-children-to-rape-them.html/?lctg=36933672
     WATCH Hamas Terrorist Admit True Motive For Kidnapping Babies and Children: “To Rape Them”
     By Pamela Geller - on October 11, 2023
     Video of Interrogation of Hamas terrorist: “why did you want to capture women and children?” “I don’t want to talk about it.” “Talk!” “To have our way with them.” “What does that mean?” “To dirty them. To rape them.”
     The Qur’an teaches that non-Muslim women can be lawfully taken for sexual use (cf. its allowance for a man to take “captives of the right hand,” 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:30). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves of their outer garments. That is suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (33:59) The implication there is that if women do not cover themselves adequately with their outer garments, they may be abused, and that such abuse would be justified. [Not only women, but children. "Daughters."]

     https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/israelis-describe-hellish-scenes-in-communities-attacked-by-hamas-terrorists A baby, an infant, riddled with bullets. Soldiers beheaded. Young people burned alive in their cars or in their hideaway rooms. Horrifying photos of babies murdered and burned.
     Children and adults decapitated...babies that were hanged in a row with their mothers’ bras. ...the volunteers encountered booby traps placed under the victims’ bodies.
     Burnt bodies, burnt houses everywhere. Decapitated heads of children of several ages. The smell of rotting corpses [is so bad] that you can't even breathe. Bodies of babies tied up.
     At the end of the kibbutz, in a house that was completely destroyed, they [the babies] are sitting on a fence outside of the house. Their bodies are burned. Their parents, sitting in front of them, are slaughtered.
     Even more harrowing scenes: a pregnant woman with her stomach cut open and a woman burned in a wheelchair.
https://gellerreport.com/2023/10/top-secret-hamas-documents-show-that-terrorists-intentionally-targeted-children-elementary-schools-and-youth-center.html/ ‘Top secret’ Hamas documents show that terrorists intentionally targeted CHILDREN elementary schools and youth center
     By Pamela Geller - on October 14, 2023
     ‘Top secret’ Hamas documents show that terrorists intentionally targeted elementary schools and a youth center.
     Maps and documents recovered from the bodies of Hamas attackers reveal a coordinated plan to target children and take hostages inside an Israeli village near Gaza. The terrorists forgot that on Shabbat (Saturday), when they attacked, children aren't in school.

     https://gellerreport.com/2023/10/witness-children-were-tortured-in-front-of-their-parents-parents-in-front-of-their-children-eyes-gouged-out-fingers-chopped-off.html/?lctg=36933672 Witness: ‘Children Were Tortured In Front of Their Parents, Parents In Front of Their Children ….Eyes Gouged Out, Fingers Chopped Off…”
     By Pamela Geller - on October 19, 2023
     We saw a couple – mother and father – sitting on their knees on the floor, heads down, hands tied behind their back
     On the other side of the dining room was a seven year old boy and a girl, about 6 years old, hands tied behind their back. The bodies were tortured. Gouged out eyes, cut off flesh, and then shot them with their hands tied behind their backs.
     There’s a new website (https://sites.google.com/view/hamas-massacre-new/home) that contains all videos and images of documented Hamas War Crimes from October 7th, including raw footage from the attacks.
     The world must know the enemy we are fighting. The enemy whose clearly stated intentions are to rid Israel of its Jews and then the world.
https://gellerreport.com/2023/10/hamas-terrorists-were-told-by-commanders-to-behead-israelis-and-cut-their-feet-and-what-they-did-to-the-bodies-of-jewish-women.html/?lctg=36933672
     Hamas terrorists were told by commanders to behead Israelis and cut their feet and what they did to the bodies of Jewish women
     By Pamela Geller - on October 21, 2023
     Israeli Morgue: ‘Evidence of mass rape of so brutal that they broke their victims’ pelvis – women, grandmothers, children.’ ‘People whose heads have been cut off. Faces blasted off. Heads smashed and their brains spilling out. A baby was cut out of a pregnant woman and beheaded and then the mother was beheaded’
     “Charred remains and a CT scan of the remains show a parent and child who were bound together and burned alive by Hamas terrorists on Oct. 7. Two spinal columns—one of an adult and one of a child—can be seen in the scan. The pair were likely embracing as they burned.”
     Israeli Forensic team: cut, burned alive, raped (inc. very young and very old women), arms and feet cut off, beheaded. Children tied together & burned alive. Entire families slaughtered together.
     The age range of the victims spans from 3 months to 80 or 90 years old. Many bodies, including those of babies, are without heads.

[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 must stop punishing people for telling the...truth...just because the...truth favors God.
A 1963 book, Author of Liberty by Carl McIntire, explains the connection between censoring God, in our public forums where voters decide to fashion our laws after the principles of Heaven or of Hell, and a culture of lies, deceit, and fraud:
...moral degeneration...can be seen very clearly when we have a world that no longer seeks the truth. Lying, backbiting, slander, talebearing, and in short, all manner of violations of this Ninth Commandment [“Thou shalt not bear false witness”] abound on every hand. Hence, there is no peace or security. When men fear God, they will tell the truth. It is God who judges; it is God who sees and knows every lie and every thought. The fear of God will keep men clear, pure and true. The fear of God will enable them to love the truth. When the State [or the Supreme Court] sets itself up as God and no longer fears Him, manufacturing its own tales, creating its own “truth”, it rules out this commandment altogether. This is precisely what Russian censorship means today. [Update: Communist Chinese, North Korean, Facebook, and Biden administration-coordinated censorship.]

When a man does not tell the truth, he is afraid to hear the truth told to another. When a man lives in a world of untruth, which he creates, he wants all others to subject to the same limitations and deceptions. The communistic state controls “truth” as it controls the individual and “his” property. It does not think that truth can stand alone, it must be socialized, too! It therefore enslaves “truth”, and there is no longer any such thing.
When the State occupies such a position, degeneration is felt in every individual! Lying abounds, and for this reason the State has to use its iron hand to force individuals to tell the truth, under the fear of the most horrible kinds of penalty, so that even the State can be reasonably sure to tell its falsehood. The Ten Commandments are meaningless, and religion, therefore, is the “opiate of the people”! Marx was right if we accept his premise and system as true.

How different this is from the free ordered world in which men fear God and tell the truth because they love God! The fear of the State will not lead men to be truthful, because the State cannot know, as God knows, when lies are being told. The fear of the total State is an abomination; the fear of the Living God – and every man should know this – is the beginning of wisdom.

Natan Sharansky explains so even a spoiled American can understand, the utter emptiness, the “life” without Life, of not being allowed to say what you know, and knowing no one around you can either. Being tortured is an improvement.
See his EpochTV.com interview at www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/natan-sharansky-on-todays-evil-empires-the-war-in-ukraine-soviet-communism-and-the-new-antisemitism-5103919

[8] 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.

[9] 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?

[10] 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)

[11] 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]

[12] 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.)

[13] 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 paragragraph, from Wikipedia’s article on “Ensoulment”, summarizes Hinduism’s view of when babies get souls – a claim lawmakers and courts will do well to ignore:
...many scriptural references [from Hinduism] such as the Charaka Samhita, Ayurveda’s most authoritative treatise on perfect health and longevity, states the soul doesn’t become attached to the body until the 7th month “the occupant doesn’t move into the house until the house is finished”, certainly not in the first trimester. The physical body is a biological growth undergoing constant reflexive testing and trial runs as it grows into a physiology capable of housing human consciousness.

[14] More about “...a pattern of...unequal rights...of entire classes of...people”
What other religion than those influenced by the Bible vigorously calls for equal rights for all people? Doesn’t every other religion dehumanize entire people groups, reserving fewer legal rights for them than for “better” groups?
“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” – Pamela Geller’s ad on the sides of New York buses

Does it seem ironic that civilization as we understand the concept today includes equal legal rights for all people, but that cannot exist where there is equal respect for all religions? When religions and philosophies hostile to our Freedoms are given equal influence in Congress and in courts with the religion of Freedom’s Founders, how can Freedom survive?
We are intimidated by our First Amendment prohibition against “establishing” a religion. We think that means we are prohibited from establishing the truth. We think that means we have to believe the truth and lies equally. We must equally respect reality and superstition.
I can “identify as a girl”, which makes me a girl, and the hospital will cut off whatever is appropriate for that designation; although when I made myself a badge saying “I identify as wearing a mask”, they still made me leave the hospital.
Are equal rights for all better than fewer rights for unimportant people? Is freedom better than slavery? Are elected leaders better than dictators? Is free speech better than torturing critics?
If “yes”, then without being accused of “establishing a religion”, may we publicly identify that religion which vigorously supports equal rights, freedom of religion and speech, and elections, and publicly contrast that with religions which pile legal burdens on inferior classes, support slavery, glorify tyranny, and torture critics?
Are we allowed to publicly observe reality, even if we are lawmakers or judges deciding who to count as “people” to be protected from being murdered?
“No! Not in public”, you scream! “That would be too distressing, because that would ‘establish religion’! America is not a theocracy!”
You even quote scripture to prove you should never allow distressing talk like that, because talk like that puts you in danger of changing your mind! Here is the verse:

“...do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress [challenge] you….A people asked such questions before you; [In the past, when people did that,] then they became thereby disbelievers.”

You didn’t know that was in Scripture, did you? But it is. Look it up for yourself: Surah 5:101-102. The Koran is not big on Freedom of Speech.
If you are not already bouncing off the walls in frustration with me, just wait till you get to the end of this footnote! Because it gives a few quotes from the two most popular alternative religions to the Bible, which show their hostility towards “equal protection of the laws”, such that courts and Congress must not consult them as reliable guides to reality.
I am not belaboring the pagan-ness of Hinduism with the slightest feeling of disrespect for the people who believe it. Especially if you are a Hindu, as is 2023 presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who chooses to live in America whose laws are far more influenced by the Bible than by the Gita! Thank you for your choice to live under these laws!
My purpose, which I feel strongly is worth making, is to make very clear why the only religion that counts all humans as equal under laws is to be consulted on the matter of who counts as humans, while lawmakers and courts must dismiss as irrelevant who other religions count as humans. The quotes in the previous footnote clarify Hinduism’s opposition to equality for all born humans, which the United States has mercifully rejected in favor of what the world recognizes as Freedom.
(By the way, I quote Wikipedia as evidence of Hinduism’s principles because it is a liberal source, and more friendly to Hinduism than conservative sources. The liberal-ness of their articles is evident from what seem like apologies for Hinduism throughout. The one on “Hinduism” actually begins with a claim that the Caste System most likely got its unfairness and rigidity from British occupation! But later the article contradicts that many times; I tried to pick quotes that were the least contradicted by the rest of the article.)
The DANGER of Truth Telling!
Inaccuracy of what I am about to quote, from Islam’s Koran and Hinduism’s Gita, is not where I expect to make myself the target of media rage. I quote from common, widely available original sources. I don’t foresee a serious allegation of significant inaccuracy here.
Misunderstanding of “establishment of religion” will get me some arrows, because courtroom redefinition of the right has been so thorough and successful that followers of The Truth politely step back from reality to avoid challenging the myths of the “fools” who “have said in their heart, there is no God”! Psalm 14:1, 53:1. Not smart, says the Bible, Psalm 2, but exceptions are rare and generally unpopular. But I believe I have made the case for the relevance of God well enough to survive courts, so I expect skeptics who honestly weigh the reasoning and evidence will see its merit.
I foresee that the greatest hostility to this information will be not because it is inaccurate, but because it is accurate and irrefutable, and therefore capable of sparking violent rage from followers of that violent religion, for telling the truth about how violent they are, which is so ironic because logic would suggest they would appreciate their religion being portrayed correctly.

Hamas Founder’s Son Says Media Too ‘Afraid’ To Label Group As Terrorists, Fearing Religious War October 23, 2023, One American News: “Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a Hamas co-founder, declared on Monday that Hamas is even more dangerous than ISIS and that the mainstream media is reluctant to label the organization as terrorists and a genocidal religious movement for fear of starting a full-scale religious conflict.

“Look at the division and the global confusion because of Hamas. They brought us to our knees somehow by their brutality and their barbarism. Brutality is even understating Hamas’ acts. Hamas is a religious movement, and they are a raging religious movement against Israel. The mainstream media cannot say this, because they are afraid to ignite a religious war. And what I say, it already is. They want to annihilate the Jewish people because they are Jewish people, because they are a Jewish state. They are driven by dark hatred toward a race, toward a nation. They have many tunnels. They used the funds and the aid that came to Gaza, they used it to dig tunnels,” he said. “It’s very hard to deal with this style of suicidal group of fighters who basically don’t appreciate life. They actually [are] looking forward to death.”

Yousef, who denounced Islam to become a Christian and left the terrorist organization in the 1990s to secretly work as a spy for Israel’s Shin Bet internal security agency, claimed that since Hamas is neither a political nor national movement, negotiations with them are practically impossible. (www.oann.com/ newsroom/hamas-founders-son-says-media-too-afraid-to-label-group-as-terrorists-fearing-religious-war/)

I don’t know if violence from worshipers of violence will be exceeded by opposition from fellow Christians terrified that my telling of truths that everybody already suspects if not knows will spark violence from worshipers of violence. A majority of Moslems are not personally violent, yet, thank God, (!) But a majority justify violence:

https://www.cygn.al/new-national-poll-muslim-americans-say-hamas-was-justified-in-attacking-israel-majority-of-americans-say-iran-should-be-held-accountable-majority-support-israels-right-to-self-defense/

A majority of Muslim-Americans agree that Israel has a right to defend itself, but in stark contrast to other demographic groups, a majority disagree that Israel should invade Gaza, and a majority agree that Hamas was justified in its attack on Israel.
A majority of Muslim-Americans (68.8%) agree that Israel has a right to defend itself, yet disagree (53.2%) that Israel should invade Gaza, and a majority (57.5%) agree that Hamas was justified in its attack on Israel. (For comparison with all Americans, 78.9%, 38.2%, 25.2%.)
16.5% of Americans have a favorable view of Gaza. Republican, 14.8%, Democrat, 24.9% but Muslim-Americans, 52.1%.

8.5% of Americans have a positive view of Iran; 25.9% of Muslim-Americans do.

(Giving credit where due: though the percentage of Moslems who don’t justify violence is smaller than for other groups, there are still a lot who don’t. Romans 2 likewise gives credit to people who don’t profess, or know about God, yet who live as if they did. As nearly as statisticians can determine, 60% of Palestinians support the barbaric Hamas slaughter of Jews beginning October 7, 2023, but not 100%.)
That fear of violence from worshipers of violence already silences many who know better. Most notably, President George W. Bush notorious for calling Islam a “religion of peace”. But that is another reason to “glorify” (give God credit). God is not just the “Author of Liberty”, as the national song “America” states, but liberty’s protector. God exists. And decides whether anyone gets to hurt us. Therefore, doing what God likes is the safest thing we can do. Although there is a cost at some level; telling too much Truth means a Cross for its tellers. Still, Truth is Life. “Life” without Truth is not Life. So here are a few facts, which you surely already suspect, or perhaps you know them better than I:
Hinduism
From Hinduism’s “Caste System in India”: wiki/Caste_system_in_India

Varna, meaning type, order, colour, or class are a framework for grouping people into classes, first used in Vedic Indian society. It is referred frequently in the ancient Indian texts. There are four classes: the Brahmins (priestly people), the Kshatriyas (rulers, administrators and warriors; also called Rajanyas), the Vaishyas (artisans, merchants, tradesmen and farmers), and the Shudras (labouring classes). The varna categorisation implicitly includes a fifth element, those deemed to be entirely outside its scope, such as tribal people and the untouchables (Dalits).
(Applications of the system included) Restrictions on feeding and social intercourse, with minute rules...Segregation,...the dominant caste living in the center and other castes living on the periphery. There were restrictions on the use of water wells or streets by one caste on another: an upper-caste Brahmin might not be permitted to use the street of a lower-caste group, while a caste considered impure might not be permitted to draw water from a well used by members of other castes....Occupation, generally inherited. Lack of unrestricted choice of profession....restrictions on marrying a person outside caste, but in some situations hypergamy [“dating or marrying a spouse of a higher caste”] allowed. ….[sub] castes rise and fall in the social scale, and old [sub]castes die out and new ones are formed, but the four great classes are stable. There are never more or less than four and for over 2,000 years their order of precedence has not altered.... [From 1000 to 600 BC] The Brahmins and the Kshatriyas are given a special position in the rituals, distinguishing them from both the Vaishyas and the Shudras. The Vaishya is said to be “oppressed at will” and the Shudra “beaten at will.”

“The Bhagavad Gita is one of the most revered Hindu texts” [2] “The title has been interpreted as ‘the word of God’ [and as] ‘celestial song’.” The Gita documents at least the Kshatriya [soldier] caste as a “religious” “duty” (dharma) of Hinduism, which should be carried out with “no need for hesitation” even if it is a civil war in which the other side includes your own family and indeed your own religious teachers!

B’hagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 31. Considering your specific duty as a ksatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation. Verse 37. O son of Kunti, either you will be killed on the battlefield and attain the heavenly planets, or you will conquer and enjoy the earthly kingdom. Therefore get up and fight with determination.

Wikipedia, Bhagavad Gita: “V. R. Narla, in his book length critique of the text titled The Truth About the Gita,... argues that the fact that the Gita tries constantly to make Arjuna kill his kin in order to gain a petty kingdom shows it is not a pacifist work. ….[He] compares the Krishna of the Gita with a modern day terrorist, who uses theology to excuse violence. Narla also cites D.D. Kosambi who argued that the apparent moral of the Gita is ‘kill your brother if duty calls, without passion; as long as you have faith in Me, all sins are forgiven...’.”

B’hagavad Gita, 2:33 If, however, you do not fight this religious war, then you will certainly incur sins for neglecting your duties and thus lose your reputation as a fighter.

This is a very pro-war theology! The opposite of virtuous for being a peacemaker, which Matthew 5:9 says makes one “blessed” (happy), Krishna calls the very desire for peace a “sin”! I didn’t even know Hinduism acknowledged the existence of “sin”. I thought they were relativists.

B’hagavad Gita, 2:34 People will always speak of your infamy, and for one who has been honored, dishonor is worse than death. 35.
The great generals who have highly esteemed your name and fame will think that you have left the battlefield out of fear only, and thus they will consider you a coward. Verse 36. Your enemies will describe you in many unkind words and scorn your ability. What could be more painful for you?

Krishna is talking like the “bad guys” in “Westerns” (cowboy movies) who taunt a “good guy” with “Yer yellow! Pick up that gun, ef ya call yerself a man! Coward! Ya ain’t worth spit!”
Krishna says if even enemies, those most inclined to deliberately twist the truth to justify their hate, falsely accuse you, even those false accusations are worse than letting your family live! “What could be more painful for you?” How about arrows and swords piercing your body? It is nothing, no harm at all, to kill another man, but the mere threat of “unkind words” from “enemies” who have always spewed unkind words anyway, are so harmful as to compel you to slaughter your family! This guy Krishna would not get along in America, with our Freedom of Speech! This Krishna is not a “free speech” kind of guy!
Jesus thought it quite foolish to kill another for “honor”! Describing what I take for a challenge to a duel, He said, “Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist [Wesley: “ the Greek word translated resist signifies standing in battle array, striving for victory. ”] not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, [as opposed to ] turn to him the other also.” (Jesus’ own submission to this principle: John 18:22-23)
Krishna thinks we ought to return to the days of dueling! Iowa voters voted to repeal the archaic law against dueling in the Iowa Constitution, in 1992. If courts continue pulling down the Bible to the level of other religions, maybe they will make us put it back in!
Verses 11-27 had explained how killing people doesn’t actually hurt anyone because all you are killing is mere bodies; souls are eternal. Which makes verses 34-36 the more astonishing: if you kill me, no big deal. But don’t call me names! How can I survive THAT?!
What makes the verses ultra astonishing is the supposed goal of Hinduism: to suppress all “attachment” to any “desire” for anything. We are to worship Apathy Incarnate, and yet pull our guns on any low-life who dares disrespect us! Here is an amazing description of righteous apathy:

B’hagavad Gita, 14:21 Arjuna [the military commander] inquired: O my Lord, by what symptoms is one known who is transcendental to those modes? What is his behavior? And how does he transcend the modes of nature? 25 The Blessed Lord said: He who does not hate illumination, attachment and delusion when they are present, nor longs for them when they disappear; who is seated like one unconcerned, being situated beyond these material reactions of the modes of nature, who remains firm, knowing that the modes alone are active; who regards alike pleasure and pain, and looks on a clod, a stone and a piece of gold with an equal eye; who is wise and holds praise and blame to be the same; who is unchanged in honor and dishonor, who treats friend and foe alike, who has abandoned all fruitive undertakings--such a man is said to have transcended the modes of nature. 26 One who engages in full devotional service, who does not fall down in any circumstance, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman.

We are supposed to not care whether we become wise or foolish. We are to care no more for gold than a clod of dirt. Contrast that with:

Proverbs 3:13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. 14 For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. 15 She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. 16 Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour. 17 Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. 18 She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her. 19 The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. 20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.
21 My son, let not them depart from thine eyes: keep sound wisdom and discretion: 22 So shall they be life unto thy soul, and grace to thy neck. 23 Then shalt thou walk in thy way safely, and thy foot shall not stumble. 24 When thou liest down, thou shalt not be afraid: yea, thou shalt lie down, and thy sleep shall be sweet. 25 Be not afraid of sudden fear, neither of the desolation of the wicked, when it cometh. 26 For the LORD shall be thy confidence, and shall keep thy foot from being taken.

God sees value in wisdom, and lesser value in riches, v. 16. God, by wisdom, created the Earth; but the Gita says we must see any value in wisdom. Indeed the process of creation is not understood by Hindus to involve consciously weighing possibilities and preferring one possibility over another. The Brahman Force just sort of made everything happen without caring if it did.
We are supposed to “abandon all fruitive undertakings”. In other words, we are not supposed to do anything with the goal of being successful. We are not supposed to accomplish anything. We are not supposed to have any goals, or if we do, we are certainly not supposed to try to reach them. Without goals, we can’t be successful, but neither can we be failures, the Gita tells us.
Islam
A husband should beat his wife if he thinks she wants to leave him: Koran 4:34 … “(as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places [stop having sex with them] and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely God is High, Great.”
The testimony of two women equals that of one man: Koran 2:282 “...call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other....” That Surah (verse) is justified on a Moslem website with:

“This does not mean that a woman does not understand or that she cannot remember things, but she is weaker than man in these aspects – usually. Scientific and specialized studies have shown that men’s minds are more perfect than those of women, and reality and experience bear witness to that.... there are some women who are far superior to men in their reason and insight, but they are few, and the ruling is based on the majority and the usual cases.” (https://islamqa.info/en/answers/20051/why-is-the-witness-of-one-man-considered-to-be-equal-to-the-witness-of-two-women)

No Freedom of Speech in Islam:

Koran 5:101-102 “O you who have believed [in Islam], do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress [challenge] you….A people asked such questions before you; [In the past, when people did that,] then they became thereby disbelievers.” (Qur’an) - See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2014/12/after-years-of-being-taught-to-hate-jews-muslim-discovers-he-is-jewish.html/#sthash.VAjlOphK.dpuf

No Freedom of Religion

8.12 When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve [in Islam]. Therefore strike off their heads and off every fingertip of them.

Question: Does Islam allow any kind of Freedom of Religion? It seems peace is granted only so long as unbelievers “repent” and “pay the poor rate”, which missionaries tell me is, in practice today, an enormous tax that leaves Christians in the most degrading poverty and helplessness. It is not physical aggression of a Christian for which he is to be “fought”, but openly questioning Islam, v. 12-13. By contrast, when the Samaritans were rude to Jesus, and Jesus’ apostles offered to use their miraculous powers to slay them, Jesus rebuked them: Luke 9:55 “...Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. 56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.”
By contrast, the Bible, just like U.S. law today, allows freedom of religious speech and thought, and freedom of religious practice up until the point where “serving” another god involves committing crimes. Deuteronomy 13, for example, doesn’t outlaw pagan belief, or speech, but “serving” other gods; burning your child to death was the most common way to “serve” the gods of Bible times, which is, by our laws, a crime.

9.5 So when the sacred months [Ramadan] have passed away, then slay the idolaters [Christians who worship the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which the Koran says is polygamy] wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer [5 times a day to Allah] and pay the poor-rate [an oppressive tax that leaves people very poor], leave their way free to them; [let them live] surely God is Forgiving, Merciful.
Fight those who do not believe in God [Allah], nor in the latter day [the belief that in the end times the Mahdi will arise and conquer the world for Islam with Jesus’ help, beheading all who “disbelieve”], nor do they prohibit what God and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book [Bible], until they pay the tax [a horrible tax that leaves people destitute] in acknowledgment of [our] superiority and they are in a state of subjection [slavery].

No Forgiveness

9.113 It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe that they should ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even though they should be near relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are inmates of the flaming fire.
5.41 “O Messenger! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say ‘We believe’ with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews -- men who will listen to any lie -- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places: they say, ‘If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!’ If any one’s trial is intended by Allah, thou hast no authority in the least for him against Allah. For such – it is not Allah’s will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment.” (5:41)

A Muslim should hate even family members who are not Muslims: “There has already been for you an excellent pattern in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah. We have denied you, and there has appeared between us and you animosity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone.” (60:4).
Allah transforms disobedient Jews into apes and pigs (2:63-66; 5:59-60; 7:166).

This surah was the subject of a question submitted to a Muslim site hoping to provide sensible answers to questioners about Islam. The question and answer: “https://islamqa.info/en/answers/14085/are-the-monkeys-and-pigs-that-exist-nowadays-humans-who-have-been-transformed” ?
“Could you please tell me about monkeys. Are they humans who were turned into monkeys for disobeying Allahs commandments? if so which people were they and what did they do?”
The answer acknowledges surahs saying people were turned into monkeys and pigs, and agrees that is really what happened, but the monkeys today weren’t people from the past because the monkeys that were former people lost their ability to reproduce! Which actually doesn’t answer whether monkeys today might be people recently turned into monkeys. Oh well. I guess we will never know?
This should help us understand how much to trust Islam today as a reliable guide to reality – the Koran itself, and its modern defenders.
Questions I have asked Moslem leaders:
Does there exist a translation of these verses which is true to the text yet which encourages Muslims to live in peace and cooperation with Christians and Jews?
Do there exist verse-by-verse commentaries of the Qu’ran, like we have of the Bible, where I can look up these verses and have explained how these verses actually support peace with “people of the Book”?
When you pray for “victory over those who disbelieve”, in the mantra which you recite many times a day over almost every event in your lives, do you mean physical victory? Do you believe Christians and Jews “disbelieve”?
So far, I have had lengthy dialog with a half dozen Moslem leaders, which came to an end when I asked these questions. One of them is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQRxbmBRjNU.

Headlines from the Palestinian/Israel war of October, 2023, comparing the barbarity of the Palestianians with the barbarity demanded by the Koran, supporting the controversial theory that the Palestinians are actually following the Koran https://gellerreport.com/2023/10/in-israel-babies-discovered-with-their-heads-cut-off.html/?lctg=36933672
“The Israeli soldiers discovered babies with heads cut off”
“The Israeli soldiers discovered families butchered altogether, women raped, children killed while playing, babies with heads cut off” Hamas beheaded babies in accordance with Islamic texts and teachings. Quran 47:4: So, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike at their necks…
The bodies were discovered lying on the floors in their homes, some without heads after Hamas gunman stormed a residential area in Kfar Aza on Saturday. IDF soldiers were not able to reach the homes until today as they continued to fight gunman and clear booby traps that had been laid in and outside the homes. Israeli Major General Itai Veruv said: “It is something that I never saw in my life.”
Watch i24NEWS Correspondent Nicole Zedek report from Kibbutz Kfar Aza, a quarter-mile from the Gaza border. Here she recounts the atrocities that were committed in the small community which remains an active scene as soldiers clear booby traps and recover the bodies of dozens of victims.

https://gellerreport.com/2023/10/photos-emerge-of-jewish-children-burned-alive-by-hamas.html/?lctg=36933672 (This is a link to photos of “Jewish Children Burned Alive By Hamas”)

https://gellerreport.com/2023/10/watch-hamas-terrorist-admit-true-motive-for-kidnapping-babies-and-children-to-rape-them.html/?lctg=36933672
WATCH Hamas Terrorist Admit True Motive For Kidnapping Babies and Children: “To Rape Them”
By Pamela Geller - on October 11, 2023
Video of Interrogation of Hamas terrorist: “why did you want to capture women and children?” “I don’t want to talk about it.” “Talk!” “To have our way with them.” “What does that mean?” “To dirty them. To rape them.”
The Qur’an teaches that non-Muslim women can be lawfully taken for sexual use (cf. its allowance for a man to take “captives of the right hand,” 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:30). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves of their outer garments. That is suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (33:59) The implication there is that if women do not cover themselves adequately with their outer garments, they may be abused, and that such abuse would be justified. [Not only women, but children. "Daughters."]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/israelis-describe-hellish-scenes-in-communities-attacked-by-hamas-terrorists A baby, an infant, riddled with bullets. Soldiers beheaded. Young people burned alive in their cars or in their hideaway rooms. Horrifying photos of babies murdered and burned.
Children and adults decapitated...babies that were hanged in a row with their mothers’ bras. ...the volunteers encountered booby traps placed under the victims’ bodies.
Burnt bodies, burnt houses everywhere. Decapitated heads of children of several ages. The smell of rotting corpses [is so bad] that you can't even breathe. Bodies of babies tied up.
At the end of the kibbutz, in a house that was completely destroyed, they [the babies] are sitting on a fence outside of the house. Their bodies are burned. Their parents, sitting in front of them, are slaughtered.
Even more harrowing scenes: a pregnant woman with her stomach cut open and a woman burned in a wheelchair.
https://gellerreport.com/2023/10/top-secret-hamas-documents-show-that-terrorists-intentionally-targeted-children-elementary-schools-and-youth-center.html/ ‘Top secret’ Hamas documents show that terrorists intentionally targeted CHILDREN elementary schools and youth center
By Pamela Geller - on October 14, 2023
‘Top secret’ Hamas documents show that terrorists intentionally targeted elementary schools and a youth center.
Maps and documents recovered from the bodies of Hamas attackers reveal a coordinated plan to target children and take hostages inside an Israeli village near Gaza. The terrorists forgot that on Shabbat (Saturday), when they attacked, children aren't in school.

https://gellerreport.com/2023/10/witness-children-were-tortured-in-front-of-their-parents-parents-in-front-of-their-children-eyes-gouged-out-fingers-chopped-off.html/?lctg=36933672 Witness: ‘Children Were Tortured In Front of Their Parents, Parents In Front of Their Children ….Eyes Gouged Out, Fingers Chopped Off…”
By Pamela Geller - on October 19, 2023
We saw a couple – mother and father – sitting on their knees on the floor, heads down, hands tied behind their back
On the other side of the dining room was a seven year old boy and a girl, about 6 years old, hands tied behind their back. The bodies were tortured. Gouged out eyes, cut off flesh, and then shot them with their hands tied behind their backs.
There’s a new website (https://sites.google.com/view/hamas-massacre-new/home) that contains all videos and images of documented Hamas War Crimes from October 7th, including raw footage from the attacks.
The world must know the enemy we are fighting. The enemy whose clearly stated intentions are to rid Israel of its Jews and then the world.
https://gellerreport.com/2023/10/hamas-terrorists-were-told-by-commanders-to-behead-israelis-and-cut-their-feet-and-what-they-did-to-the-bodies-of-jewish-women.html/?lctg=36933672
Hamas terrorists were told by commanders to behead Israelis and cut their feet and what they did to the bodies of Jewish women
By Pamela Geller - on October 21, 2023
Israeli Morgue: ‘Evidence of mass rape of so brutal that they broke their victims’ pelvis – women, grandmothers, children.’ ‘People whose heads have been cut off. Faces blasted off. Heads smashed and their brains spilling out. A baby was cut out of a pregnant woman and beheaded and then the mother was beheaded’
“Charred remains and a CT scan of the remains show a parent and child who were bound together and burned alive by Hamas terrorists on Oct. 7. Two spinal columns—one of an adult and one of a child—can be seen in the scan. The pair were likely embracing as they burned.”
Israeli Forensic team: cut, burned alive, raped (inc. very young and very old women), arms and feet cut off, beheaded. Children tied together & burned alive. Entire families slaughtered together.
The age range of the victims spans from 3 months to 80 or 90 years old. Many bodies, including those of babies, are without heads.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

@@ Line 390: / Line 390: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Charred remains and a CT scan of the remains show a parent and child who were bound together and burned alive by Hamas terrorists on Oct. 7. Two spinal columns—one of an adult and one of a child—can be seen in the scan. The pair were likely embracing as they burned.”
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Israeli Forensic team: cut, burned alive, raped (inc. very young and very old women), arms and feet cut off, beheaded.  Children tied together & burned alive. Entire families slaughtered together.
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The age range of the victims spans from 3 months to 80 or 90 years old. Many bodies, including those of babies, are without heads.
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The age range of the victims spans from 3 months to 80 or 90 years old. Many bodies, including those of babies, are without heads.</ref>
+<span style="color:blue">American law rejects unequal law for disfavored groups, and will appropriately ignore rationales for unequal rights, while consulting the religion from which equal rights entered American law. <ref></ref>
-<span style="color:blue">American law rejects unequal law for disfavored groups, and will appropriately ignore rationales for unequal rights, while consulting the religion from which equal rights entered American law.
 <span style="color:blue">The 1st Amendment prohibition against “establishment of religion” can’t mean the Right to Life and Equal Protection of the Laws  must end because they establish rights unique to the Bible while hostile to other religions.
 Nor can it require censorship of truth because the truth favors God and the Bible.
-There can be “free exercise” of religions hostile to “equal protection of the laws” only to the extent their “exercise” does not threaten the rights of others or violate the laws enacted to protect them.
+There can be “free exercise” of religions hostile to “equal protection of the laws” only to the extent their “exercise” does not threaten the rights of others or violate the laws enacted to protect them.<ref></ref>

Difference between revisions of "Statement 6 + Footnotes"

Revision as of 17:14, 29 October 2023

Reversing_Landmark_Abomination_Cases

Navigation menu

Find

Browse

This page

Tools