TX abortion ban causes more women to nearly bleed to death during miscarriage

Marx said the supersession of capitalism is inevitable, so I dont have to do anything but sit back and watch capitalism destroy itself (and I have to say its doing a pretty spectacular job in that regard)

 

I can agree with the first sentence to a degree, but further expansion would be required. The real question lies in the question of why do people misinterpret the Bible. FWIW, you would probably argue for the existence of science and the existence of rationality. You probably use them every single day. You are employing the tools of rationality to attempt to mount an argument in this very thread right now. Yet, there are people who apply the principles of rationality fallaciously, and there are numerous examples of scientific claims that have been proven to be erroneous.

Now, this is my question to you: you still employ rationality in spite of the numerous people who engage in fallacious reasoning. You still value scientific thinking despite the number of scientific claims that have been clearly disproven. Yet, the obvious failures in these disciplines have not discouraged your faith in them or your willingness to use them. Why is that? Why haven’t you dismissed their reliability in the same way you are attempting to dismiss the reliability of the Bible?

FWIW, the nature of the claim I would defend is the original copies of the books contained within the Bible are infallible and inerrant, and God has preserved the evidence for us to reasonably deduce what was written in those copies. Yes there are textual variants in individual copies of manuscripts, but the corpus of manuscript evidence we possess provides the necessary facts that are required to deduce what was written in the original copies. This is what enables modern Bible translations, and it is why many people can sit in the same congregation with different Bible translations, understanding they are reading the same book, although the choice of words might vary from word to word in the books they are reading.

I can add a couple of more points to be more direct. There are different kinds of slavery, and they are not all the same thing. Man-stealing was one form slavery, the form practiced by Egyptians against the Israelites, practiced by the Romans, practiced by the Colonialists, practiced by Muslim nations at different points in time, and practiced by communist nations at certain points in time. This is strictly forbidden in the Bible, as demonstrated by the judgment of God against the Egyptians. Anyone who practiced it and tried to defend it from the Bible was in error. The penalty for the sin of man-stealing was the death penalty in the theocratic state of Israel. The penalty for an act is the application of the criminal code in the ancient theocratic state of Israel. The moral standard, as it pertains to us today outside of the theocratic state of Israel, simply indicates whether the act is moral or immoral.

Debtor’s slavery was not prohibited by the Bible. This was a voluntary agreement made by two parties where one party would issue a loan, and the other party would pay off the loan over a period of time by physical labor. Entering into a contract where a loan is made and terms to pay off that loan are arranged is not immoral, and so debtor’s slavery was not forbidden. Although, the Bible highly encourages a personal ethic of avoiding debt if possible since debt is seen as a form of slavery in the Bible.

FWIW, situations like the 2008 housing crisis show the dark side of our modern replacement for the debtor’s slavery system, where people in mass decided not to pay back the loans on their homes and collapsed the economy.

There was a 3rd kind of slavery I am aware of, which arose in the aftermath of war. Israel would go to war when a nation attacked them repeatedly and would not stop attacking. So this is war as a result of societal self-defense against another society that has threatened their lives more than once. When an enemy was defeated in such a war, the men were all killed because the men of the attacking society constituted the lethal threat to Israel as a society. The lethal threat was eliminated in the same way a person acting in self-defense would eliminate a lethal threat against themselves. In that day and age, when all of the men are killed and women and children were left stranded without men in the society that is not sustainable for the women and the children left behind. If the Israelites simply left after killing all of the men, the women and the children would probably starve to death without the men, who women and children were much more dependent on in a pre-industrialized age of humanity with far less technology than we possess today. So, the women and the children were to be taken in as slaves to preserve their lives in the nation state of Israel, but that was a type or form of slavery born out of necessity due to the aftermath of war when all men of the opposing nation were killed to eliminate a future lethal threat against Israel. It was a form of compassion, since men in Israel would effectively be carrying the load for these women and children that the dead men in their societies were not there to provide. That was much more compassionate than simply leaving after war and allowing a society of only women and children to fend for themselves and possibly die due to starvation or being invaded by a foreign enemy.

You would reject this kind of thinking if someone applied it to science or rationality, and you should not hold other worldviews to a higher standard than the standard you hold your own worldview to.

Translations themselves are not divinely inspired on every point, but when they accurately represent what was originally said in the original divinely inspired documents they are representing the words are divinely inspired.

You would not accept this same form of argumentation if I questioned your use of logic and rationality, and accused you of some kind of hubris for thinking you have logic and rationality all figured out despite all of those fallacious thinkers out there who are wrong unlike the all wise knowing one l_boy.

I know you might think I am a Christian theocrat on some level, but I am not. If I was I would agree with what you have written here. You are actually engaging in the type of interpretation Christian theocrats engage in here.

The universal moral standard simply serves as a basis for understanding what is right and understanding what is wrong. It is another step to say, “Therefore we need to import the penal system of the theocratic state of Israel to the US.” Or “we need to implement the death penalty for 40 year olds who disobey their parents because God killed someone in the book of Genesis.” I don’t agree with either of those statements, but I would note that in places in Genesis there are precursor judgments on people like the story you bring up that later show up in the Torah like the Torah stating that disobeying parents constituted a capital crime, which I am convinced was not a one time act, but rather a lifestyle of disobedience. The guy who was killed in Genesis for example probably did not learn to not honor his father at the age of 40. I would bet it was part of a larger pattern of behavior that formed over a lifetime.

That story is a good example we can use to further flesh out what I am saying, though. A person may not understand that story specifically the first time they read through the Bible. They may need to really study the Bible to understand it, but someone could pick up the Bible on a first reading and know that they need to honor their father and mother. That is not difficult to understand. That is very clear. The things that are most important as it pertains to the Bible are very clear.

 

On that, I must lamentfully agree.

We seem to be hell bent on spending ourselves into ruin.

But make no mistake--we'll take their parasitic asses down with us, and very likely bounce back much sooner than they, as they desperately grasp for a substitute host to leach on to, while we get to rebuilding in earnest.

Capitalism collapses and rebuilds; communism consumes and ruins. It never recovers.

 

I guess this a slight improvement for you. You went from accusing OBGYN doctors in Texas of being angels of death to now just being greedy! All in attempts to protect the law from being the reason maternal mortality rates have skyrocketed in Texas!

Speaking of maternal mortality rates in Texas and why OBGYNs in the state have petitioned to change the law, did it ever occur to you these doctors actually care about their patients? Not only do they see the horrific maternal mortality rate statistics in the state, they get a front row seat of the actual effects of the law on the women in Texas. And how the low prohibits them from acting in time to save some of these women, and if the law changed, maybe there would be more outcomes like Cox, and less like Barnica, or the women who were forced to wait and are now infertile?

And speaking of the law, it mentions "heartbeat" 17 times in the document and makes the claim that a fetal heartbeat signifies the fetus as potentially viable. And it's why doctors have to wait to perform an abortion on women who is heading towards full on sepsis, but isn't there yet. And if these women heading for full on sepsis can get an abortion before they enter full sepsis, the risks are minimal, like in the Cox case. But if forced to wait until full on sepsis, as the law requires, well, why not ask Barnica's grieving husband how he feels about it? Or the dozens of other grieving family members? Or the women who are now infertile...

 

The state did not make it more difficult for a doctor to do their job. The law clearly states that any measure can be taken to save a mother in a medical emergency. This is made up BS by those that want to legally be allowed to kill a child for convenience via abortion.

 

Exactly the law does not clarify it. The law is not trying to be a doctor. And it clearly allows the doctor to do whatever is necessary to provide care to the mother that needs it. And it clearly states it. Yes doctors who agree with the idea that it is okay to kill an innocent child for convenience legally will not like the law. But the law does nothing to stop them from protecting the mother if her life is in jeopardy. It is clear.

 

Read the Law. It is clear. Doctors can do what is necessary to protect a mother with no concerns. It is pure BS to say otherwise. And yes some doctors will because some are going to be radical and disingenuous. Like you are with the "heartbeat" and the fact you cannot show the law to hinder a doctor from providing an abortion if the mothers life is at risk.

 

Who cares what the law says. Let's look at the actual outcomes of the cases instead. And what the doctors are saying, and how the hospitals plus Texas Supreme Court are interpreting the law. When you do that, you know, look at actual evidence, the story becomes clear as day. Women who would get treatment in other states are being forced to wait to get treatment in Texas because at the time they show up in the hospital, they do not meet the state law requirements to get treatment. If they got treatment at the time they showed up at the hospital, the risks to the women are minimal. But since they are forced to wait, by law, maternal mortality and other negative outcomes such as infertility is on the rise in Texas. There is no other explanation. Stop hiding behind the law and look at the stats, read the stories of the women, and maybe try reading the letter from the 100 OBGYN doctors from Texas.

 

Thank you for proving my point. This is all about your feelings and not the facts!

 

Did my feelings cause the Texas maternal mortality rise to skyrocket? No. That's a fact! Did my feelings cause Ms. Barnica to have to wait before doctors in Texas could treat her because of the law? No, that's a fact too! So is the FACT that she died because doctors had to wait! Did my feelings cause the Texas Supreme Court rule against Ms. Cox from getting an abortion when her doctors first wanted to perform one to potentially save her life? No, again a fact! Did my feelings cause 100 OBGYN Texas doctors write a letter asking for a law change? No, fact again!

I'm dealing in facts. Actual consequences from the law, like the higher maternal mortality rate and all the FACTUAL stories of the women who suffered because they were forced to wait, by law, to get treatment. No feelings involved. Just facts.

Can you provide a single FACT as to why maternal mortality rate is far outpacing the rest of the country and the first world? If it's not because of the law change, then it's because of.....Any FACTS? Or just your feelings?

 

Does that mean those Kardashian chicks are in trouble?

 

It doesn't say including "ending a pregnancy" or "abortion" as a possibility. What you aren't getting, is that the intent behind the law is what is clear, do not allow abortions in Texas. Most Doctors in texas are from texas and know the history of the law and abortions, so they understand the actual intent in this law. They see the danger in it, for them and their patients.

Before Roe was overturned (2020), there was a woman in Texas who was 20 weeks pregnant with her first child, a child she obviously wanted, when they found out the fetus had a tumor in her brain. It was sucking her blood supply and pushing her organs out of place. She was delivered at 25 weeks and the tumor was then the size of a volleyball. Texas allowed an abortion after 20 weeks if it was life threatening to the mother or the fetus had abnormalties. Even though, they pushed on hoping it wouldn't continue to grow. In these situations, women can develop "mirror syndrome" It is life threatening. After 27 weeks in Texas, you couldn't deliver by C-section because that would be an abortion. So she had to make a decision on ending the pregnancy before that. Her feet started to swell which was a sign of mirroring, and so they delivered the baby through C section and she lingered for a couple hours before passing away. It is on record that she had an abortion. She named her Embree.

This is how vague it was before, and now the woman above would not be allowed an abortion because there would be a fetal heart beat and she is not in imminent danger until it would be too late.
If you want to look it up, you can google it.

 

You are making assumptions. As you know what happened at the same time the law went into place. Along with the fact the Law does not hinder any doctors ability to perform an abortion if a mother’s life is at risk. It is clear. And you know it. Read the Law!

 

Read the Law! 171.205 is Clear! Sounds like the law actually cleared up an issue from the past on the previous law if what you said is correct.

 

I'm making assumptions based on facts and evidence on hand. That's called drawing a logical conclusion. (Where did my feelings go? I thought I was using them instead!) Again, if you look at all the facts, before the law, Texas didn't have maternal mortality rates outside the norms of other states and countries. After the law, Texas has maternal mortality rates of a third world country! This is a fact.

I've asked for reasons other than the law that would cause this massive jump in maternal mortality. First, you suggested OBGYNs in Texas are angels of death and like to see their patients die! But this doesn't fit the rest of the evidence we have on hand. Like the fact Kate Cox's doctors testified they wished to intervene in order to save her life, and her doctors believed in order to perform the abortion legally in Texas, Cox would have to be within an inch of her life. And doctors wanted to act before Cox reached this point. Thankfully for Cox, she had the means to travel outside of Texas and get an abortion before she was within an inch of her life. Unfortunately, women like Barnica didn't have that luxury, and paid for it with her life.

The other explanation you gave was OBGYNs were upset they lost a revenue stream. But upon a simple examination, this also doesn't fit evidence. Average abortion cost less than $1,000. Average healthy birth is $18,000 or more. Logic dictates that doctors would like the law if greed was their only motivation.

So what else could be the culprit that is causing more pregnant women dying because of pregnancy after the law change? If it's not the law, not OBGYNs being angels or death or greedy monsters, what other rational, logical explanation could there be?

 

FWIW, I know my post is long, but some questions require more lengthy responses than others.

Your issue with respect to the age of the earth does not necessarily impact the answer to this question. There are people who take the Bible quite literally and they believe in an earth much older than 6,000 years. I disagree with them, but I would remind you the nature of my claim: the Bible is clear on the important and essential questions people need to know. Age of the earth is not an absolutely essential belief for salvation or daily Christian living. It is also of less relative importance than other more fundamental truths, but I hesitate to dismiss it as “unimportant” due to it being less important than say the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the moral law of God, our primary point of discussion in this thread.

I also fundamentally disagree with your analysis that the difference between young earth and old earth is necessarily born from a difference of literal interpretation vs allegorical interpretation. That could be an underlying issue, but there are many people who would claim to take the Bible literally who would also say they reject a young earth creationist view. Two people can take the Bible quite literally and differ on their understanding of just a few words and that can be the difference between young earth and old earth creationist.

There are many Christians I know and respect who disagree with me on age of the earth, but we are in complete agreement on who God is, who Jesus is, what the Gospel is, and how we are supposed to live as redeemed people.

I would remind you of the nature of my claim: The Bible is clear on the important/essential things for salvation and Christian living. There are other things that can be more difficult to understand.

One caveat wrt to your objection to the 6000 year old age of the earth claim you need to understand is you are engaging in a form of scientific induction when you mount scientific arguments about the date of the creation of the world from present states of the world. I believe you misrepresent the unquestionable certainty of modern dating methods. It is important to note the kind of argument you are engaging in is a form of scientific induction, and these points are worthy of your reflection:

1. Philosophers have critiqued induction for its circularity because it depends upon the premise of the uniformity of nature, and then reaches a conclusion that nature will be uniform (or in your case has been uniform for a certain duration). This is a particularly suspicious argument to make against a supernatural Creator whose existence would negate the circular premise and conclusion of the inductive argument. It is doubly suspicious when applying it as a form of argumentation against a God whose very act of creating violates the uniformity of nature, the essential premise of the inductive circle. The Bible is not clear whether or not creation was a process or if it was instantaneous. So you could be mounting an argument against processes that themselves break the uniformity of nature, and you could be doing this by living in a self-reinforcing circularity that denies the Biblical account by premise in your argumentation.

2. Your arguments also depend upon assumptions about how the Creator would or would not create the world, and also how He would or would not uphold the uniformity of nature in the process of creating of the world, which fundamentally is a process that is not consistent with the uniformity of nature premise that induction depends upon. This is also suspicious and worth examining.

3. It is also worth noting that induction has proven demonstrated failures over much shorter time frames when it is falsifiable in the future, and you do not have the same capacity to falsify inductive arguments deep into the past that you do to falsify inductive arguments in the near future. Since the past is not something you can go back and look at directly, you have no way to test your assumptions, which are inherently circular. If we define right now as time t=0, you have no idea what time marks the creation of the universe, and you have no idea what time marks the creation of the world. You have no idea what times God intervened, how he intervened, and what the nature of the processes were that happened on any of the days of creation. Any observations you claim to have from the past cannot escape the inductive circle whose most important fundamental premise is overthrown when we we are talking about an act like the creation of the world. You have no recourse to apply the scientific method to escape this because the past is unobservable like the future is.

4. There are some very practical examples of the failures of inductive reasoning. "Housing prices always go up." I bet you've heard that one. Well, they did always go up until they didn't in a year like 2008. There is also the issue of extrapolation vs. interpolation. If you understand these topics mathematically, then you know very well dating the age of the universe based on a couple hundred years of science is major major extrapolation, especially given the fact the universe coming into existence could be a supernatural event brought about by supernatural processes.

I think you are thinking of the apostle Paul, who wrote about the relationships between bondservants and masters in many of his epistles. I have stated my point of view that Christianity was not a theocratic religion seeking to overthrow the current political systems of the world. So, the epistles speak to people who live their everyday lives in the the institutions of the worldly political system without overthrowing its institutions. That could mean instructing people about how to live in social institutions God may not fundamentally agree with. Telling a master how to treat his servant, and telling a servant how to treat his master is not a full endorsement of slavery. It simply an acknowledgement that people living in these social arrangements exist, and instructions are given how to live in those arrangements.

Your second paragraph here points out a problem for you as well, though. You question the morality of something written in the Bible, Deuteronomy 20 to be exact, but by what standard are you determining morality? By what worldview are determining what is moral what is not moral? If you reject the Bible as that moral standard, then it must be replaced by something else for you to engage in moral reasoning. What is your replacement? You would need to answer that to make any sense of your argument.

You also seem to pit the Old Testament against the New Testament, when you compare Deuteronomy 20 to the Sermon on the Mount, but there is no indication in the Sermon on the Mount that the person's life is in danger. There is a clear indication of unjust treatment. There could even possibly be oppressive or abusive treatment, but we also have a direct command from Jesus where he tells his disciples to buy swords:

And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” -Luke 22:35-38
​

We also have another example where Jesus talked to soldiers, people in the Roman military, and Jesus affirmed them in their profession and told them how to go about living in that profession:

And the crowds asked him, “What then shall we do?” And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.” Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.” -Luke 3:10-14​

So we know Jesus believed self-defense was justifiable in certain scenarios, and we have direct instructions from Jesus to soldiers in the military telling them how they ought to live. I think you are misrepresenting how Jesus applied "turn the other cheek."

I am also sympathetic to the argument that Deuteronomy 20 would be considered horrific by modern standards, but I think we need to acknowledge a few things:

1. That was a different time technologically. Men were the most important military resource in that time period, when swords, shields, spears, knives, arrows, chariots, etc were the weapons involved in war. The brute strength of men was much more important in war compared to today, militarily, and even for the providing for a household. Women enlisting in the military back then was more akin to women competing with men in UFC today. It just would not happen.

2. Pepper spray, fire arms, etc did not exist, which allow women a better chance of survival in a physical encounter with a man. In a world with spears, swords, and knives, and a world where the brute strength of men was essential for the survival of a family, the calculus behind the best solution was simply different than it is today.

3. The solution went as far as it had to in order to eliminate a proven societal threat to Israel in biblical times while also protecting the natural resources of the land and preserving the lives of the people who did not need to be eliminated because they were not a threat. I think that is what you take away from a passage like Deuteronomy 20. I think it would be ignorant to apply Deuteronomy 20 in a straight forward fashion today. It is more important to ask what was the reasoning behind a passage like Deuteronomy 20 in that historical context. Once you understand that, then you ask the question how might those reasons look different in a 21st century context with a 21st century economy and 21st century military technology.

Today we would not kill the men to disable the threat. We would destroy the military technology, and that sufficiently deals with the threat. Since many of the men are not dead in that scenario, the conundrum of "what do we do with a society of women and children whose fathers are dead?" goes away. Deuteronomy 20 is very unique to that time period, but I would like to remind you again...the claim I am defending here is the Bible is clear on the important and essential things we need to know for salvation and everyday living. The ideal societal military policy in the 21st century...that is not what we are talking about here. What are the underlying motivations of God for implementing a theocratic war policy like we see in Deuteronomy 20 in the context of society thousands of years ago...that is not what we are talking about here. It could an interesting discussion at the dinner table, but very few Christians are setting military policy in the real world.

That is a complicated question for several reasons. When we talk about Catholicism, I think we need to understand the Catholic Church is not a monolithic entity throughout time. I view Catholicism more through the lens of gradual drift and gradual change. Gradual drift over thousands of years has a large cumulative effect. I wholeheartedly believe there are Catholics who have decayed 1000+ years in the grave who would disown what is the Catholic faith today as something unrecognizable to them if they were alive today. It is important to acknowledge that Calvin and Luther read Jesus, Paul, and Augustine extensively and considered Augustine to be on their side and in agreement with themselves. They even read many of the other early church fathers extensively, and considered them to be allies on their side of the Reformation.

I even think the same phenomenon is true in Protestant denominations. Many people and churches claim to be Presbyterian, Methodist, or Lutheran, but the teaching and faith of many people who call themselves by those titles has a tendency to diverge wider and wider from the type of faith and teaching held by John Knox, John Wesley, and Martin Luther. I don't say that to dismiss every single person who claims to be Presbyterian, Methodist, or Lutheran as having unrecognizably diverged from the faith of key founders of their denominations, but it is true of many modern Presbyterians, Methodists, and Lutherans in addition to Catholics. I believe very strongly it is a fallacy to assume two people, who lived in different time periods, necessarily agree on the most fundamental aspects of faith and teaching just because they both self-identified by the same denominational label. Theological drift must be accounted for when simply lumping people thousands of years apart together under the same denominational label and connecting them.

So, we need to ask the question, how Catholic were Catholics thousands of years ago by today's standards? Would they even be Catholic by today's standards? Calvin and Luther would claim to be Catholics of their yestermillennium, as they both referred to themselves as Augustinians. And so the question of whose side the early Catholic church was on in these debates is part of the underlying debate of The Reformation.

So, I am not going to cede that point to you that the Catholic church thousands of years ago = the Catholic Church today, which means the modern day Catholics get credit for them. There is a huge sleight of hand involved in that kind of argumentation, which IMO engages in the fallacy of equivocation. Yes, there were people, who lets just call them generically Christians so as not to make a biased claim they would be modern day Catholics, who lived thousands of years ago. They wrote about what books were given by divine inspiration and which ones were not. They wrote letters and they convened councils to discuss and debate various religious and theological matters. The question must be asked...who would they have sided with? Would they have sided with Calvin and Luther during the Reformation or would they have sided with Pope Leo X?

Jesus gave us these words:

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” -John 10:1-5
​

So, there are two potential theories involved with the formation of the canon. The first theory is the Catholic version, which is the canon was established by church authority, which was established by Jesus. The second version is God's word is authoritative, having been spoken by Him and inspired by the Holy Spirit, and believers, guided by the Holy Spirit, organically acknowledged what the scriptures were, which is divinely inspired by the testimony of the Holy Spirit living in them. Basically believers, as Jesus says here, have an innate ability to know the voice of God. If that is true, then believers could reach a spiritual consensus about which books were divinely inspired in the same way you might understand scientists are able to reach a scientific consensus. I believe councils are like scientists in that they have no authority in themselves to create any new revelation, but they consist of well studied experts in scripture, theology, and Christian living who can confirm, clarify, articulate, and defend the truth in scripture that was already there before the council was convened. They had real authority over churches in church related matters, but they were not substitutes for the apostles and Jesus himself on earth to proclaim new doctrines and add to God’s revelation.

FWIW, I am consistent in that I think both the scientific community and councils consist of fallible men who have royally screwed up at times since they are simply collections of fallible men who are prone to error.

This is a good question. I think back to the story of Adam and Eve in the garden, and Adam was in a similar position compared to us. He was given the word of God, and He was told not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Someone came along and told a story contradicting the word he had received from God. That person slandered God and questioned God's goodness. Adam and Eve chose to believe the lie over the truth God had given to Adam. The fundamental issue was not that Adam and Eve did not have the truth. It is they chose to believe a lie over believing in the truth.

I think what you want is the truth on your terms in the form you want it in. The conscience is God's way of communicating moral truth to human beings, but we also have the ability to sin against the conscience and sear it. It can be suppressed and over powered by a determined person. So a person with a seared conscience is in deep trouble because they've destroyed and silenced God's tool of communication of moral truth in their heart.

God also has provided in addition to the conscience His word, just like the word Adam received. Practically, if you wanted to communicate something important to someone at work you would send an email to that person or speak with them personally. If that person encountered someone else later, who said your email was wrong and you had some kind of ulterior motive and that you are a liar, is it your fault if they don't believe you? I don't think it is. You did everything necessary to communicate what needed to be communicated to them, and it is their fault that they were led astray by a lie given they had no reason to disbelieve anything you communicated and every reason to believe you.

You have the entire Bible. God has communicated quite clearly through His word. You have your conscience, which God communicates through that as well. You are the one making the conscious decision to reject what God has said just like Adam and Eve did, exchanging the truth for a lie. The blame should not be placed on God for that.

 

Jesus:

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. -Matthew 28:18-19
​

No, the conscience speaks to us and sends signals when we do something wrong or encounter something wrong we should not do. We don't control the conscience, but we either listen to it and obey it, or we ignore it and suppress it. It is fundamentally what makes fundamental moral knowledge universal regardless if a person has read the Bible or not or what religion they adhere to or follow.

Ideas are either right or wrong. They are not chauvinistic. People might be chauvinistic, but it is incorrect to describe an idea as chauvinistic.

I'll give you some examples. Most religions teach stealing and murder are wrong, but they might allow for exceptions, one of which is the main discussion of this thread. It is not guaranteed that they teach lying is wrong, but most do. However, Islam and communism have exceptions to this. It is not guaranteed they teach covetousness is wrong. Most do, but communism and Marxism break this rule in spades. Most religions teach honor your father and mother, but communism and Marxism and their modern derivatives have historically taught children to dishonor their parents. They might forbid adultery in some ways, which is the violation of the marriage covenant, but they might also excuse divorce, allow polygamy, reject life long monogamy, permit "temporary marriages", and approve of other perversions of the marriage covenant, etc. And just about every religion breaks the 1st commandment by having other gods before the God of the Bible.

You can see the 10 commandments in these other religions, but you can also see how they reject the 10 commandments in other ways.

If you've ever done something wrong, you knew it and felt guilty about it, but then later changed your mind about it and don't feel bad about it anymore....that is what this is talking about it.

FWIW, these are not my arguments. I am simply paraphrasing from who knows where I read this stuff. Various sources probably including the Bible, confessions, catechisms, etc. It is also not about what is productive for the argument. I'm concerned with what is true.

I don't buy that. There are not many serial liars or serial murderers in the world I know of. You do break the 10 commandments in many ways (everyone does), but you also probably have not given yourself over to every form of breaking the 10 commandments because your conscience restrains you from some things. You know you shouldn't do certain things, and many of those things you yield to your conscience on.

That is not the nature of the claim. The moral standard is perfectly expressed in the Bible, including the Old and New Testaments. The 10 commandments predate Christianity, and the New Testament does not express a different morality than the Old Testament despite people who wish to claim otherwise.

Again, I am paraphrasing many sources I have read over the years including the Bible, confessions, and creeds. These are not my ideas, and I cannot claim credit for them.

 

The fact is the law does not restrict a doctor from performing a mother if her life is at risk. It is clear!

You just don’t like that the most innocent are being protected as you think doctors should be able to legally kill a child for convenience.

 

The law is so clear, Texas' maternal mortality rate has skyrocketed after the law has passed! If it's not the law, explain the cause. Are you happy with the exponential rise is maternal mortality in Texas? Is this what you want?