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

What stopped Kaye Cox from getting an abortion in Texas? Her doctors? No. A Texas Supreme Court decision based on the Texas Law. Same abortion she v received legally in New Mexico. Same abortion that may have saved Barnica's life. But we'll never know, because the law forced Barnica to wait in Texas until she could legally get treatment, and now she is dead.

Now all yourself, what do both the doctors think if the law? We already know. 100 of them signed a letter requesting law markers to change it.

 

The problem is the Bible does not say “Thou shalt not kill.” That is a bad English translation of the Bible.

 

Translation is subjective too, is it not? But the point remains, if you are going to say "Thou Shalt Not Murder" there is no further enumeration of what that entails, and that sets up a legalistic rather than moral interpretation of the commandment. If the taking of life can be justified, then it more or less means almost anything can be justified - acts of war, capital punishment, abortion, subjective killings in defense of others or the self. You cant tell me God overlooks nuking a city in a "justified" war while having an abortion is a grave offense against him. You laid out scenarios where it was a numbers game about lives saved. More people have died as the result of war than abortion, so perhaps there should be Christian laws against going to war right?

 

What you are missing in this analysis is the 10 commandments exist in a greater context, specifically the Torah and the rest of the Bible, which are also God’s revelation. God’s revelation is more than just the 10 commandments. It is the entirety of the Christian canon. The rest of the Bible provides us context to understand the 10 commandments on a deeper level and flesh out the details you are talking about.

For example, Deuteronomy 20 authorizes war in certain circumstances. Nuking a city would go against much of what Deuteronomy 20 teaches about preserving the land when waging war, not to mention killing women and children. There are also passages in the Torah that clearly outline self-defense is not murder.

Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount puts the issue of murder squarely in the realm of a moral issue when He preaches against murder of the heart. So, the point I am making about murder being a moral issue and not purely just a legal issue is something Jesus would without question agree with.

I know there are people who would argue against capital punishment, and they might very well be Christians, but we also know God authorized capital punishment for many things in the Old Testament. One of the big debates is how many of those things carry over today? I believe very little because Israel was its own nation with its own laws. The death penalty for murder preceded the founding of Israel and goes back to Noah and his sons in the book of Genesis, and it is universal among nations of antiquity, showing evidence that it was universally given to mankind by way of Noah’s family.

 

So that would making the Bible sort of a "living document" that can be adapted to present day ideas and notions of morality, whether its abortion, homosexuality, war, violence you name it? There is no reason to hold fast to legal ideas or norms/morality from ancient states that no longer exist today. What constitutes the "Christian canon?" ... because there are lots of Christian writings and commentary on the Bible that dont present a unified interpretation of right and wrong when it comes to these matters.

 

Cited by the OPs link…

Texas Banned Abortion. Then Sepsis Rates Soared. — ProPublica

then we see…

Pregnancy-related deaths are on the rise…and sepsis is a big reason | NIH MedlinePlus Magazine

 

Nope. The doctors were not restricted by the law. Did they fail to do their job for political reasons? Maybe. I don’t know as I don’t know the facts. But the law was and is clear. It is why you cannot show anything that is unclear when it comes to protecting the mother.

 

Bull. Cox could not legally get an abortion in Texas because of the law. The Texas Supreme Court ruled as such. Same day the Texas Supreme Court ruled she could not get a legal abortion, she got a legal abortion in New Mexico.

Please explain how the law didn't prevent Cox from getting a legal abortion that potentially saved her life in Texas.

As for Barnica, an OBYGYN is on record saying had doctors acted earlier, she likely would've lived. But legally, doctors in Texas could not act earlier.

 

BS!

She could have gotten an abortion if her life was at risk. Period. No questions asked. Did her doctors fail her? Maybe. Or they (could be all of them for that matter) decided to make a political stunt.

The Law is clear. There was no reason for the SC to be brought in. But people like you…who want to legally be able to kill the most innocent for convenience do things like that.

So again. Show us in the Law where Cox or any other woman could not get an abortion if their life was at risk.

You can’t. You won’t be able to. But you keep peddling your feelings.

 

I'm neither a lawyer nor a doctor. But I have half a brain. I have already shown you that Cox could not get a legal abortion in Texas because the law prevented it. The Texas Supreme Court ruled she could not get one. At the same time of the Texas Supreme Court ruling, Cox was literally traveling to New Mexico to get the same abortion that was ruled illegal in Texas.

Others in a similar situation as Cox, such as Barnica, did not have the means to travel to New Mexico to get the legal NM abortion that was outlawed in Texas. As a result, she had to wait until she met the legal requirement to get an abortion in Texas. And because she was forced to wait. by law, she died as a result.

I've explained this time and time and time again. But I think the best way is to look at a scale 1-10. 1 is a perfectly healthy and normal pregnancies with no complications. 10 is full sepsis, where the health and life of the mother is in significant danger. In Texas, the law states doctors cannot act until a woman is on a 10 on the scale. In other states, they can legally act at around an 8, and definitely at a 9 if there is no hope of saving the child.

When Cox first sued for a legal abortion, she was likely at an 8, moving quickly to a 9. By the time the Texas Supreme Court ruled she could not get a legal abortion at a 9, she took things into her own hand and got the legal abortion in NM before she went to 10, and her life was in danger. Barnica showed up in the hospital at a 9, moving quickly towards a 10. But because she wasn't at 10 yet, the law forbade doctors from acting. Had Barnica been in NM, at a 9, they could have acted, and she would likely be alive today. But because the law forced doctors to wait until Barnica was at a 10, in full sepsis, the danger to her life rose exponentially and doctors could not save her life.

The law is causing more women to wait to get treatment for ectopic pregnancies in Texas, and it's why the maternal mortality rate as risen at around 5X of the national rate. There is no other explanation. It's simple logic. Those who don't believe this are the ones peddling their feelings. I'm looking at stats, stories, and opinions of actual doctors.

 

My assertion is not that my personal beliefs are the standard. The nature of the assertion is this:

1. A universal moral standard exists.
2. That universal moral standard is found perfectly expressed in the Bible.
3. It is also known to people, Christian or non-Christian, outside of the Bible by way of the conscience.
4. Traces of that moral standard can be found in other religions and worldviews, but it is heavily distorted.
5. Indwelling sin corrupts and suppresses that which has been made plain to people through their consciences.
6. It is one thing to arbitrarily believe in a universal moral standard and it is quite another thing for such a universal moral standard to actually exist and a person to possess knowledge of it.
7. All people know for certain this universal moral standard exists, and their behavior provides strong evidence for this claim.
8. The precondition for the existence of this universal moral standard is the Christian God as expressed in the Bible.
9. Due to the corruption of man’s heart, which leads him to suppress what knowledge he possesses of good and evil from his conscience, man needs the Word of God to rebuke his wickedness and lead him to what is true, right, and good in matters of faith, worship, and morality.

 

Just a guess but I wouldn't doubt if a lot the research referenced in the second article is being adversely affected by the DOGE/Trump cuts in the budget of the NIH.
What happens to health research when 'women' is a banned word?
Cutting the NIH—The $8 Trillion Health Care Catastrophe
Trump administration eviscerates maternal and child health programs

The entire staff of a gold-standard maternal mortality survey, a program that was called the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, was also put on leave, Stat reported. The epidemiologist in charge of the CDC survey, Jennifer Bombard, wrote to colleagues on Tuesday: “[T]he entire CDC PRAMS team, including myself, has received the Reduction in Force (RIF) notice from HHS today.”​

 

Link?

 

According to who?

Wow, how convenient

So morality is determined by the self, not by some broad universal phenomenon?

Another argument against universality or just Christian chauvinism

Pyschobabble explaining why people dont agree with you

There's a universal standard, but it is also not easily ascertained and appears 'corrupted' by non-Christians to you ... how strange and counterproductive to your argument about universality

I dont, so I just falsified this lol

So morality wasnt universal until Christianity? More chauvinism. And also destroys the idea of transcendent universality to morality.

That's just like, your opinion, man

 

You have not shown Cox could not get a legal abortion if her life was in jeopardy. Stop lying!

 

Come on Man!

 

I disagree that the correct view of the Bible evolves or changes. The book of Jude says:

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

The faith was once for all time delivered unto the saints. It doesn’t evolve. It actually has a tendency to devolve from the faith that was once for all time delivered to the saints because of the sinfulness of man, and it is the ones who reject this devolution and defend the true once for all time delivered faith who preserve and promote the Biblical faith in the world.

I answered the slavery question earlier in this thread and I think that answer I posted there is sufficient. I will remind you a people suffered the plagues of Egypt and were drowned in the Red Sea because of the sin of man stealing. Debtor’s slavery, which involved physical labor to pay off a debt, still exists in a capitalist form today, and you are not complaining about it.

The question of whether the Bible is clear or not is a good question. It requires diligent study to understand it, but that does not mean it isn’t clear. In the essential things we need to know for everyday Christian living the Bible is clear.

It is important to remember that the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. Kill is a bad translation of the Hebrew verse you know as “Thou shalt not kill.” The Hebrew word used in that verse is much closer to our word for “murder.” If you have issues, then take it up with the King James translators.

The person you are talking about dishonored his father, who asked him to give his deceased daughter-in-law a child. Dishonoring your father is a violation of the 10 commandments, and God judged the man for his sin, which is consistent with what Jesus and Paul taught about sin as well. Jesus said sin can send you to hell in the Sermon on the Mount, and in the book of Romans it is said that the wages of sin is death. The man in Genesis got his wages from God because he sinned by dishonoring his father.

 

I'm not lying. The facts are in evidence and irrefutable. The Texas Supreme Court ruled Cox could not get a legal abortion in Texas because she did not meet the legal definition of her life being in jeopardy under Texas law. Cox could, and did receive a legal abortion in New Mexico. Had Cox waited in Texas, there is a good chance that she would have met the same end as Barnica, who waited until she met the legal definition of her life being in jeopardy under Texas law, and died because Texas law made her wait.

Read that again. Texas law made Barnica wait until she could get a legal abortion. Had Barnica been able to get to New Mexico and get a legal abortion there, like Cox, she would likely be alive today. But Barnica didn't have the same option as Cox did, and now, because of the Texas law, Barnica is dead. Do you have any other explanation as to why Barnica is dead?

It's the fault of her doctors? Hogwash. Doctors in Texas were following the law, as upheld by the Texas Supreme Court in both the Cox and Barnica cases. The law that stated that at the original time each respective woman showed up at the hospital, she did not yet meet the legal definition of her life being in jeopardy, and therefore, could not get a legal abortion in Texas. And unfortunately for Barnica, she had to wait, and paid for it with her life.