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.