XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel
XPost: talk.abortion, alt.christnet.christianlife

Michael Ejercito wrote:

HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

Michael Ejercito wrote:

HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

Michael Ejercito wrote:

https://ethicsalarms.com/2025/05/28/re-abortion-another-bias-makes-you-stupid-op-ed-in-the-nyt/

Re Abortion: Another “Bias Makes You Stupid” Op-Ed in the NYT
May 28, 2025 / Jack Marshall


It’s kind of funny when headline writers are so clueless and biased that >>>>> what they think is a “res ipsa loquitur” story proving one thing
actually reveals something completely different.

The headline on a Times op-ed ed last week was “A Brain-Dead Woman Is >>>>> Being Kept on Machines to Gestate a Fetus. It Was Inevitable.” (I’m
using my last gift link of the month on this one, so you’d better read >>>>> it!) The writer was Kimberly Mutcherson, a professor at Rutgers Law School.

The entire piece radiates contempt for the concept of treating the
unborn as human lives, which, you know, they are and rather undeniably >>>>> so. Readers are informed that Adriana Smith is brain dead, and has been >>>>> connected to life support machines for more than 90 days to save the >>>>> life of her baby. Smith was nine weeks pregnant when she died from
multiple blood clots in her brain.

“Her fetus’s heart continued to beat,” writes the professor, as if it >>>>> was an abandoned car with a functioning carburetor. Georgia, she
explains, is one of those crazy, fetus-worshiping states where a nascent >>>>> human being is deemed a human life that can’t be snuffed out on a whim >>>>> if it has a heartbeat. This, to the op-ed’s author, the headline writer >>>>> and the New York Times is completely unfathomable.


“Legislators did not seem to have considered a situation in which a
pregnant woman is legally dead,” she sneers. Funny, I don’t see why the >>>>> death of the mother compels the decision that the child she is carrying >>>>> should be considered a non-person and a life not worth saving. The
professor quotes the dead woman’s mother as saying, “We want the baby. >>>>> That’s a part of my daughter. But the decision should have been left to >>>>> us — not the state.” Wait: don’t we all believe that it is a proper
function of the state to protect the lives of human beings and to pass >>>>> laws that embody that duty? Do families have the option of letting the >>>>> children of parents who are killed die from neglect because it’s the >>>>> family’s “choice”?


What is stunning (depressing, annoying, telling) about Mutcherson’s
essay is that she can’t grasp why anyone would argue that a brain dead >>>>> mother should be kept alive so a vulnerable human being can become
strong enough to live a life outside her womb. Many quotes in the op-ed >>>>> make that clear, like…

“Reproductive justice advocates have long been clear that abortion law >>>>> is never only about abortion. It is about the exercise of control over >>>>> all pregnant women, regardless of whether they plan to carry their
pregnancies to term. That’s why the anti-abortion movement has pursued a >>>>> broad agenda of legal personhood for embryos and fetuses.” My comment: >>>>> “The Horror”! These misguided people think that a human being’s life >>>>> should be saved if at all possible. The monsters! This is the “It isn’t >>>>> what it is,” “Handmaiden’s Tale” propaganda of the political left, not >>>>> objective analysis. Anti-abortion advocates think that living human
beings shouldn’t be killed, that’s all. The position has nothing to do >>>>> with “controlling” the people who want to kill them any more than laws >>>>> against murder are “about the exercise of control” over citizens who >>>>> would like to kill someone.
“This kind of catastrophic event was inevitable, given the expansive and >>>>> imprecise laws written by legislators who generally lack medical
expertise, and the inability of politicians to fully predict every
emergency situation.” My comment: The professor isn’t referring to the >>>>> mother’s death as the “catastrophic event,” but rather the brain dead >>>>> woman’s body being kept functioning so her baby can be born. I can
conceive of valid arguments for why this should be considered bad policy >>>>> or a situation requiring special legislation. But what’s the
catastrophe? The author is incapable of comprehending that in a
utilitarian analysis, a Kantian analysis favoring human life, and
reciprocity principles (“If you were the fetus, what would you want the >>>>> hospital to do?”), the situation is thoroughly defensible.
“Emory University Hospital, once Ms. Smith’s place of employment, would >>>>> not be legally allowed to remove organs from a brain-dead person without >>>>> family consent if this person hadn’t previously registered her wish to >>>>> be a donor, even if doing so could save or improve dozens of lives.
However, according to Ms. Smith’s mother, the hospital informed her
that, because of the fetus her daughter was carrying, it could not
legally withdraw the artificial means of keeping her body functioning.” >>>>> My comment: So? The professor thinks that’s an apt analogy: the dead >>>>> woman’s organs can’t be harvested without her prior consent, so they >>>>> will be allowed to die along with her. But a liver isn’t a human being. >>>>> Never mind; abortion advocates can’t concede that what is at stake in an >>>>> abortion decision is a second human life. If they do, they know what >>>>> abortion becomes.
“Knowing the tremendous work that the body of a pregnant woman must do >>>>> to sustain and nourish a pregnancy, the harm to the fetus from being >>>>> trapped inside a body without a functioning brain cannot be known with >>>>> certainty.” My comment: Consequentialism, the refuge of the ethically >>>>> inert: “It’s a bad decision because it might not work.”
Mutcherson concludes by calling the situation “dystopian”—there’s “The >>>>> Handmaiden’s Tale” mentality again. She can see no benefit or reason to >>>>> try to save a human life. Bias has not only rendered her stupid, but so >>>>> morally and ethically blind she can’t see the other side of a genuine >>>>> ethics conflict.

"It's written that GOD punished David&Bathsheba w/ a full-term
abortion for their adultery. Thus, abortion reminds us that the
adultery of http://AntiChrist45.com (#TrumpIsTheAntiChrist) is the sin >>>> to stop..."

Source:
https://x.com/WDJW/status/1926364784917676335

The absolutely only godly way to stop the sin of adultery (thereby
stopping abortions) is by holding up our #1 Example of living
http://WonderfullyHungry.org (Luke 24:42-3).

Indeed.

Indeed, I am http://WonderfullyHungry.org (Philippians 4:12) for food
right now (Luke 6:21a) and hope you, Michael, and others reading this, >>>> also have a healthy appetite for food right now too.

So how are you ?

I am wonderfully hungry!

While wonderfully hungry in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy
8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, are rapture ready (Luke
17:37 means no COVID just as eagles circling over their food have no
COVID) and pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6)
Father in Heaven continues to give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy
Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) so that we'd have much more of His Help to
always say/write that we're "wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways
including especially caring to "convince it forward" (John 15:12) with
all glory (Psalm112:1) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba, DEO), in
the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO !

Source:
https://newsgrouper.org/alt.bible.prophecy/638202/638213

Thank you for noting that I have no COVID.

Just please to do likewise as our LORD Jesus & I have done for you,
Michael, and http://go.WDJW.net/ConvinceItForward (John 15:12) to be https://bit.ly/Wonderfully_Hungrier more blessed by GOD right now
(Luke 6:21a):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MK66v5lh4M

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)