This ruling also begs the question whether the egg donor is subject to prosecution if she chooses not to use them at a later date. Is there an expiry date or statute of limitations on the life of these “babies”?
The smart money says that an egg donor or prospective mother will be the first person they wield this new power against... hell, I'll make an even more specific prediction: among the first cases charged will be at least one poor woman of color who donated some of her eggs to make ends meet.
No, the smart money is charging a poor women of color who has a drug habit who has a miscarriage with murder. They will go after the lowest hanging fruit first. First the drug users. After that's been normalized, it will be poor women who had miscarriages in general, and people who use birth control pills.
I hope to get euthanized before I live in a theocracy where I'm defined as "Ofsomehusband" or "Ofmyfather". What value could a paraplegic have who's physically incapanle of being a mother, a wife, a handmaid, or even a harlot? (Gilead offers mo other life for a woman.)
But life only begins at conception, so the destruction of unused unfertilized eggs wouldn't count as murder. Unused fertilized eggs would pose a bigger problem, and if the law is to prosecute the "parents", shouldn't they go after the egg AND sperm donors?
Well, that depends on if he's white, rich, evangelical, and/or conservative. He's already identified as a male, so that's a thumb on the scales of justice in his favor already. But if he's some minimum wage worker, not of their religious tribe, or swarthy of complexion, no doubt they'll want to put him in jail just on general principles.
Fun fact about the Ten Commandments: the commandment considered by Jews and Protestants to be the second commandment of the “ten” straight-up forbids making ANY graven (engraved, carved, SCULPTED) image, or ANY LIKENESS (“graven” or otherwise) of ANYthing that is in the heavens (sky) above, or that is in the Earth beneath, or that is in the water under the Earth.
Where are the tablets of the Ten Commandments now? They were placed in the Ark of the Covenant. When the Babylonians conquered Judah and destroyed Solomon’s Temple, legend has it that either God took it up unto heaven, or that priests secretly removed the Ark and either buried it in a cave or put it on a ship to sail to some safe place, but that the ship sank.
ALL THREE of those possibilities are EXPLICITLY provided for in that commandment: regardless of which it was, the Ark and thus the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments are something that’s either “in Heaven above, or that is in the Earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the Earth.”!
So, by its very existence, Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments statue violated ITSELF!
It's a good idea to keep your expectations low when it comes to Alabama Republicans. Alabama has some of the worst social metrics in the country, so they don't value life all that much. They aren't about to try taking guns off the street, or pushing for universal healthcare. They just keep giving people fewer and fewer reasons to live there.
Hell—even their F-Khead Traitor, Tuberville, doesn’t even live in Alabama. The entire state is a farce and is among the top ten reliant upon Federal revenues.
Absolutely. If they were interested in life on earth, they would be addressing global climate change—but their Oil/Gas/Dirty Energy Puppet Masters, like Charles KKKoch, have fought that for 50 years and counting. They deflect from dwindling clean water and plastics poisoning our food supply—no, sanctity of Life is NOT their priority; it’s a red herring. Read Naomi Klein’s book, The Shock Doctrine.
The Nat-Cs (Nationalist Christians) are convenient unholy bedmates for the petro-robber barrons like the Kochs et al, because Nat-Cs secretly do believe in global warming and other environmental disastrous results of these industries that bankroll them. They pretend not to believe in them and publicly deny them because they don’t want anything done to stop those things from happening, because the End Times Prophecies prophecy such devastation.
Revelation Chapter 16 in particular has seven angels with vials (or bowls in the KJV) of the Wrath of God that they pour out on parts of the natural world, resulting in all manner of devastation. The second and third angels pour out their vials/bowls on the oceans, and on the inland waters, respectively, causing them to become as the blood of a dead man, killing every living thing in them. The fourth angel pours his out on the sun, causing it to scorch men with fiery heat (global warming and/or ozone depletion, which they also publicly denied).
They DO BELIEVE in these things but PRETEND NOT to to try to FORCE the horrible plagues of End Times Prophecy to happen, so that the “Rapture” (a word not found in the Bible, for the record) will hurry up and happen so that they can go to Heaven without having to die first.
Just been rewatching "Eyes on the Prize" on PBS over the past week or two. Seems like things haven't changed much in Alabama since the '60s and before. Sigh.
SERIOUSLY? When religious nonsense and biblical quotes somehow manage to find their way into a judicial ruling, it becomes obvious that the person making such a statement is NOT operating according to the law but doing so from his or her own personal beliefs. Granted that I am NOT a lawyer (retired electrical engineer, in fact), but how this could hope to be proper behavior for a sitting judge is utterly beyond me.
Sadly, though, this is Alabama, where I have no doubt, if someone wanted to read the bible into the record as a part of their law, they would. Wouldn't surprise me if they have already. And once again, I weep for the integrity of this country and its 𝑑𝑒-𝑗𝑢𝑟𝑒 secular structure.
He also created the angel (often mistakenly called Lucifer, though the correct name is Samæl) that’d fall and become Satan, knowing ∞ eons in advance before He ever said “Let there be light,” that Samæl would fall and become Satan and all that would result from that, requiring having His Own Son be TORTURED TO DEATH to save even a small part of humanity, and all He had to do to avoid all of that was NOT create Samæl. Or the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
And even that wasn’t talking about the unborn,. but about God’s foreknowledge. Before Jeremiah was even CONCEIVED, the Lᴏʀᴅ knew that he’d exist and that he’d be a prophet to the nations.
There is no longstanding religious tradition of “life begins at conception.” This is a recent construct arising from modern biological science. The irony (is it really irony? Who the fuck knows?) is that modern biological science proves the fact of common evolutionary descent of all species and the myth of the Biblical creation narrative.
Hence, the very real hostility by evangelical Christians directed at scholarship and scientific inquiry. The clarion trumpets for Gilead ring long for theofascist answers to American jurisprudence. It’s frightening.
The “life begins at conception” arguments that I see rely on the unique individual human DNA formed at conception. “If it isn’t a human life, what is it?” kind of thing.
Technically, that’s fertilization, not conception. Fertilization is when the new DNA forms. Conception is when the embryo (already past the blastocyst stage, which is what those frozen “embryos” actually were) implants in the uterine wall, officially beginning pregnancy.
The Bible, of course, makes no mention of fertilization. Nor sperm nor ovum nor cells of any kind, nor mitosis nor meiosis, nor even ovaries. They had no idea about any of that. To them the man emitted “seed” (to this day we refer to the fluid as “semen” which is Latin for “seed”) which provided nearly the full makeup of the offspring, like a seed planted in soil. The woman’s womb was believed to be just the soil, having no more influence over the offspring than the soil of a planted farm crop seed would have on the resulting crop plant (this is why we still refer to infertility as being “barren,” like rocky or sandy dirt that won’t grow anything — barren soil).
Life does begin at fertilization, for humans and all other diploid sexually reproducing species. That’s science. But mere life isn’t what’s legally important. What’s legally important is PERSONHOOD, which is a LEGAL status, not a biological one (this is why “corporate Personhood” is a thing).
When does PERSONHOOD begin? Biblically speaking, under the Law of the Lᴏʀᴅ God of Israel, there are two basic aspects of Personhood status common to most any society, for which a starting point is specified: being counted in a Census (“numbering” in the KJV, which is how the whole book of NUMBERS got its very NAME!) described in Numbers Chapter 3 (TWICE commanded by the Lᴏʀᴅ God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Hisownself, and five descriptions of this commandment being carried out, for a total of SEVEN mentions of this in this one chapter alone!), and being valuated for taxation purposes (Temple tax valuation in the first few verses of Leviticus Chapter 27). In BOTH CASES, the minimum age is the same: ONE (lunar) MONTH AFTER BIRTH!! Yes, not even NEWborns are considered true Persons under Bible Law, let alone ANY STAGE of the unborn!
Why do these Nat-Cs not even follow their own Bibles?
“The Alabama Constitution's recognition that human life is an endowment from God emphasizes a foundational principle of English common law, “
And is unconstitutional in the United States of America.
But then I looked at the Alabama constitution and it does not state that rights are granted by God, it says human rights are granted by their creator. Which, as we know, is not the Bible God, but based on the Enlightenment deity of the founders and interpreted to be the deity (or parents) of any given individual citizen. The Alabama Constitution goes on to delineate that no religion can be established for the state, therefore the decision demanding we recognize the Bible God’s rules about murder and when a life begins (which isn’t even close to what this jackanape claims it is. Jeremiah 1:5 was specifically about one man, other verses claim a baby isn’t even human until a year, or at their first breath or other nonsense, that doesn’t apply since the Bible is not the country’s or state’s law book.) doesn’t apply to the law and should be struck from this decision.
This justice should be removed from the bench because he’s unqualified due to his unconstitutional biases.
It is undeniably obvious that none of the seven justices, especially Chief Justice Tom Parker, have ever read their holey book.
Genesis 2:7 (KJV)
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and 𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒; and man became a living soul."
Ezekiel 37:6 (KJV)
"And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡ℎ 𝑖𝑛 𝑦𝑜𝑢, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑦𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒; and ye shall know that I am the Lord."
The first breath was widely held by religious leaders to be the moment the soul entered the body... right up until they needed a political football and edited their goddything's ensoulment schedule so they could kick it around.
Life begins at first breath according to the Bible and at fertilization according to biology. but PERSONHOOD (a LEGAL status, NOT a scientific one) begins much later than that. A Person is an entity with rights and responsibilities under a society. These include being counted (numbered) in a census (Numbers Chapter 3 [seven times stated therein, twice COMMANDED by the Lᴏʀᴅ God of Israel]) or valuated for taxation purposes (Leviticus Chapter 27, first several verses [key verse 6]).
In both cases a minimum age is specified, and that age is the same in both: ONE (lunar) MONTH AFTER BIRTH!! Yes, under Bible Law, even NEWborns aren’t Persons yet, so even INFANTICIDE. let alone abortion, is just fine peachy keen under His Law, until the Moon comes back around to the same phase it was when the baby was born!
In the bible murder was ok as long as they were nonbelievers the golden cafe in whatever book it was. the whole old testament was filled full of murder and rape. but its a moral guide right
That would be the one that actually made sense. The universe is set up to end your life in endless nasty ways. If someone set it up that way, they are one sick fuck.
God doesn't care about the slaughter of living people or care about what Putin is doing to Ukraine or the Holocaust. God is too busy helping Trump sell shoes.
God himself has killed and had others kill the unborn plenty of times so I don't know where this justice gets off on the “Wrath of a holy God” blather.
In summary, the theologically based view of the sanctity of life adopted by the People of Alabama encompasses the following: (1) God made every person in His image, except groups of people that I do not consider my equal which can be defined by creed, race, sex or orientation; (2) each person within the in group, and excluding the outgroup, therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate, except when it comes to providing basic goods and services. Then a monetary worth of the individual can be determined and contrasted with the cost of providing these services; as long as the cost is abstract and not tangible human life has an infinite value, if the cost is tangible the human life is fungible and (3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, except in those cases where the holy God commands the death of the individual or group of individuals, but in which case, the human life destroyed would be rightfully destroyed, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself, except for when its not. Section 36.06 recognizes that this is true of unborn human life no less than it is of all other human life, -- that even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory. That is until it is born, and then depending of certain physical attributes and circumstances can be worth less or more.
"To put that another way: They sued the hospital for killing their babies, arguing that life begins at conception, not birth."
This could be used against the parents. If the frozen embryos are "babies," then they're guilty of child abuse and false imprisonment. They're keeping fully rightful human beings (according to them) under torturous and inhumane conditions, and denying them the right to live their lives.
"..human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself."
If this is all about a crime against God, then Justice Parker and the "People of Alabama" should get the hell out of the way and let God handle it in whatever way He chooses. It's the height of arrogance to declare that such events are within the purview and jurisdiction of their "Almighty Creator," and then be so presumptuous as to intercede on His behalf to punish those who have offended Him. "Here, God, I know you're pretty busy, so I'll just kick these sinners' asses for you. Okay?"
They're against a married couple having a baby via IVF because it's "ungodly" but a child victim of rape who's in the 4th grade, should be forced to have a baby because THAT'S godly? What in the ever-loving hell.
The contents of test tube A-47-1113-C, according to Alabama, take precedence over the entirety of the natal ward one floor up. Hospitals should revise their emergency evacuation plans accordingly.
The self-proclaimed pro-life* crowd is entirely too obsessive about the imaginary people they claim to be concerned about. They need to calm down, switch off their circuit diagrams, get out of their blueprints, sit in the shade of their acorns, have a nice slice of batter, listen to the pleasant songs of the eggs, and stop to smell the pollen.
"All three branches of government are subject to a constitutional mandate to treat each unborn human life with reverence."
Does this mean the klutz who dropped the embryos is going to be charged with murder for every embryo?
This ruling also begs the question whether the egg donor is subject to prosecution if she chooses not to use them at a later date. Is there an expiry date or statute of limitations on the life of these “babies”?
The smart money says that an egg donor or prospective mother will be the first person they wield this new power against... hell, I'll make an even more specific prediction: among the first cases charged will be at least one poor woman of color who donated some of her eggs to make ends meet.
My bet is on the gay couple using a surrogate.
No, the smart money is charging a poor women of color who has a drug habit who has a miscarriage with murder. They will go after the lowest hanging fruit first. First the drug users. After that's been normalized, it will be poor women who had miscarriages in general, and people who use birth control pills.
[foxnews]What, you mean there are poor people who 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯'𝘵 drug users?! I thought that's what made them poor![/foxnews]
(𝘎𝘢𝘩, 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘸 𝘶𝘱 𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦...)
So basically a slow build up to Republic of Gilead laws.
I hope to get euthanized before I live in a theocracy where I'm defined as "Ofsomehusband" or "Ofmyfather". What value could a paraplegic have who's physically incapanle of being a mother, a wife, a handmaid, or even a harlot? (Gilead offers mo other life for a woman.)
A nun maybe?? To pray away your sins that "made" you paraplegic?
But life only begins at conception, so the destruction of unused unfertilized eggs wouldn't count as murder. Unused fertilized eggs would pose a bigger problem, and if the law is to prosecute the "parents", shouldn't they go after the egg AND sperm donors?
This will lead to the land mark case of Alabama -v- Gym Socks.
Don’t be silly. The sperm donors are men.
Good point.
tragically and horrifically, there’s no doubt you’re correct.
Charge these loons with 'child' neglect and see how fast they change their tune.
Well, that depends on if he's white, rich, evangelical, and/or conservative. He's already identified as a male, so that's a thumb on the scales of justice in his favor already. But if he's some minimum wage worker, not of their religious tribe, or swarthy of complexion, no doubt they'll want to put him in jail just on general principles.
You would think...
Sadly, the Alabama Supreme court wouldn't.
This is the body that gave us Roy Moore of ten commandment monuments and following 14-year-old girls around malls.
Tom Parker is Roy Moore v2.0.
Fun fact about the Ten Commandments: the commandment considered by Jews and Protestants to be the second commandment of the “ten” straight-up forbids making ANY graven (engraved, carved, SCULPTED) image, or ANY LIKENESS (“graven” or otherwise) of ANYthing that is in the heavens (sky) above, or that is in the Earth beneath, or that is in the water under the Earth.
Where are the tablets of the Ten Commandments now? They were placed in the Ark of the Covenant. When the Babylonians conquered Judah and destroyed Solomon’s Temple, legend has it that either God took it up unto heaven, or that priests secretly removed the Ark and either buried it in a cave or put it on a ship to sail to some safe place, but that the ship sank.
ALL THREE of those possibilities are EXPLICITLY provided for in that commandment: regardless of which it was, the Ark and thus the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments are something that’s either “in Heaven above, or that is in the Earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the Earth.”!
So, by its very existence, Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments statue violated ITSELF!
Obviously, yes.
Good point.
Life begins at conception ? OK, let all theses embryos live outside their vats or a women womb and see how much time they will stay alive.
Exactly my thought and I'm an ivf child
It's a good idea to keep your expectations low when it comes to Alabama Republicans. Alabama has some of the worst social metrics in the country, so they don't value life all that much. They aren't about to try taking guns off the street, or pushing for universal healthcare. They just keep giving people fewer and fewer reasons to live there.
Hell—even their F-Khead Traitor, Tuberville, doesn’t even live in Alabama. The entire state is a farce and is among the top ten reliant upon Federal revenues.
It all makes their supposed reverence for life ring a little hollow. I suspect they're pandering to the preachers because of the power they wield.
Absolutely. If they were interested in life on earth, they would be addressing global climate change—but their Oil/Gas/Dirty Energy Puppet Masters, like Charles KKKoch, have fought that for 50 years and counting. They deflect from dwindling clean water and plastics poisoning our food supply—no, sanctity of Life is NOT their priority; it’s a red herring. Read Naomi Klein’s book, The Shock Doctrine.
The Nat-Cs (Nationalist Christians) are convenient unholy bedmates for the petro-robber barrons like the Kochs et al, because Nat-Cs secretly do believe in global warming and other environmental disastrous results of these industries that bankroll them. They pretend not to believe in them and publicly deny them because they don’t want anything done to stop those things from happening, because the End Times Prophecies prophecy such devastation.
Revelation Chapter 16 in particular has seven angels with vials (or bowls in the KJV) of the Wrath of God that they pour out on parts of the natural world, resulting in all manner of devastation. The second and third angels pour out their vials/bowls on the oceans, and on the inland waters, respectively, causing them to become as the blood of a dead man, killing every living thing in them. The fourth angel pours his out on the sun, causing it to scorch men with fiery heat (global warming and/or ozone depletion, which they also publicly denied).
They DO BELIEVE in these things but PRETEND NOT to to try to FORCE the horrible plagues of End Times Prophecy to happen, so that the “Rapture” (a word not found in the Bible, for the record) will hurry up and happen so that they can go to Heaven without having to die first.
Just been rewatching "Eyes on the Prize" on PBS over the past week or two. Seems like things haven't changed much in Alabama since the '60s and before. Sigh.
Basing the law upon woo
Is what 'Bama justices do
Ban slavery or bacon
That choice it be makin'
Their deity's brain is hog poo.
... 𝐺𝑜𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝐻𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒 ... “𝐵𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝐼 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑚𝑏 𝐼 𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝑦𝑜𝑢...”
SERIOUSLY? When religious nonsense and biblical quotes somehow manage to find their way into a judicial ruling, it becomes obvious that the person making such a statement is NOT operating according to the law but doing so from his or her own personal beliefs. Granted that I am NOT a lawyer (retired electrical engineer, in fact), but how this could hope to be proper behavior for a sitting judge is utterly beyond me.
Sadly, though, this is Alabama, where I have no doubt, if someone wanted to read the bible into the record as a part of their law, they would. Wouldn't surprise me if they have already. And once again, I weep for the integrity of this country and its 𝑑𝑒-𝑗𝑢𝑟𝑒 secular structure.
“𝐵𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝐼 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑚𝑏 𝐼 𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝑦𝑜𝑢...”
Gawd said that of one biblical patriarch, not everyone.
He knew Adam & Eve would disobey him over that fruit thing, yet he created them anyway.
That's on him, not them.
He also created the angel (often mistakenly called Lucifer, though the correct name is Samæl) that’d fall and become Satan, knowing ∞ eons in advance before He ever said “Let there be light,” that Samæl would fall and become Satan and all that would result from that, requiring having His Own Son be TORTURED TO DEATH to save even a small part of humanity, and all He had to do to avoid all of that was NOT create Samæl. Or the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Or create evil in the first place.
Isaiah 45:7
According to Saint Napoleon Dynamite.
Saint and Naboleon should never be in the same sentence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Dynamite
Did not care for that movie.
Never saw it.
Bis repetita.
And even that wasn’t talking about the unborn,. but about God’s foreknowledge. Before Jeremiah was even CONCEIVED, the Lᴏʀᴅ knew that he’d exist and that he’d be a prophet to the nations.
There is no longstanding religious tradition of “life begins at conception.” This is a recent construct arising from modern biological science. The irony (is it really irony? Who the fuck knows?) is that modern biological science proves the fact of common evolutionary descent of all species and the myth of the Biblical creation narrative.
Creationist types keep trying to shoehorn the universe into their Bronze Age creation myth.
Hence, the very real hostility by evangelical Christians directed at scholarship and scientific inquiry. The clarion trumpets for Gilead ring long for theofascist answers to American jurisprudence. It’s frightening.
Just one part of the 𝑪𝒉𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝑾𝒂𝒓 𝒐𝒏 𝑬𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏.
The McDonald's happy meal is older than the religious tradition of "life begins at conception".
The Happy Meal is better for kids than that "life begins at conception" lie.
How's THAT for a statement?
It’s not even “biological science”.
It’s pure Creationism Bullshit.
The “life begins at conception” arguments that I see rely on the unique individual human DNA formed at conception. “If it isn’t a human life, what is it?” kind of thing.
Technically, that’s fertilization, not conception. Fertilization is when the new DNA forms. Conception is when the embryo (already past the blastocyst stage, which is what those frozen “embryos” actually were) implants in the uterine wall, officially beginning pregnancy.
The Bible, of course, makes no mention of fertilization. Nor sperm nor ovum nor cells of any kind, nor mitosis nor meiosis, nor even ovaries. They had no idea about any of that. To them the man emitted “seed” (to this day we refer to the fluid as “semen” which is Latin for “seed”) which provided nearly the full makeup of the offspring, like a seed planted in soil. The woman’s womb was believed to be just the soil, having no more influence over the offspring than the soil of a planted farm crop seed would have on the resulting crop plant (this is why we still refer to infertility as being “barren,” like rocky or sandy dirt that won’t grow anything — barren soil).
Life does begin at fertilization, for humans and all other diploid sexually reproducing species. That’s science. But mere life isn’t what’s legally important. What’s legally important is PERSONHOOD, which is a LEGAL status, not a biological one (this is why “corporate Personhood” is a thing).
When does PERSONHOOD begin? Biblically speaking, under the Law of the Lᴏʀᴅ God of Israel, there are two basic aspects of Personhood status common to most any society, for which a starting point is specified: being counted in a Census (“numbering” in the KJV, which is how the whole book of NUMBERS got its very NAME!) described in Numbers Chapter 3 (TWICE commanded by the Lᴏʀᴅ God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Hisownself, and five descriptions of this commandment being carried out, for a total of SEVEN mentions of this in this one chapter alone!), and being valuated for taxation purposes (Temple tax valuation in the first few verses of Leviticus Chapter 27). In BOTH CASES, the minimum age is the same: ONE (lunar) MONTH AFTER BIRTH!! Yes, not even NEWborns are considered true Persons under Bible Law, let alone ANY STAGE of the unborn!
Why do these Nat-Cs not even follow their own Bibles?
It would not be that "fun". Using it as they actually do, they can make life miserable for anyone the happens to believe is not valuable.
“The Alabama Constitution's recognition that human life is an endowment from God emphasizes a foundational principle of English common law, “
And is unconstitutional in the United States of America.
But then I looked at the Alabama constitution and it does not state that rights are granted by God, it says human rights are granted by their creator. Which, as we know, is not the Bible God, but based on the Enlightenment deity of the founders and interpreted to be the deity (or parents) of any given individual citizen. The Alabama Constitution goes on to delineate that no religion can be established for the state, therefore the decision demanding we recognize the Bible God’s rules about murder and when a life begins (which isn’t even close to what this jackanape claims it is. Jeremiah 1:5 was specifically about one man, other verses claim a baby isn’t even human until a year, or at their first breath or other nonsense, that doesn’t apply since the Bible is not the country’s or state’s law book.) doesn’t apply to the law and should be struck from this decision.
This justice should be removed from the bench because he’s unqualified due to his unconstitutional biases.
When Deists say god/creator, they're referring to nature and not some old man in the clouds.
I can dig it
He and the other six who voted for it should be removed.
Here’s a link to the constitution I forgot in the original comment.
https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/constitution
It is undeniably obvious that none of the seven justices, especially Chief Justice Tom Parker, have ever read their holey book.
Genesis 2:7 (KJV)
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and 𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒; and man became a living soul."
Ezekiel 37:6 (KJV)
"And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡ℎ 𝑖𝑛 𝑦𝑜𝑢, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑦𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒; and ye shall know that I am the Lord."
The first breath was widely held by religious leaders to be the moment the soul entered the body... right up until they needed a political football and edited their goddything's ensoulment schedule so they could kick it around.
Resurrection of Uncle Frank: https://youtu.be/pWD23_pyOGU?si=k4s5_ZCkqAsIjZzJ
Life begins at first breath according to the Bible and at fertilization according to biology. but PERSONHOOD (a LEGAL status, NOT a scientific one) begins much later than that. A Person is an entity with rights and responsibilities under a society. These include being counted (numbered) in a census (Numbers Chapter 3 [seven times stated therein, twice COMMANDED by the Lᴏʀᴅ God of Israel]) or valuated for taxation purposes (Leviticus Chapter 27, first several verses [key verse 6]).
In both cases a minimum age is specified, and that age is the same in both: ONE (lunar) MONTH AFTER BIRTH!! Yes, under Bible Law, even NEWborns aren’t Persons yet, so even INFANTICIDE. let alone abortion, is just fine peachy keen under His Law, until the Moon comes back around to the same phase it was when the baby was born!
In the bible murder was ok as long as they were nonbelievers the golden cafe in whatever book it was. the whole old testament was filled full of murder and rape. but its a moral guide right
You care so much about life, Parker? Where was your god's alleged holy wrath during the Holocaust?
Were was his god during the Chief's victory parade?
Why didn't his god protect Alexi Navalny from being murdered?
Because his god likes psycho dictators. He made them in his image.
I'm convinced "IF" there is a god, that's the one I would believe exists. One mean bastard.
That would be the one that actually made sense. The universe is set up to end your life in endless nasty ways. If someone set it up that way, they are one sick fuck.
You are close to making me a theist. Stop it now..
I'm going to guess that the shooters are christian. If not, they will have a miraculous conversion just before trial.
San Francisco?
California's been going through a series of storm systems of biblical proportions.
..and why did the Saints have such a crappy season?
God doesn't care about the slaughter of living people or care about what Putin is doing to Ukraine or the Holocaust. God is too busy helping Trump sell shoes.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/19/1232438349/donald-trump-golden-high-top-sneakers
https://resources.arcamax.com/newspics/cache/lw600/275/27596/2759649.jpg
Fully on the side of the Catholics involved?
Just spitballing here.
Catholics AND Lutherans.
God himself has killed and had others kill the unborn plenty of times so I don't know where this justice gets off on the “Wrath of a holy God” blather.
eZEKIEL 30:8 and 39:6 Numbers 21:21-30 Hosea 8:14 for a start.
FIFY
In summary, the theologically based view of the sanctity of life adopted by the People of Alabama encompasses the following: (1) God made every person in His image, except groups of people that I do not consider my equal which can be defined by creed, race, sex or orientation; (2) each person within the in group, and excluding the outgroup, therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate, except when it comes to providing basic goods and services. Then a monetary worth of the individual can be determined and contrasted with the cost of providing these services; as long as the cost is abstract and not tangible human life has an infinite value, if the cost is tangible the human life is fungible and (3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, except in those cases where the holy God commands the death of the individual or group of individuals, but in which case, the human life destroyed would be rightfully destroyed, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself, except for when its not. Section 36.06 recognizes that this is true of unborn human life no less than it is of all other human life, -- that even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory. That is until it is born, and then depending of certain physical attributes and circumstances can be worth less or more.
I guess that means god is neither male nor female because if he was male we all would be male as we are all made in HIS image.
Or only men are made in Gods image. Which would mean that women are not. Which would them make gay man sex more holy that heterosexual missionary sex.
Early in the 'Church' homosexual sex was considered purer that heterosex.
Eve was made from Adam's rib, which makes her a transsexual clone.
https://i.imgur.com/VZ4a9KS.jpeg
Always read the fine print.
"To put that another way: They sued the hospital for killing their babies, arguing that life begins at conception, not birth."
This could be used against the parents. If the frozen embryos are "babies," then they're guilty of child abuse and false imprisonment. They're keeping fully rightful human beings (according to them) under torturous and inhumane conditions, and denying them the right to live their lives.
"..human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself."
If this is all about a crime against God, then Justice Parker and the "People of Alabama" should get the hell out of the way and let God handle it in whatever way He chooses. It's the height of arrogance to declare that such events are within the purview and jurisdiction of their "Almighty Creator," and then be so presumptuous as to intercede on His behalf to punish those who have offended Him. "Here, God, I know you're pretty busy, so I'll just kick these sinners' asses for you. Okay?"
They're against a married couple having a baby via IVF because it's "ungodly" but a child victim of rape who's in the 4th grade, should be forced to have a baby because THAT'S godly? What in the ever-loving hell.
b b but gawd
The contents of test tube A-47-1113-C, according to Alabama, take precedence over the entirety of the natal ward one floor up. Hospitals should revise their emergency evacuation plans accordingly.
The self-proclaimed pro-life* crowd is entirely too obsessive about the imaginary people they claim to be concerned about. They need to calm down, switch off their circuit diagrams, get out of their blueprints, sit in the shade of their acorns, have a nice slice of batter, listen to the pleasant songs of the eggs, and stop to smell the pollen.
––––––
*short for “proliferators”
We can call them “pro-liefers”. Because all they can do is lie.
Mothertrucker, don't tell me you care about children then accept gun lobby money to not prevent mass shootings.
Or refuse to participate in a federal summer lunch program for low-income kids.