Posted on 02/28/2024 8:36:01 AM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
The Alabama Supreme Court decision is one of the morally clearest rulings of the decade. As it rightly asserts, unborn children are “children” and deserve appropriate legal and ethical protections. Unfortunately, many Christians—including those who consider themselves “pro-life”—are lacking in similar moral clarity.
…In December 2020, a patient at an Alabama hospital wandered into the fertility clinic through an unsecured doorway. The patient then entered the cryogenic nursery and removed several embryos. As the court notes, “The subzero temperatures at which the embryos had been stored freeze-burned the patient’s hand, causing the patient to drop the embryos on the floor, killing them.”
Several parents of these embryos sued the clinic under Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, a statute that allows parents of a deceased child to recover punitive damages for their child’s death.
…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; (2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and (3) 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. 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegospelcoalition.org ...
Thank you Alabama!
It’s sort of ironic watching the Alabama legislature and governor scramble to dilute the ruling.
"morally clear" is an excellent way to describe it. Our post-modern, nihilist society refuses to look at where life, and human dignity, originate.
From a religious/moral view, a very good commentary. Well worth the read by all Christians.
Fr Nix just put out an article, for one couple, 30 embryos died over all in the IVF effort to yield one happy baby.
Kind of like celebrating the kids that survive a really bad school shooting. Certainly celebrate them, but do many more died makes it a bad day.
“Unfortunately, many Christians—including those who consider themselves “pro-life”—are lacking in similar moral clarity.”
____________________________________________
Oh yeah, isn’t that the truth. We have several here who claim the GOP will lose everything over this IVF and abortion.
First, when federal legislation was even mentioned, they claimed they’re the most pro-life people on the planet but that the killing of children was a state issue. Then when the states act to protect the little boys and girls, these pro-lifers-in-name-only claim it is an issue that the government should not be involved in at all and the GOP should be neutral to get more votes.
Murder should always be illegal on any and all levels. And when one states that fact, the posers go off on tangents of the legal definitions of murder, etc. Or they’ll claim that murdering children for IVF is no different than children dying in miscarriages. Or that we’re not a theocracy, as if murder is based on religion. These people are sick and have no moral clarity.
With pro-lifers like that, who needs Satan or the Democrats?
I agree with you morally, but constitutionally murder need not be legislated on every level. Murder is a State crime and until the people forgot that the Federal Government is one of limited jurisdiction (trade, interstate commerce, military) murder of almost any type was nit a Federal crime.
Following your logic the UN should ban murder in the US and have courts to try a used murderers when Anerican DAs decline to prosecute
*accused not “ a used”
“The Court noted that Article I of the state’s constitution of 2022 “acknowledges, declares, and affirms that it is the public policy of this state to ensure the protection of the rights of the unborn child in all manners and measures lawful and appropriate.”
That section, titled “Sanctity of Unborn Life,” operates in this context as a constitutionally imposed canon of construction, directing courts to construe ambiguous statutes in a way that “protect[s] . . . the rights of the unborn child” equally with the rights of born children, whenever such construction is “lawful and appropriate.””
Thanks for validating my point previously mentioned, “And when one states that fact, the posers go off on tangents of the legal definitions of murder, etc.”
Incorrect. I don’t question whether abortion is murder. I note that the Federal Government does not have the authority to prohibit ordinary murder.
“I note that the Federal Government does not have the authority to prohibit ordinary murder.”
____________
Which has nothing to do with whether murder should always be illegal on any and all levels.
Like I said, “ Murder should always be illegal on any and all levels. And when one states that fact, the posers go off on tangents of the legal definitions of murder, etc.”
Which has nothing to do with whether murder should always be illegal on any and all levels."
I think I am misunderstanding you. I interpreted "murder should always be illegal on any and all levels" as meaning there should be a general Federal law against murder (even if not related to interstate commerce or civil rights under the 14th Amendment). Your reply suggests I got that wrong. Can you tell me what you think the Federal government should or shouldn't do with respect to laws on murder? Perhaps we don't disagree on this topic?
My intent maybe better stated as, murder should never be legal for any human to commit or for any human to be the victim of. Moral law.
Also:
Legitimate defense of one’s life, is not murder, but rather a duty. Defending the defenseless, by coming to the aid of others’ whose life is legitimately threatened, is not murder, but rather a duty.
On this we agree, and we agree that abortion is murder. I was commenting on the question of whether the Federal Government could pass a law criminalizing abortion despite the fact that it does not have the authority under the US Constitution to prohibit regular murder. That authority was reserved for the States by George Washington et al.
The Jurisdiction section here on Wikipedia is a decent summary of the issue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_United_States_law
“I was commenting on the question of whether the Federal Government could pass a law”
_____________________________________________
That’s your question. I didn’t ask that question.
First, when federal legislation was even mentioned, they claimed they’re the most pro-life people on the planet but that the killing of children was a state issue.
SO I ask a question: do you think the Federal Government has jurisdiction in ordinary cases of murder or not?.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_United_States_law
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.