posted September 06, 2021 12:06 PM            

You're trying to talk esoterics and I'm talking law, Constitutional law, legislative law and Biblical law.

Abortion shouldn't even be an issue in the United States and there should be no need to discuss..abortion.

posted September 06, 2021 01:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:

You're trying to talk esoterics and I'm talking law, Constitutional law, legislative law and Biblical law.

---

Indeed I am, and is it much of a surprise considering that we are on an astrology forum/site?

Spiritual law is more important than and supersedes material law. And as far as Biblical law goes, as Yeshua pointed out time and time again to the Pharisees, Sadducee's, Scribes, and everyday people, Love is the greatest Law of the Bible. Love respects the freewill rights and decisions of others.

The Pharisees, Sadducee's, and Scribes were ALL about the legalistic and letter part of Biblical Law--in fact, they seemed to be obsessed with it, and couldn't see the forest for the trees in their focusing on the minutiae of that law, especially the material sides of same. Can't work on the Sabbath, have to wash hands and feet before meal, blah blah, blah, blah.

Yeshua constantly schooled them and said that they needed to focus on the Spirit of the Law rather than the letter of same so much. And he purposely flaunted some of those material laws to show them how anal they were.

Anyways, the Law of Love says that women should have the choice of what to do with their own bodies.

posted September 06, 2021 01:40 PM            

But you go right ahead and defend abortion and those who practice abortion, based on your perception of esoteric principles. Btw, Cayce could have been wrong you know.

But this whole argument is a red herring. Women don't need abortions. They have free/ cheap, effective birth control and the morning after pill.

posted September 06, 2021 05:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
Abortion is not an esoteric issue. Abortion is real, it's tangible and it cuts straight across spiritual laws of most of earths religions, biblical law, the laws of the United States, and medical canons.

But you go right ahead and defend abortion and those who practice abortion, based on your perception of esoteric principles. Btw, Cayce could have been wrong you know.

But this whole argument is a red herring. Women don't need abortions. They have free/ cheap, effective birth control and the morning after pill.

So, why do we need to kill babies for the sake of convenience for irresponsible women?

---

It is both an esoteric and material issue when one understands that we are not just physical bodies, but also have souls. And if the soul doesn't complete it's connection to the body until close to birth, then this changes the entire discussion, because if one does believe in a soul, then one understands that it is primarily the soul that makes a human being a person.

Yes, I agree, Cayce could be wrong. However, I've read every biographical type book written on him (which is probably in the double digits by now), and its very clear that he was the real deal and a half.

Cayce did occasionally make some errors here and there, but these seemed to always be in relation to singular type info ("one offs"). Meaning, when Cayce's guidance spoke multiple, repeated times to something, chances are you could take it to the bank. And his source spoke MANY times to the concept of a Soul completing its energetic connection to the baby's body around birth.

Beside my built up over time trust in that work, my own Mom had an experience with seeing my Soul enter my body a little while after it was birthed.

Yeah, I'm going to err on this side of course.

There is no earthly law without spiritual law btw. There is no Earth and no physical without consciousness and Spirit. The physical is literally just one little dimensional slice of pie within a whole consciousness pie of many, many different dimensions which All come ultimately from Spirit.

I can't separate the two, because they are inseparable.

Look at placebo effect in the body with health. Why should thoughts and beliefs have any affect on physical health and state if we were nothing but just hunks of flesh? But they do, and measurably so. In fact, in many drug trials, they keep testing the drug until it finally beats the placebo control.

posted September 07, 2021 01:35 PM            

Yes, Cayce could be wrong.

Nevertheless, you have support from the spiritual realm about the goodness of killing babies...abortion.

The eugenicists are with you too. Think Planned Parenthood and Margarete Sanger who practice(d) the Fabian Socialist religion of abortion to keep down the numbers of those undesirables in societies...blacks. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a true believer too.

“Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding of abortion.”
~RBG~

Leftists Look to Satanists as ‘Last, Best Hope to Save Abortion’ in Texas
Paul Bois
6 Sep 2021

After The Satanic Temple announced its opposition to the Texas anti-abortion law, leftists have embraced the cult as a potentially helpful ally in the cause to keep abortion legal.

Other left-wing outlets were as equally gleeful in their support of The Satanic Temple’s fight to keep abortion legal. “Satanic Temple Floats Devilishly Clever Strategy To Dodge Texas Abortion Law,” stated a headline from HuffPost. “Why Satanists may be the last hope to take down Texas’s abortion bill,” echoed Fortune.
http://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/09/06/leftists-look-satanists-l ast-best-hope-save-abortion-texas/

It takes a dark soul to defend killing innocent life...and claim spirituality as the basis, stemming from the claims of one (1) individual who...admittedly, 'could be wrong'.

posted September 27, 2021 10:37 PM            

Dr Alan Braid, an OBGYN based in San Antonio, broke the law on purpose. In an essay published in the Washington Post last Saturday, the doctor announced that he performed an abortion on a woman who was past six weeks of gestation, the limit imposed by Texas’s new abortion ban, SB8. The doctor wrote that he felt morally obliged to perform the procedure, his worldview shaped by his years in obstetric practice having conversations with patients who revealed that they were terminating their pregnancies because they couldn’t afford more kids, because they had been raped, because they were with abusive partners, or because they wanted to pursue other dreams.

He wrote, too, of beginning his practice in 1972, the year before Roe v Wade, the last time an outright ban on abortion was in effect in his state. “At the hospital that year, I saw three teenagers die from illegal abortions,” Dr Braid wrote. “One I will never forget. When she came into the ER, her vaginal cavity was packed with rags. She died a few days later from massive organ failure, caused by a septic infection.” Dr Braid reasoned that to avoid such needless deaths, he had a “duty of care” to the woman whose newly illegal abortion he performed.

He was promptly sued. Two complaints – both from men living out of state – were filed against Dr Braid on Monday morning. One, a rambling, weird document, comes from a convicted felon and disbarred former attorney named Oscar Stilley, who is serving a prison term on house arrest in Arkansas. That complaint, which Stilley seems to have written himself, makes multiple references to Dr Braid’s conduct regarding “******** ” and his supposed belief in a god referred to by the Hebrew name “Elohim.” Stilley, who has said he does not personally oppose abortion, feels strongly that “if there’s money to be had, it’s going to go in Oscar’s pocket.”

The second lawsuit is from a man named Felipe Gomez of Illinois, another disbarred lawyer, who labels himself “pro-choice plaintiff”, and whose complaint asks only that SB8 be overturned. These test cases, strange and off-putting as they are, now represent the best chance for SB8 to be vacated, and for abortion rights to be returned to Texans – at least for now.

It didn’t have to be this way. When a conservative state passes an abortion ban – as they do with some regularity – state employees are usually tasked with enforcing the law, those employees are named as defendants in lawsuits brought by pro-choice groups, and the law is blocked from going into effect by courts that declare it unconstitutional before any real patients are denied abortion care. But Texas’s SB8 was designed to elide this normal process of judicial review, with a novel enforcement mechanism that bars state agents from acting to enforce the law. Instead, the law can only be enforced by private civil suits against people suspected of facilitating abortions – lawsuits, that is, like the ones filed by Stilley and Gomez.

Dr Alan Braid took on enormous personal liability so that the question of the right to an abortion could get a fair hearing

This private enforcement mechanism is like a legal Rube Goldberg machine built into SB8, creating a clever way to evade courts recognizing the bill’s abortion ban as unconstitutional. Created by an insidious conservative lawyer named Jonathan Mitchell, the loophole was designed to confound lawsuits against the law’s constitutionality with procedural, rather than substantive, questions, and to guarantee that SB8 would go into effect. The device is transparent bid to circumvent the authority of the federal courts. But those same federal courts, by now warped by decades of anti-choice influence on the judicial nominations process, let it slide anyway. Judges on the fifth circuit court of appeals, and later on the supreme court, found that the procedural questions that were engineered by SB8 provided them a sufficient pretext to do what they wanted to do anyway: allow a state to outlaw abortion within its borders, and effectively end Roe.

And so, when the supreme court allowed SB8 to go into effect, it left the pro-choice movement with no choice. Pre-enforcement litigation failed on flimsy and artificial procedural grounds; what was needed was an illegal abortion, performed by someone willing to take on enormous personal risk, to create a test case. Only a deliberate legal violation would allow SB8 could be reviewed on the merits. This is where Dr Braid comes in. In addition to the enormous service he gave to the patient whose abortion he performed, he also did a service to the pro-choice movement, and to women statewide. He took on enormous personal liability so that the question of their right to an abortion could get a fair hearing.

Interestingly, the anti-choice movement doesn’t seem entirely happy that the lawsuits that enforce the abortion ban they championed are now actually arriving in Texas courts. John Sego, a legislative director of the anti-choice group Texas Right to Life, which supports SB8, expressed displeasure that the law is being enforced – well, exactly the way it was designed. He called the lawsuits “self-serving legal stunts”. Yet he also claimed that “Texas Right to Life is resolute in ensuring that [SB8] is fully enforced.” If Sego and other anti-choice groups want the law enforced, why do they oppose private citizens enforcing it, using the bill’s own remedy?

Maybe they have realized that the bounty-hunting provision of the law is deeply unpopular, and that the suits are terrible PR for the anti-choice movement

It might be that Sego and his anti-choice colleagues are embarrassed to have their interests represented by a plaintiff like Stilley, with his flamboyant feloniousness. Maybe they have realized that the bounty-hunting provision of the law is deeply unpopular, and that the suits are terrible PR for the anti-choice movement. At any rate, it is hard to take Sego seriously when he says, “We believe Braid published his op-ed intending to attract imprudent lawsuits, but none came from the pro-life movement.” In fact Sego’s group is legally not able to file bounty-hunting lawsuits to enforce SB8: although the group established an “abortion snitch” website that seemed designed to solicit tips about possible defendants in SB8 enforcement suits against those who facilitate abortions, a judge issued a restraining order preventing Texas Right to Life from filing them.

But perhaps the real reason Sego is displeased with the lawsuits against Braid is that SB8’s bounty hunting enforcement system was only one small part of the anti-choice vision for the law. The real way that abortions would become inaccessible in Texas under SB8 wasn’t that people would sue; it was that abortion providers, faced with the prospect of being bankrupted by lawsuits, would preemptively stop performing abortions. It was an attempt to do by intimidation what the anti-choice movement was not confident they could do by law: strip Texan women of their constitutional right to control their own bodies and lives. And, mostly, this gambit has worked. In the more than three weeks since SB8 went into effect, legal abortions after six weeks have come to a halt in Texas. Fearing liability, clinics are turning pregnant patients away. So far, only Dr Braid has called the anti-choice movement’s bluff.