But heck given Sand’s obvious affliction Turek can turn the table
There must be a medical term for pencil neck
This post was triggered by Rob Sand providing a remarkably similar, no doubt sincere in its ignorance, Biblical exegesis of abortion similar to one James Dell Causey Talarico* offered in recent days. Sand was ably responded to with citations in a letter to the editor at The Iowa Standard by Donald W Bohlken. Not willing to let well enough alone, yours truly of course chimed in as follow — the words are mine, the graphics with captions are AI generated at my urging with the exception of the remarkably straight photo of Sand’s deformity: https://theiowastandard.com/letter-rob-sand-wants-abortion-back-in-iowa/
As DB points out Sand cannot authentically rely on the Bible to defend abortion. However Sand’s raising the matter of what the Bible supports serves to suggest another for him to try and squirm away from, assuming he continues his pretense of having any honest sense of the Bible. Accordingly, if the Bible is his guide as he wants to imply how does he biblically justify his support for homosexual activity and gay marriage or is he just personally opposed to others engaging in it, from a biblical perspective of course? Is he willing to say so in public, Bible invoker that he is?
Should Sand be in a quandary he could probably handle the simple AI search — “does the Bible consider homosexual activity an abomination?” The results would be available in about a second: “Leviticus 18:22: This verse is traditionally interpreted as prohibiting male same-sex intercourse and is often cited as labeling it an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13: Similar to the previous verse, this passage also explicitly forbids male same-sex relations and reinforces the notion of it being an abomination.
New Testament References — Romans 1: This chapter discusses various forms of sexual sin, including same-sex sexual activity, and is interpreted by many as condemning such actions.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10: In this passage, Paul lists behaviors that disqualify individuals from God’s kingdom, including those related to same-sex sexual activity.”
Getting back to the Bible as abortion guide as understood by Sand, it is inescapable that if Sand’s argument that the Bible requires “breath” to have a baby that can be protected by law (ecclesiastical or otherwise), then the Bible offers no proscription on killing the unborn at any stage because babies, excuse me, those things, get their oxygen through the umbilical chord and so the Bible is indifferent as regards the entity in the womb until the chord is cut. And so as regards those beings that became his two sons (in woke-speak “assigned males”) at birth what then were they one week prior in utero? Were they just large tumors, live but not “human”? So by his Biblical lights only at birth, surprise, do those tumors become babies?
IMAGINING A POLITICAL TIME WARP, TO MATCH THE WARPED BIBLICAL AND POLITICAL VIEWS OF ROB SAND
And well let’s say Sand is feeling generous and qualifies that he means ~~ capable of breathing air on their own even if still in the womb~~ but he does not offer where the Bible supports that, breath is breath right (and abomination is abomination)? And so the premie who is not able to breath on their own is not a protectable commodity and reverts to being a tumor, a glob of protoplasm because “it” cannot “breath.”
Sand’s ethical logic allows for nothing else.
We should all be curious the next time Sand and Turek are on a stage together, as to their fealty to the unfettered right to abortion at any time that they share. It might be interesting to know whether Sand thinks Turek was a particularly gross tumor, from a Biblical standpoint of course, when his mother was pregnant with the tumor she eventually named Josh and assigned the term male to?
Spina bifida, which Turek has, is readily diagnosable in utero. Would not destroying such a tumor really be just another way of ridding the world of the scourge of spina bifida and entirely in keeping with the Bible by Sands lights and perhaps Turek as well? They both are on board with abortion without retriction.
As you can see here Lascelle, your fetus clearly has columna cervicis elongata which is a congenital neck length variance incompatible with anything but serving as a clothes rack. You may know it as geeky giraffe neck or “pencil neck”. Surely you do not want that for him. Its at 9 months so still at breathless tumor stage. Totally your choice but I could not bear living like that. Shall we schedule the abortion?
Ask one or the other ~~ How dare a parent bring a seriously handicapped potential baby into the world to take a breath, the hallmark of life, indeed subject them to life. Abortion IS health care after all. It is a good way to eliminate Down’s syndrome and spina bifida. We have pretty much wiped out Downs sayndrome through the thoughtfulness of parents and society using abortion, how about spina bifida when it appears in utero?
But but but some parents might love such a defective child. They are not children yet so that argument is unavailable to Sand or Turek. How do you love a tumor? Beside, just scratch that tumor and go make something more “perfect” and not subject society to such sad defectives, no one could possibly enjoy such a life , right Josh?. That is the relentless logic of pro-abortion mentality.
Crass? Indelicate? OK. Then what are they who advocate legal abortion for any reason at any time because “choice” and “breath”?
Well I am not done yet posting on the matter. The Robbie Sand similarity to Jimmy Talarico (in soooo many ways) was mentioned regarding Sand’s statements. John Daniel Davidson writing at The Federalist responded incisively, devastatingly regarding Talarico. But again not willing to let great be unembellished, I held forth (slightly altered here):
See: James Talarico Says He Wants To See Fewer Abortions. But Why?
Great article by JDD at The Federalist
Indeed, if the unborn have no intrinsic value abort away. The obfuscating Talarico might respond with a tut tut and say ~~ oh abortion should not be used as contraception, ~~ again as JDD asks, why not if it is the woman’s choice. Further tut tuts might be to express ~~ well it is involved and more expensive and women only choose it for deep personal reasons. But the unborn have no value so any reluctance to abort the glob of protoplasm is counter revolutionary or a hallucination as would be implied by his corrupted exegesis of the Bible.
A tut-tut from him that abortion is more involved would be an inconsistent admission. Regardless, what is controlling with Talarico is that a woman should have total freedom to do what she wants with her body as regards abortion. Other choices like refusing to pay high taxes with her body’s labors are not recognized in Talarico world.
If he is the theological thinker he pretends then having established that the unborn have no independent rights that the born must respect (much less that are enforceable) then any value he proposes has no efficacy, any discussion would clarify that there is no serious common ground as the main issue, the right to life of the unborn, he opposes at any and every stage in the womb of a woman.
When he tries to maintain that he wants to reduce the “need’ for abortion, well the argument is whether there is a need for elective abortion that trumps the right to life. So he corrupts the discussion. He presumes something we do not agree to. When he asks ~~ don’t you want to limit the occurrence of abortion and don’t you agree that his program (code for largess at others expense) will reduce the occurrence ~~ well it won’t because at the same time he is preaching (through policy enactments) that the unborn have no value. That promoted and endemic attitude is hardly a reliable way to reduce abortions. It certainly has not now as it is relied on in “generous” blue states as birth control
His philosophy will not allow teaching that the unborn have value even argable value otherwise he violates the concept that allows his effective position, no restrictions on abortion because the unborn have no independent value and it is woman’s right, period. In his rubric the official and only actionable government position is that abortion must be free, unfettered at any time, and any utterance to the contrary is preaching hate and a conspiracy against rights. And there is no common ground with anyone who thinks government should pay for all abortions no matter what some think.
Sadly Melania Trump’s position, another erudite theologian pontificating on the matter, seems not far removed from Talarico’s effective position at least as far as protecting unborn life. Her’s is the same as every other “my body my choice” superficial dunderhead. See page 171 to 173 of her book Melania. Thank God she is not in control.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
- From the Talarico bio at wikipedia: James Talarico was born in Round Rock, Texas, on May 17, 1989, to Tamara Causey, who separated from his biological father when he was seven weeks old.[4][5] A few months later Tamara married Mark Talarico, who adopted James and gave him his surname.
Wow, stressed marriage, back in the day, 16 years after Roe and Doe, seems like it might have been a good reason not to saddle mom with a baby.
