Saturday, February 09, 2013
Alabama State Senator wants to pass personhood bill because he is afraid that unborn zygotes might go to hell.
This from the Daily Sentinel:
State Sen. Shadrack McGill said he plans to try again to push pro-life bills in the Legislature.
“Did you know you can be charged up to $250,000 for destroying an eagle egg, but you can destroy babies in the womb?” McGill asked this week during an interview with the Times-Journal.
The senator said he still wants to see a “personhood” law that would put into state law that life begins at conception. Such bills failed to make it out of the Legislature in the two regular sessions since 2010 when McGill was elected and Republicans gained a majority in Montgomery.
“Just based on the Scripture alone, the Psalm that talks about God knowing us before he placed us in our mother’s womb, is enough for me to know that that is a life inside of a mother,” said McGill, R-Macedonia.
“So my question concerning aborted babies is, where do they go, heaven or hell? I just want to know what [people’s] perspective is.”
As I think many of you are probably aware this idea of unborn babies going to hell has NEVER really been part of the Protestant or Baptist teaching. Many Catholics used to believe that unbaptized babies went to "Limbo" but apparently that was never part of the Catechism and later Pope John Paul ll beseeched the International Theological Commission to make it official that such was not the case, and they responded thusly:
“Vatican sources said yesterday that the commission would recommend that Limbo be replaced by the more “compassionate” doctrine that all children who die do so “in the hope of eternal salvation.”” (Times, November 30, 2005)
Of course Senator McGill seems to be aware of none of this, and I seriously doubt it would make much difference as he seems to make all of his political policy decisions based on a complete lack of the understanding of biology, and solely on his overzealous religious beliefs, which even extend to fertilized eggs not yet placed in a mother's womb.
You might want to sit down for this next part.
“I sympathize with the folks who have had to go the expensive route of the in-vitro process, and thank God for that knowledge that the doctors possess,” said McGill, who noted that a fellow senator’s family grew through in-vitro fertilization, a fact that held up the debate in past years.
“My understanding of that process is they fertilize 10 eggs in a petri dish. Basically they take three of the strongest and insert those into the womb, into the mother, and pray for the best,” McGill said.
“If the mother conceives, then what do you do with the seven remaining fertilized eggs?”
McGill said he previously suggested Williams change the wording to say life begins “at fertilization inside the mother’s womb.”
“And I never had peace about that,” McGill said. “That’s what we tried and that failed.”
The senator said that, after prayer, he thinks life begins at the moment of fertilization, be it inside the mother or “creatively outside the mother’s womb.”
“That union between the sperm and the egg is where life begins, and maybe where God places his spirit inside that child, so to speak,” McGill said. “Therefore, I would hope that the legislation that we push in the future would state that all the eggs fertilized need to be placed in the mother’s womb.”
McGill said that means doctors should fertilize only as many eggs as they plan to implant.
So McGill is attempting to pass legislation that would force a doctor to put every single fertilized egg into the mother receiving in vitro fertilization which of course means the doctor would only be able to fertilize one or two, which dramatically reduces the possibility of one of them being strong enough to implant into the uterus, or else fill her up. Octomom style, with up to ten fertilized eggs and hope they all did not turn out to be viable.
How many women do you think would be willing to pay thousands of dollars for in-vitro fertilization, with the viability this dramatically reduced, then?
You know the only thing worse than having politicians making policy based on Biblical teaching, is having them make policy based on their misunderstanding of Biblical teaching.