Frei and Barnes on the Texas Heartbeat Law
Here’s an excellent clarification by Barnes of the Texas Heartbeat Law and the recent SCOTUS ruling on it, as well as what the next steps might be.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
So what is the correct terminology for Roe v. Wade? Surely not the “law of the land” as Roe v. Wade was a court case. If it was a law, then it would have been passed by the 97th Congress on June 31st in 1972. (I know, Thirty days has September, April, June, and November, but who needs to remember, my days belong to you. )There is no June 31st, and Congress never passed such a law. So the description is something legal, like “Roe v. Wade is the guiding Supreme Court ruling on abortion…”, or something. What is the correct description?
Thanks.
Contraceptive meds have been widely (universally?) available for 50 plus years.
Unwanted pregnancies are for the most part the result of sexual irresponsibility.
Oh ! But I forgot ! There are those millions and millions of cases of rape and incest that occur in the USA each year ! I should be immediately admonished by the Wise Latina ( errr, I mean the Wise LatinX).
LeClerc: [if I understand this correctly] part of the issue is that some (all? ) chemical abortifacients [what a word!] act by preventing an already fertilized egg or multicell blastocyst from implanting on the uterine wall and thus continuing as a potentially successful pregnancy to birth. Thus a potential human being is purposefully prevented from being allowed to live (i.e., is murdered). The word potential is clearly the critical term here. Nonchemical modes of contraception then might still be moral if they prevent conception, rather than implantation [except under Catholic doctrine?].
Saying this another way, and addressing the “my body – my choice” issue, is if it can be logically claimed that after conception a second body distinct from the woman’s is also then resident within her physical form. Everyone knows this, too, but I don’t hear this aspect/ argument as often for some reason.
Can it be a suitably moral position that the women does not explicitly know that a fertilized egg or blastocyst exists at this very early stage, so that she is not explicitly murdering the potential human being?
A few weeks ago my daughter also pointed out that at some level of embryonic development (15 to 20 weeks?), if the embryo or fetus is of a future female person, at that point she also has developed all of the several million female gamete (egg) cells within her developing ovaries. Aborting that person after that timeframe means that person and all of her potential future children have also been aborted (or murdered, if you prefer).
If the report I saw a while ago is true, claiming that 20 to 25% of all pregnancies end in a miscarriage, then “Nature” is not adverse to ending potential lives any more than the more rabid pro-choicers are. Given all we hear about medical advances, I found that 20% number hard to believe, but those advances may only apply to later stages of pregnancy and Nature has other criteria for ending a pregnancy. Darwinian natural selection prior to birth?
Corrections or clarifications to any of the above are welcome.
Barrier methods of contraception are discouraged by the Church as couples engaging in the marriage act are to be married, and be open to the newness of life. The Anglicans at the 1930 Lambeth Conference were the first major Protestant group to separate the marriage act, the one body union, from openness to new life to a purely recreational act. Before that, all major Protestant denominations agreed with the teaching on not contracepting that the Roman Catholic Church taught.
The Church teaches there are at least two judgements, one upon death, and the other at the end of time. Sort of like we can tell a baseball trade was “good” immediately, and we need to wait until all the ripples from the trade have settled. Aborting a female with hundreds of potential eggs in her means none of those possible people with ever exist. But then aborting a male also means that male will never have the opportunity to likewise participate in procreation. An individual, male or female, may contribute to making the world better without having children. In procreation, the Creator of the Universe is there, in the monster with two backs, to give the new creation a unique soul.
The Texas Law is worrisome, even if you like the intent.
1) Defining “Life” as a heart Beat is going to force changes in the medical community since they define “Life/Death” according to brain death. Hearts are now frequently re-started after a heart attack or accident and hearts are occasionally stopped in surgery to allow vessel or valve work.
2) Allowing suits against unpopular statements will destroy the concept of “Free Speech” and other “Freedoms”. If the Texas abortion concept is adopted, you may believe that the vaccine is an unaccepotable risk, but a “true-believer” may sue you for millions for spreading “untruths”. If you fight it in court, you will be bankrupt and destitute from the expense. If you don’t fight it, you loose by default and are bankrupt and destitute.
If abortion is only opposed by a minority, suck it up. Teach your children how to behave. If “Free Speech” is opposed by a minority, they can destroy you in courts run by judges appointed by their masters. That was a core reason that I oppose “Red Flag Laws”. Any “busybody” can destroy you and your freedoms that you can no longer afford.
The courts and law enforcement have already been distorted to protect criminals if they are of the right “identity”. “THEIRS” don’t get prosecuted for violent crimes or even murder. You get “Life without Parole” for doing 31 in a 30 MPH zone. Using the courts is a sucker play. They own that “casino”.
Be careful of what you ask for, you may get it.
Mike-SMO:
The Texas law doesn’t define life as having a heartbeat. It defines a heartbeat as the starting point of a individual human life. Before that, one can assume that the fetus is either seen by that law as not human yet or as not an individual life yet, or as not both.