A recently enacted Texas law that restricts most abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected went into effect on Wednesday after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request for emergency injunctive relief requested by Texas abortion providers. As a result, most abortion activity in Texas has come to a halt. Litigation will undoubtedly continue in the days and weeks to come.
This litigation evokes a core principle: The law must protect innocent human lives, including those who are not yet born, and support women facing a challenging or unplanned pregnancy.
Texas Heartbeat Law Is Now in Effect. Here’s What You Need to Know. (dailysignal.com)
When I was a teenager, I enjoyed reading science fiction. One of the books I read promoted the notion that we really don’t become fully human, therefore entitled to our own life, until our teenage years. What was the driver for such a belief? Well, in that story someone had perfected a technology for “eternal life” Supposedly, when we got old, we could have our “mind” transferred to a new, younger body, but that created a problem. Consciences must be appeased. So that younger body had to have a mind that supposedly had never been educated or suffered any trials. Thus, we could excuse ourselves and say we had just conducted a mental abortion and replaced an empty head with what had been extracted from our own, “human” mind.
Was that author presenting a rationalization for abortion? Yes.
How is a Christian suppose to look upon this matter? The Bible commands the following: “Thou shall not murder.” So, the issue is whether or not abortion is murder, not whether the Bible prohibits abortion.
- Are the unborn human beings? Do the unborn have rights we are obligated to protect?
- Does the right of the mother to have sovereign control over her body supercede the right of an unborn baby to life.
Is that the end to all the questions? No.
Do the living even have the right to CREATE life? Presumably, we are talking about human beings, not dogs or mice, but consider the viewpoint of an Atheist. No God. What makes your rights so special? Government gives us our rights, and government can take them away. If we can abort a baby in the womb, what stops us from aborting anyone’s life for the good of the almighty state? What stops us from creating babies and using their flesh to serve ends of the almighty state?
Should people who are incapable of taking care of themselves have children? No, and this is one of the current rationalizations for abortion. If people who are incapable taking care of children have babies, those babies won’t be properly fed, clothed, housed, and educated. Therefore, we supposedly need to abort the lives of the unborn of poor mothers for their own good. Abortionists care for children and poor young women, don’t you know?
Yet Christians believe there is a God, and the Bible commands us to be fruitful and multiply. Multiplication requires an excess of resources. Only the fruitful have the capacity, the excess of resources required to multiply. Those incapable of taking care of themselves cannot multiply on their own. If left to themselves, they would die. So, what should we do?
Does the government have to get involved? The government is supposed to protect the rights of all people, but charity isn’t a function of government. When government provides “charity,” politicians just use our money to buy votes. So, if we don’t want poor and unproductive people to multiply, we need to stop government officials from paying them to do it. Instead, we need to depend upon private charity to help people who cannot take care of themselves.
So, how is all this relevant to that Texas law? We have fifty states. If the states had been allowed to make their own laws as Constitution requires, by now several of them would have hit upon one or more halfway decent compromises, and the others would have copied them. That is why the Supreme Court should not have stuck its nose where it does not belong. Instead, when they have to make stuff up to do so, we now have justices calling the Texas law unconstitutional.
Where is the right to an abortion in the Constitution? It isn’t.
Is the Texas law a good solution for balancing the rights of an unborn child against the rights of its mother? Time will tell. Some have called the Texas law ingenious, but it is also a kludge. To get their law pass the Supreme Court, Texas legislators had to put private citizens in charge of its enforcement. That’s unusual, to say the least.
Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned, and solving the problem of abortion needs to be given back to the states.
Meanwhile, Biden’s Department of Justices is taking sides, President Biden directs DOJ to sue Texas over abortion law (nypost.com).
Other Views
- Supreme Court Refuses to Block Texas Abortion Law – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
- Texas Abortion Law: The Supreme Court Gets It Right | National Review
- Supreme Court votes 5-4 to leave Texas abortion law in place | Fox News and Andrew McCarthy: Supreme Court and Texas abortion ban — the law is in effect but nothing has happened | Fox News
- Fiendish Clever Wise or Foolish Texas Abortion Law? King Solomon Blog – Rudy u Martinka (rudymartinka.com)
Prince William-Manassas Family Alliance 
Reblogged this on boudica.us and commented:
H/T Citizen Tom
Thank you very much for the reblog.
Thank you Tom for always presenting the truth in a precise and clear manner— facts are facts, despite the masses trying to say otherwise — maybe those of us who continue to showcase truth with fact — well, we’ll all probably wind up in everyone’s spam buckets— kind of like I did the other day — in what those who toss us in buckets don’t understand is that our voices will only continue to echo from said buckets!!!!
@Julie
It is their consciences that trouble them, but they take it out on those who give voice to the fact of their sins. Yet, we must speak out against what is being done to the unborn.