Texas triumphs with new law banning abortsions after 6-weeks, child w/ heart beat

Discussion in 'Anglican and Christian News' started by anglican74, Sep 3, 2021.

  1. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    1,074
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    Jellies and Rexlion like this.
  2. bwallac2335

    bwallac2335 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,163
    Likes Received:
    598
    Religion:
    ACNA
    This is great. Now we need to step up our game and support these children and women.
     
  3. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    908
    Likes Received:
    336
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    It’s a terrible law and needs to be struck down. It almost certainly will be.

    After seeing the way the “pro-life” crowd in general has behaved throughout the pandemic, the notion that protecting life is their goal just doesn’t pass muster. It’s about control and the desire to punish.
     
    Annie Grace likes this.
  4. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    1,074
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    Jellies, Othniel and Rexlion like this.
  5. ZachT

    ZachT Active Member

    Posts:
    252
    Likes Received:
    237
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    This is something I've only recently paid attention to, because there was a case in New South Wales where a megachurch pastor broke lockdown and directed his congregants to "end the lockdown in Jesus' name".

    What I found most curious about the US experience is pro-life religious groups that echo the exact same mantra as pro-choice advocates scream - "My body, my choice". It's remarkable, almost as if a satirist started the chant as a joke and anti-lockdown/anti-vaxxers didn't notice they were being made fun of. I fail to see a meaningful difference between refusing to vaccinate or refusing to stay home, potentially killing a vulnerable neighbour, on the basis of bodily autonomy, and a young woman having an abortion on the basis of bodily autonomy. Either your bodily autonomy trumps another's right to life, or it doesn't. It cannot be true for the elderly or those with pre-existing health conditions, and not true for the unborn.

    As @anglican74 quotes above "Therefore, all members and clergy are called to promote and respect the sanctity of every human life from conception to natural death.".

    Of course I don't mean to say ACNA is one of those churches advocating for congregants/parishioners to ignore public health directives, nor that it's reasonable to tar all pro-life advocates with the same brush.
     
  6. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,373
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican Christian
    It's using the progressives' own catchphrase against them. Don't you get it?

    The big difference is, when we say "my body, my choice" in reference to what we are willing to put into our bodies, it's a legitimate phrase. When pro-choice people say it, they overlook the scientific fact that the embryo/fetus is not a part of the woman's body, but is an occupant.

    The suggestion that there's an equivalence between intentionally ending the occupant's life and someone accidentally catching a virus is a false one.
     
  7. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    908
    Likes Received:
    336
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    The “pro-life” movement stems from a uniquely American pathology. The rank and file in the movement for the most part simply do not recognize the inconsistencies in their policy preferences. Those that do end up figuring it out usually leave the movement. “Bodily autonomy” to one who is pro-choice means one has no more right to force a woman to keep a pregnancy than one does to put her at risk of getting infected with a disease. There’s no constitutional right to breathe on people. So a view that upholds abortion rights and mask/vaccine mandates is consistent, whatever else one might have to say about such a position. The opposing view, as I have come to see it, is transparently far more interested in control and the ability to punish dissent, than about preserving life, including unborn life. It amounts to simple ‘cruelty for cruelty’s sake’, and like I said, it’s a uniquely American pathology. Policies that are aligned with an overall pro-choice orientation are what’s been responsible for the multi-decade decline in the abortion rate that we’ve been experiencing in this country, and the “pro-life” movement is doing everything they can to reverse that trend.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2021
    Annie Grace likes this.
  8. ZachT

    ZachT Active Member

    Posts:
    252
    Likes Received:
    237
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    At what point does an accident cease to be an accident? Suppose a big red button with a sign saying "PRESS THIS BUTTON". Suppose if the button is pressed someone in the next room dies. If you saw the button, pressed it, and someone died, we would probably agree it was a horrific accident. Now suppose I told you in advance "if you press that button, someone will die", we would all agree that if you press that button after being informed, you killing someone in the next room is most certainly not an accident.

    If someone goes outside and spreads COVID in ignorance, that's an accident. If all the public health advice informs you that there is a major spreading event, it's quite probable many people may have contracted it but aren't aware yet, and so everyone must remain locked down at home until all the cases have been traced and quarantined, and you choose to go outside anyway and visit your friends in the next city over that is not an accident. And if you spread the disease to a new city and many people die, that doesn't demonstrate a particularly strong reverence for life. You prioritised your own convenience over someone else's life. You're not using a progressive catchphrase against them, you're agreeing with them that your bodily autonomy is greater than another person's life - which is a deeply un-christian position.

    This same idea applies to vaccination.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2021
  9. Br. Thomas

    Br. Thomas New Member

    Posts:
    22
    Likes Received:
    18
    Country:
    U.S.A.
    Religion:
    Anglican Catholic
    I certainly agree with the Texas ruling. However, I do not understand how advocates of abortion do not see it is actually very racist. Planned Parenthood kills more Black babies in NYC than are born there. That, in itself, is a sad commentary on this nation of the USA. Then, many women use abortion as a means of birth-control. There are so many means by which to avert pregnancy and abortion should not be one of them. I look for much turmoil over this ruling and all need to stand steadfast in not allowing things to go backwards. I actually fear violence and destruction of church-properties over this.
     
    Jellies, anglican74 and Rexlion like this.
  10. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,373
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican Christian
    I understand the tactic being employed here. When one cannot prevail on the subject at hand, change the subject.

    This is a thread about the TX law limiting abortions and saving the lives of unborn children.
     
  11. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    1,074
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    My position is a consistent christian and Anglican position thank you very much
     
    Jellies and Rexlion like this.
  12. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    908
    Likes Received:
    336
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Perhaps. But in that case, mine certainly is as well, and is arguably more faithful to the biblical message. I am not advocating for abortion as a positive public good. I am saying that principled opposition to the new TX law is consistent with the policy positions ZachT mentioned. It is one thing to be morally opposed to abortion. It is quite another to be willing to cancel a woman’s bodily autonomy in order to pursue that opposition. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The new TX law doesn’t even make an exception for rape. Think about the implications of that. Abortion opponents seem to be far more concerned about abortion law than about actual abortions. The point of the law is not to prevent abortions, but to publicly shame and financially ruin any dissenters from an extremist view. The enforcement mechanism is appalling. It’s a bad law and it will likely (and hopefully) be struck down.
     
    Annie Grace likes this.
  13. ZachT

    ZachT Active Member

    Posts:
    252
    Likes Received:
    237
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I thought about the implications.

    If you believe the fetus is a living, breathing, ensouled human being, on what basis could it possibly be ethical to execute them because of the sins of the father? Surely the law presupposes the fetus is human, imbued with human rights. I cannot be executed today if I am the product of a rape.
     
    Othniel, Stalwart and Rexlion like this.
  14. ZachT

    ZachT Active Member

    Posts:
    252
    Likes Received:
    237
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I don't think that's a charitable look at my intentions. I was originally replying to Invictus, I agree it was a derailing of the original thread but if that bothers you, you needn't have replied to me in the first place. If you don't want to talk about anti-maskers relationships with pro-life movements in an abortion thread that's fine, but there's no deceptive intent to change the subject.
     
  15. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    908
    Likes Received:
    336
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    At 6 weeks, no, I do not believe this. However, even if I granted the premise, it seems clear (at least to me) that the mother in this instance has the superior claim.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2021
  16. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,373
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican Christian
    Good point. The current thinking is that the emotional harm to the woman of having to carry a rape baby to term is somewhat more akin to a "life-threatening condition," similar to if doctors determined that trying to carry a baby to term could kill the mother. The other factor is the woman's lack of consent and theoretical lack of a duty of care toward the baby. But I agree with you; when is it ethical to kill a pre-born, ensouled human being (not actually breathing yet, but I assume that was for rhetorical effect).
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  17. PDL

    PDL Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    528
    Likes Received:
    388
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Religion:
    Church of England
    I will not be thanking God for this law. I do not support abortion; however, bad laws do not help anyone. This is a very bad law. It goes against the general principles of law. It creates a situation that pits individual against individual. Why one earth a place that is highly litigious needs a law that says you can litigate even if you're not an injured party just beggars belief. I'm surprised the first attempt to get this law overturned by the Supreme Court failed. If for no other reason I thought the Supreme Court would strike it down because it is such poor legislation.

    This is going to create more problems than it solves. People will use it in an attempt to get money. It will be employed by people to exact revenge on people they have a grievance against. That's just two possibilities.

    It is, I believe, cowardice on the part of the Texan legislature. If the State of Texas wants abortions banned outright or when a particular period of gestation has passed they should enact a statute to that end. Then it should be the state authorities that prosecute those who break the law. This bounty hunter law is not the way to proceed.
     
  18. bwallac2335

    bwallac2335 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,163
    Likes Received:
    598
    Religion:
    ACNA
    The law was crafted this way to get around being stuck down. The courts had struck down other similar laws that used the government to punish those who got abortions. They removed that power from the state and gave it to individuals. I don't like this either as they made it a civil law instead of a criminal law but I support it if it stops abortion.
     
    Rexlion and Stalwart like this.
  19. ZachT

    ZachT Active Member

    Posts:
    252
    Likes Received:
    237
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I'm talking about from the laws perspective. Obviously if you don't think the fetus is a human at 6 weeks, you don't need the excuse of rape to abort it.

    It's clear that the mother has the superior claim over another person's life? What if the fetus is born - can the mother execute the child because they are a living trigger and causing enormous amounts of distress? If not, what changes? Is there any reasonable qualification on the right to life?
     
    Othniel, Rexlion and Stalwart like this.
  20. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    2,168
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Where’s the lie? Thanks for a succinct summary of the issue involved.


    Exactly. The only time when “mother vs fetus” dilemma is even allowed is when the mother’s health is at risk.