11 years in jail for a stillbirth: did the Church in El Salvador support this legislation?

[neophyte]

American law prior to Roe v. Wade was wrong on this issue. Murderers ought to be punished, not deemed the victims of their own crimes.

As I said before, I believe that women should be treated as adults.

Do you also think that women who are sex-slaves should be prosecuted for prostitution as well?

 

[starshiptrooper]

That is called rape and is penalized in civilized society. To paraphrase a feminist saying, murder is murder, is murder. The status of the victim and the perpetrator makes abortion a more vicious form of murder.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Coercion has always been an acceptable defense. Your question is irrelevant.

 

[Arkansan]

Murderers should have their lives ruined. Not sure why this is controversial.

Arkansan:

American law prior to Roe v. Wade was wrong on this issue. Murderers ought to be punished, not deemed the victims of their own crimes.

As I said before, I believe that women should be treated as adults.

Do you also think that women who are sex-slaves should be prosecuted for prostitution as well?

As I said, I believe that (the vast majority of) women should be treated as adults capable of exercising moral agency. Bringing up weird edge cases doesn’t change the general state of things.

 

[neophyte]

As I said, I believe that (the vast majority of) women should be treated as adults capable of exercising moral agency.

That would be a “yes”, then.

That’s pretty twisted. I have nothing more to say to you.

 

[Arkansan]

I refrained from answering your question because the answer is obvious and it’s a ridiculous and irrelevant scenario.

 

[neophyte]

I refrained from answering your question because the answer is obvious and it’s a ridiculous and irrelevant scenario.

Whatever you have to keep telling yourself to stay convinced you’re right, I suppose.

 

[FiveLinden]

Let’s keep it friendly, otherwise the thread will be closed, I predict.

I think one of the things illustrated by this case and other extreme examples of anti-abortion laws is that while world-wide there is a general will to restrict abortions there are very few parts of the world in which there is general support for the full Catholic position being put into law: bans of very early abortion, cases of rape and incest, fetal abnormality, risk to the mother etc. And almost no politicians advocate for such laws, preferring to get what restrictions are legally possible. I wonder if in doing so, and obscuring the full Catholic view, such politicians are not objectively creating scandal by implying that some abortions are ok.

 

[IWantGod]

Abortion is wrong. But locking up women for 30 years for having an abortion; I just don’t think this is the right way to go about changing this culture. Policing women’s wombs just doesn’t seem to be a justified right of any conceivable government. Even if the whole world agreed that its good to save a child from abortion, that doesn’t mean the way we go about doing that is right.

 

[Arkansan]

Abortion is wrong. But locking up women for 30 years for having an abortion; I just don’t think this is the right way to go about changing this culture. Policing women’s wombs just doesn’t seem to be a justified right of any conceivable government. Even if the whole world agreed that its good to save a child from abortion, that doesn’t mean the way we go about doing that is right.

“Killing one’s wife is wrong. But locking up men for 30 years for killing their wives; I just don’t think this is the right way to go about changing this culture. Policing men’s homes just doesn’t seem to be a justified right of any conceivable government. Even if the whole world agreed that its good to save a wife from being killed, that doesn’t mean the way we go about doing that is right.”

 

[IWantGod]

There is a vast difference between policing somebodies home and policing somebodies womb. And while a man knows he is killing a person. Most people do not think of a human embryo in that way. They do not see them selves as deliberately killing a person. So to treat them like murderers seems out of place to me, at least i don’t think any government, beyond our religious convictions, have found genuine justification to treat them in this fashion.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Quite right, a man’s home used to be his castle.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Lots of slave-owners in the US thought that their slaves were not people either. This is a simple issue of logical consistency. If the unborn child is a person, (as proven by philosophy and biology), then abortion is murder and should be treated accordingly.

 

[IWantGod]

Yes but there is good reason to think that black people are people. The only reason i believe that the human embryo has the same dignity at conception as a person living outside of the womb is because my faith tells me that a human embryo from the moment of conception has a personal soul. So my definition of a person and the legal definition of a person is completely different. We do not live in a theocracy and we cannot impose our beliefs and ideologies on people just because they are strongly held beliefs, even if we believe them to have philosophical support.

Women who have abortions do not tend to have the same attitude towards children who exist outside of the womb, so how can we justify treating women as murderers when they don’t think that’s what they are doing, and how does the government pass legislation against the act of abortion without forcing our religious convictions on the rest of society? Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Do you not see the problem?

 

[Arkansan]

And while a man knows he is killing a person. Most people do not think of a human embryo in that way. They do not see them selves as deliberately killing a person.

“Not guilty by reason of the victim was subhuman”

we cannot impose our beliefs and ideologies on people just because they are strongly held beliefs, even if we believe them to have philosophical support

If you don’t believe in forcing your opinions on others, then you can’t have any political beliefs whatsoever.

Women who have abortions do not tend to have the same attitude towards children who exist outside of the womb, so how can we justify treating women as murderers when they don’t think that’s what they are doing, and how does the government pass legislation against the act of abortion without forcing our religious convictions on the rest of society? Two wrongs don’t make a right.

“Germans who kill Jews do not tend to have the same attitude towards non-Jews, so how can we justify treating Germans as murderers when they don’t think that’s what they are doing, and how does the government pass legislation against the act of killing Jews without forcing our religious convictions on the rest of society? Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

 

[IWantGod]

This is all fun I’m sure but the fact remains that we cannot impose are religious convictions on the rest of society through secular law. You cannot fight fascism with more fascism even if you happen to be morally right about abortion. Your position on the matter is not self-evident, it is a matter of faith, and the appropriation of religious definitions of moral value into law is not how the legal system works, and there is no point in not acknowledging that just because your against the sin of abortion. The secular legal system, in regards to persons and their value, operates fundamentally in a different context to our religious convictions and it always will. Its pragmatic, not Christian. That’s why the system cannot protect a person, as created by God, from the moment of conception.

If you have a problem with that then you cannot support a secular democracy, you are going to have to argue for a Christian theocracy.

Yes, two wrongs don’t make a right.

On the other hand you can do what Jesus taught us to do which is spread the light of the gospel, spread the Catholic faith; that’s how you fight the culture of death. Or perhaps your heart is too focused on punishing the wicked?

Some moral concerns, even ones as serious as abortion, can only be dealt with on a social level. Which means changing the mentalities of people, as opposed to changing the law.

 

[MPat]

So what sentence is appropriate for a raped woman who uses the morning after pill, which I understand Catholics consider to be an abortion. Similar to the penalty for murder? Or less?

You do know that even in case of “ordinary murder” extenuating circumstances can result in significantly lower sentences, perhaps even to the point of no punishment being given?

This is all fun I’m sure but the fact remains that we cannot impose are religious convictions on the rest of society through secular law.

In what sense? Is that “cannot” as in “aren’t able”, or “cannot” as in “shouldn’t”?

Your position on the matter is not self-evident, it is a matter of faith, and the appropriation of religious definitions of moral value into law is not how the legal system works, and there is no point in not acknowledging that just because your against the sin of abortion.

Um, the legal system works like this: someone prepares a draft law, it gets passed, and then there is a law.

As you can see, it is completely irrelevant if something is “a matter of faith” or “self-evident” - whatever that was supposed to mean.

Now, of course, as a practical matter, in a democratic state passing a law that is not popular is not easy, and takes lots of hard work - most of it making that law more popular. But just because it is hard doesn’t mean one must give up right away.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Now where did I say that I supported secular democracy? “By their fruits you will know them.” Secular democracy has given us this horror of modern abortion.

 

[IWantGod]

So you don’t support the split between church and state or the split between Catholic law and state law. You want a theocracy right?

 

[Arkansan]

This is all fun I’m sure but the fact remains that we cannot impose are religious convictions on the rest of society through secular law. You cannot fight fascism with more fascism even if you happen to be morally right about abortion. Your position on the matter is not self-evident, it is a matter of faith, and the appropriation of religious definitions of moral value into law is not how the legal system works, and there is no point in not acknowledging that just because your against the sin of abortion. The secular legal system, in regards to persons and their value, operates fundamentally in a different context to our religious convictions and it always will. Its pragmatic, not Christian. That’s why the system cannot protect a person, as created by God, from the moment of conception.

If you have a problem with that then you cannot support a secular democracy, you are going to have to argue for a Christian theocracy.

Yes, two wrongs don’t make a right.

On the other hand you can do what Jesus taught us to do which is spread the light of the gospel, spread the Catholic faith; that’s how you fight the culture of death. Or perhaps your heart is too focused on punishing the wicked?

Some moral concerns, even ones as serious as abortion, can only be dealt with on a social level. Which means changing the mentalities of people, as opposed to changing the law.

I don’t support either secularism or democracy, but I don’t see any reason in principle why even a secular democracy couldn’t outlaw all murder. If you label anything that some people disagree with “religious convictions” and say that they therefore can’t be put into law, then again, you’ve disqualified yourself from holding any political positions whatsoever.