Abortion and Nuremberg

[Fairwinds]

“Following the defeat of the Third Reich at the conclusion of World War II in Europe, the party (the Nazi party, the ruling party of the state) was “completely and finally abolished and declared to be illegal” by the Allied occupying powers.”

the Gestapo was also declared a criminal organization.

 

[devoutchristian]

What makes devoutchristian the rule by which good government is measured? I prefer to follow Winston Churchill’s lead; “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the others.”

Unlike devoutchristian, I do not believe it possible to establish a perfect government. Fairwinds and I have been pointing to the fact that those men who did try to install perfect government ended up creating a state that was far worse and horrifying than what existed before. The attitude that usually exists in overthrowing a state that is perceived to be flawed or tyrannical is (to quote an early Bolshevik Cheka commander); “we don’t care about Justice; we’re here to settle accounts.”

Even the Vatican has not been immune lately to many trials and tribulations. The US Constitution may not be perfect, but I would take it over the starry eyed fantasies of one whose first inclination in starting a new society is to round up all of the abortion providers.

No government is perfect. I’m just going for a government that isn’t evil.

“Following the defeat of the Third Reich at the conclusion of World War II in Europe, the party (the Nazi party, the ruling party of the state) was “completely and finally abolished and declared to be illegal” by the Allied occupying powers.”

Of course. But that didn’t make the just actions taken by the German government illegitimate.

 

[YoungTradCath]

What makes devoutchristian the rule by which good government is measured? I prefer to follow Winston Churchill’s lead; “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the others.”

Unlike devoutchristian, I do not believe it possible to establish a perfect government. Fairwinds and I have been pointing to the fact that those men who did try to install perfect government ended up creating a state that was far worse and horrifying than what existed before. The attitude that usually exists in overthrowing a state that is perceived to be flawed or tyrannical is (to quote an early Bolshevik Cheka commander); “we don’t care about Justice; we’re here to settle accounts.”

Even the Vatican has not been immune lately to many trials and tribulations. The US Constitution may not be perfect, but I would take it over the starry eyed fantasies of one whose first inclination in starting a new society is to round up all of the abortion providers.

I don’t think anyone said devoutchristian is the rule by which good government is measured. I think a government is as good as the level to which it is a Christian state and promotes Catholic morals and represses public attempts to claim non-existent “rights” to promote abortion and any other moral evil.

No one claims that it is possible to establish a perfect government. However, when a government is blatantly permitting or promoting such atrocities as abortion, it is not good enough to say, “Oh, but Sally has a right to ‘free speech’ says the Constitution! She can say whatever she wants!” Should Sally have the unfettered ability to publicly promote abortion, or to incite the practice in other people? Absolutely not. She should not have that ability, and the government should swiftly take it away from her.

The state has a duty and obligation toward the Church. By saying that I am not “assuming” that the USA is a Catholic country. I am saying that we should work toward making it one.

 

[Fairwinds]

Sort of. The women who’ve had abortions certainly need therapy but I don’t think they should have any legal action taken against them. In my country, the people in government who are against abortion keep their mouths shut because if they voice any pro-life sentiments they’ll lose their careers. Abortion is totally normal here, so I think it takes away from the culpability of a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy and is already confused about what to do, and has the raging hormones of a pregnant woman ontop of that. It’s not the same as some robber smothering an infant to keep him quiet.

the OP asks the the new regime hand out punishment, and if they haven’t committed murder, what did they do?

 

[YoungTradCath]

“Following the defeat of the Third Reich at the conclusion of World War II in Europe, the party (the Nazi party, the ruling party of the state) was “completely and finally abolished and declared to be illegal” by the Allied occupying powers.”

So why is it impossible for that to happen here? What makes it so different?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Sort of. The women who’ve had abortions certainly need therapy but I don’t think they should have any legal action taken against them. In my country, the people in government who are against abortion keep their mouths shut because if they voice any pro-life sentiments they’ll lose their careers. Abortion is totally normal here, so I think it takes away from the culpability of a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy and is already confused about what to do, and has the raging hormones of a pregnant woman ontop of that. It’s not the same as some robber smothering an infant to keep him quiet.

Certainly.

 

[jmcrae]

I agree with Ryan Black. We would not be able to prosecute them because ex post facto laws violate the Constitution.

Also, I don’t think one could file a wrongful death suit against them because the baby they aborted is not longer alive to sue, and the mother gave her consent to have her baby killed.

The father and the grandparents could sue the mother and the abortionist - and Planned Parenthood, and anything else that you can drive into bankruptcy in punishment for the crime.

 

[Fairwinds]

…

The state has a duty and obligation toward the Church. By saying that I am not “assuming” that the USA is a Catholic country. I am saying that we should work toward making it one.

don’t derail this thread. of course we will prohibit by force of law all non-pro-life activities, including abortion, contraception and the advocacy of such. however, the OP asks about Nuremberg-style justice should a “pro-life” regime come to power in the USofA, including ex post facto punishment.

we’re trying to oblige him by working out the details as to who we’ll round up.

 

[Fairwinds]

The father and the grandparents could sue the mother and the abortionist - and Planned Parenthood, and anything else that you can drive into bankruptcy in punishment for the crime.

and bring the mother in as a cross-defendant.

that’s on the civil side.

we believe that everyone involved in an abortion and contraception should face life in prison.

 

[YoungTradCath]

don’t derail this thread. of course we will prohibit by force of law all non-pro-life activities, including abortion, contraception and the advocacy of such. however, the OP asks about Nuremberg-style justice should a “pro-life” regime come to power in the USofA, including ex post facto punishment.

we’re trying to oblige him by working out the details as to who we’ll round up.

Whew, dodged a bullet there. I thought you were arguing against that. (for real) Sorry. I don’t see what I said as being a derail, I think it really is connected to the discussion at hand, thank you for reassuring me that we are at least partially on the same page.

=]

 

[jmcrae]

don’t derail this thread. of course we will prohibit by force of law all non-pro-life activities, including abortion, contraception and the advocacy of such. however, the OP asks about Nuremberg-style justice should a “pro-life” regime come to power in the USofA, including ex post facto punishment.

we’re trying to oblige him by working out the details as to who we’ll round up.

It seems to me that the American people were in favour of the Nuremberg trials, and the executions that followed, even though, at the time that the acts on trial were committed, they were perfectly legal, and even required by law.

There is no reason to think that a future generation of Americans, fed up and horrified by the behaviour of this generation toward the weak and vulnerable, would not vote in favour of retroactive justice on the abortion issue.

 

[YoungTradCath]

and bring the mother in as a cross-defendant.

that’s on the civil side.

we believe that everyone involved in an abortion and contraception should face life in prison.

Let me… interject.

I do not believe any of the participants in this thread think all people involved in a babyslaughter to be equally guilty or culpable. There is a stratum of guilt, and I think everyone should be tried fairly.

 

[YoungTradCath]

**It seems to me that the American people were in favour of the Nuremberg trials, and the executions that followed, even though, at the time that the acts on trial were committed, they were perfectly legal, and even required by law.

There is no reason to think that a future generation of Americans, fed up and horrified by the behaviour of this generation toward the weak and vulnerable, would not vote in favour of retroactive justice on the abortion issue.**

exactly. Not that I am arguing for or against execution, jury is still out on that one (no pun intended) in my head; I’m trying to add it all up.

 

[Fairwinds]

It seems to me that the American people were in favour of the Nuremberg trials, and the executions that followed, even though, at the time that the acts on trial were committed, they were perfectly legal, and even required by law.

There is no reason to think that a future generation of Americans, fed up and horrified by the behaviour of this generation toward the weak and vulnerable, would not vote in favour of retroactive justice on the abortion issue.

this is too important to allow mere constitutional issues get in the way. and because the constitution prohibits ex post facto and bills of attainder, we shall void the constitution and impose retroactively, life sentences on everyone involved. from the women who had abortions to the people who didn’t do enough to stop this crime.

please have your papers in order.

 

[LilyPearls]

the OP asks the the new regime hand out punishment, and if they haven’t committed murder, what did they do?

Those women commited murder. But if the pro-life government is just then it’s laws and how people are to be judged against them are not as black and white as you’re making it out to be.

Aside from remembering compassion and weighing all the factors in each person’s case, there is the matter of impracticality. An awful lot of women would be going to jail. Can the economy afford that? No. We can’t afford to house and feed them, we can’t afford to have that many job vacancies, the prisons are not large enough, everybody would know someone who went to prison and that would wreak havoc on public moral, and public opinion of the government as well. They’d never be voted back in again. It’s basically impossible.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Those women commited murder. But if the pro-life government is just then it’s laws and how people are to be judged against them are not as black and white as you’re making it out to be.

Aside from remembering compassion and weighing all the factors in each person’s case, there is the matter of impracticality. An awful lot of women would be going to jail. Can the economy afford that? No. We can’t afford to house and feed them, we can’t afford to have that many job vacancies, the prisons are not large enough, everybody would know someone who went to prison and that would wreak havoc on public moral, and public opinion of the government as well. They’d never be voted back in again. It’s basically impossible.

Fairwinds doesn’t actually believes this; the poster is using that language to show a supposed absurdity in previous poster’s logic.

 

[devoutchristian]

Fairwinds doesn’t actually believes this; the poster is using that language to show a supposed absurdity in previous poster’s logic.

Indeed. What’s the word for an Internet poster who argues for a position that they don’t actually believe?

 

[Fairwinds]

Let me… interject.

I do not believe any of the participants in this thread think all people involved in a babyslaughter to be equally guilty or culpable. There is a stratum of guilt, and I think everyone should be tried fairly.

I think the felony-murder rule, conspiracy liability, aiding and abetting and agency rules should gather in almost everyone. RICO (the anti-racketeering law) was practically made for this broad sweep.

there’s only one punishment for murder, and that’s life in prison. parole after so many years for those in the lower part of the stratum.

 

[Fairwinds]

Indeed. What’s the word for an Internet poster who argues for a position that they don’t actually believe?

don’t be accusing me of insincerity, that would be uncharitable.

your position needed much support. I am providing it.

 

[jmcrae]

this is too important to allow mere constitutional issues get in the way. and because the constitution prohibits ex post facto and bills of attainder, we shall void the constitution and impose retroactively, life sentences on everyone involved. from the women who had abortions to the people who didn’t do enough to stop this crime.

please have your papers in order.

**The seed planted there at Nuremberg in 1947
Started to sprout and to grow
Gradually, I understood what that verdict meant to me
When there are crimes that I can see and I can know

And now I also know what it is to be charged with mass guilt
Once in a lifetime is enough for me
No, I could not take it for a second time
And that is why I am here today**

Read more: ANI DIFRANCO - MY NAME IS LISA KALVELAGE LYRICS