Abortion has been made illegal! What happens now?

[JReducation]

adamsapple:
This is a secular government. Natural law, as interpreted by the Church is not, and should not, be forced on others.

The issue, as I see it, is whether governments should recognize the unborn as having human rights. Personally, I think it’s a no-brainer, but the majority doesn’t agree.

If all humans were granted human rights - born and unborn - then all laws protecting humans would apply to the fetus. In reality, however, I doubt that this will ever happen.

This is a country with millions of Catholic citizens who are bound under moral law to stand by their faith. This is not about imposing on others. It is about justice. Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Orthodox Christians, and Funtamentalist Protestants are all citizens of this country. We have a right to have a government that represents us.

The issue is not whether the governt should recognize the rights of the unborn. The issue is that the government has overstepped its rights. Governments may not assume Divine rights. Therefore, no government in any nation has the right to legalize the killing of innocent people.

The secular government does not have the right to play God.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[adamsapple]

This is a secular government. Natural law, as interpreted by the Church is not, and should not, be forced on others.

The issue, as I see it, is whether governments should recognize the unborn as having human rights. Personally, I think it’s a no-brainer, but the majority doesn’t agree.

If all humans were granted human rights - born and unborn - then all laws protecting humans would apply to the fetus. In reality, however, I doubt that this will ever happen.

This is a country with millions of Catholic citizens who are bound under moral law to stand by their faith. This is not about imposing on others. It is about justice. Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Orthodox Christians, and Funtamentalist Protestants are all citizens of this country. We have a right to have a government that represents us.

The issue is not whether the governt should recognize the rights of the unborn. The issue is that the government has overstepped its rights. Governments may not assume Divine rights. Therefore, no government in any nation has the right to legalize the killing of innocent people.

The secular government does not have the right to play God.

Fraternally,

JR

To my knowledge, secular governments do not acknowledge Divine rights. Therefore, playing God isn’t an issue.

Governments are created by and for the people. The majority seems to agree that abortion should remain legal. Whatever the rationale for that agreement, the government must protect their right.

No one forces a Catholic or a Muslim to have an abortion. Justice for one is not justice for another. By inserting the Divine element into your argument, you exclude many who simply don’t accept it.

I think the human rights argument covers everyone - if you are human, then a set of laws should protect that human, regardless of status. It’s a universal concept which doesn’t require a person to accept Divine anything. It’s simple, clean and to the point.

What I’m saying here is take religion and God out of the abortion question. Make it a universal human rights issue - much more acceptable to the majority, methinks.

 

[JReducation]

To my knowledge, secular governments do not acknowledge Divine rights. Therefore, playing God isn’t an issue.

Governments are created by and for the people. The majority seems to agree that abortion should remain legal. Whatever the rationale for that agreement, the government must protect their right.

No one forces a Catholic or a Muslim to have an abortion. Justice for one is not justice for another. By inserting the Divine element into your argument, you exclude many who simply don’t accept it.

I think the human rights argument covers everyone - if you are human, then a set of laws should protect that human, regardless of status. It’s a universal concept which doesn’t require a person to accept Divine anything. It’s simple, clean and to the point.

What I’m saying here is take religion and God out of the abortion question. Make it a universal human rights issue - much more acceptable to the majority, methinks.

You are giving the government the right to recognize or deny Divine Right. Do you realize how serious that is? In other words, you are acknowledging that govenment does not recognize God’s rights and therefore, those rights do not enter the equation. But ethics, going back to Aristotle to today, does not recognize the right of government to overstep its reason for existence.

Plato was very clear that government does not exist to represent the majority, but to represent justice. Descartes presented mathematical proof of the existence of an origin that is absolute and that man cannot ignore. Rousseau wrote that a government must ensure the rights of all citizens, but never at the expense of moral truth. Lock wrote that any government who violates the rights of man as given to him by the Creator is a tyranical government and forfeits its right to govern. We cannot suddenlty throw out the wisdom of the ages upon which modern democracies were built.

I agree with you that the majority, for some reason, believes that prohibiting abortion is undemocratic or an imposition on those who do not share our faith. But the issue is not about religion. It is about Divine Right and that can never be taken out of the equation. If we take Divine Right out of the equation, we take God out of the equation. Then we are talking about an atheistic value system.

There is no way that people of faith, any faith, can accept a government that operates out of an atheistic value system without moral responsibility and moral consequences.

The argument for secular government does not hold water when that government oversteps its rights. Governments that authorize abortions have overstepped their rights.

Just as we do not condone governments who authorize genocide, because they overstep their rights, we cannot condone governments who authorize the killing of unborn children.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[adamsapple]

You are giving the government the right to recognize or deny Divine Right. Do you realize how serious that is? In other words, you are acknowledging that govenment does not recognize God’s rights and therefore, those rights do not enter the equation. But ethics, going back to Aristotle to today, does not recognize the right of government to overstep its reason for existence.

Plato was very clear that government does not exist to represent the majority, but to represent justice. Descartes presented mathematical proof of the existence of an origin that is absolute and that man cannot ignore. Rousseau wrote that a government must ensure the rights of all citizens, but never at the expense of moral truth. Lock wrote that any government who violates the rights of man as given to him by the Creator is a tyranical government and forfeits its right to govern. We cannot suddenlty throw out the wisdom of the ages upon which modern democracies were built.

I agree with you that the majority, for some reason, believes that prohibiting abortion is undemocratic or an imposition on those who do not share our faith. But the issue is not about religion. It is about Divine Right and that can never be taken out of the equation. If we take Divine Right out of the equation, we take God out of the equation. Then we are talking about an atheistic value system.

There is no way that people of faith, any faith, can accept a government that operates out of an atheistic value system without moral responsibility and moral consequences.

The argument for secular government does not hold water when that government oversteps its rights. Governments that authorize abortions have overstepped their rights.

Just as we do not condone governments who authorize genocide, because they overstep their rights, we cannot condone governments who authorize the killing of unborn children.

Fraternally,

JR

Secular governments, of which we are one, are not obliged to recognize a Divine entity. That doesn’t mean that governments forfeit their moral responsibility to protect its citizens.
That said, governments evolve. Remember that full civil rights for African Americans was only granted about 50 years ago. The so-called Christian country of the United States had a very hard time coming to terms with civil rights for a very long time.

I have not advocated an atheistic government absent moral responsibility. First, a secular government is not an atheistic government. A secular government neither acknowledges nor denies a Divine entity. It simply removes the concept from the equation. But a secular government also recognizes the freedom of its citizens to believe as they wish, ensures that their religious practices are protected while also protecting those who choose not to believe.

I don’t agree that government has overstepped its right with regard to abortion. The government is following the will of the majority which, in this case, is to keep abortion legal.

I will say once again that I believe that if abortion were placed within the context of human rights, it would be much more acceptable to ban the practice. Just as torture and genocide are recognized as human rights violations, by granting the fetus the status of “human”, it would fall under the same statutes that protect us all from abuses like genocide.

But once again, as a practical matter, isn’t it more important to change the hearts and minds of the women having abortions, rather than threatening them with life in prison, as suggested by one poster?

 

[snhs]

But once again, as a practical matter, isn’t it more important to change the hearts and minds of the women having abortions, rather than threatening them with life in prison, as suggested by one poster?

Great so instead of locking up murderers we’ll try to change their hearts and minds so they won’t do it again. After all as a practical matter that would be far better than locking putting them in prison, right?

If you accept that abortion is the murder of an innocent person and if the law accepts that it is a crime to commit or be complicit in a murder than a sentence is appropriate.

If you don’t accept that abortion is murder I suppose you could just about justify your position, maybe. From the sound of it you’ve bought in the pro abortion rhetoric that some espouse which believes abortion being legal is fine so long as they say they’ll work to reduce the number.

 

[hasikelee]

Secular governments, of which we are one, are not obliged to recognize a Divine entity. That doesn’t mean that governments forfeit their moral responsibility to protect its citizens.
That said, governments evolve. Remember that full civil rights for African Americans was only granted about 50 years ago. The so-called Christian country of the United States had a very hard time coming to terms with civil rights for a very long time.

I have not advocated an atheistic government absent moral responsibility. First, a secular government is not an atheistic government. A secular government neither acknowledges nor denies a Divine entity. It simply removes the concept from the equation. But a secular government also recognizes the freedom of its citizens to believe as they wish, ensures that their religious practices are protected while also protecting those who choose not to believe.

I don’t agree that government has overstepped its right with regard to abortion. The government is following the will of the majority which, in this case, is to keep abortion legal.

**I will say once again that I believe that if abortion were placed within the context of human rights, it would be much more acceptable to ban the practice. Just as torture and genocide are recognized as human rights violations, by granting the fetus the status of “human”, it would fall under the same statutes that protect us all from abuses like genocide. **

But once again, as a practical matter, isn’t it more important to change the hearts and minds of the women having abortions, rather than threatening them with life in prison, as suggested by one poster?

The courts overstepped their power by deciding which humans deserve basic rights and which didn’t. Besides that being a rather big powerplay, and rather dangerous to our democracy, it was also a pretty big blow to our constitution.

Abortion is a human rights issue, as abortion is the method of killing a human being.

And as for your last paragraph, the only reason you can say it is because you deny that the pre-born human is in the same species as yourself. Otherwise you would equally advocate for other forms of abuse and violence (such as rape) to be legal. I mean, someone is raped every 2 minutes so obviously as a practical matter, it’s better to change hearts and minds, right?

 

[estesbob]

The courts overstepped their power by deciding which humans deserve basic rights and which didn’t. Besides that being a rather big powerplay, and rather dangerous to our democracy, it was also a pretty big blow to our constitution.

As they did in Pleasy V Ferguson and Dred Scott.

There is a book called:

"Arguing about Slavery: John Quincy Adams and the Great Battle in the United States Congress " by John Mills

I strongly suggest reading this book for an insight about the last great moral issue to face this nation. If when reading it everytime they mention slavery you subsitute “abortion” you will find that the exact same arguments used to justify keeping abortion legal were used to argure that slavery should be legal.

You will alo be introduced to the “immediasts” and the “gradualists” Both groups opposed slavery but the “immediasts” beleived it had to be ended now while the gradualist beleived we had to first convince the people that slavery was wrong. Sound familar??

 

[JReducation]

Secular governments, of which we are one, are not obliged to recognize a Divine entity.

This has been condemned by the Church. Governments to do not have the moral authority to ignore the Rights of God. It is also stated in our Declaration of Independence when it defends the inelianable rights of man endowed to him by his Creator and our Constitution, which recognizes the existence of a Creator. Therefore, those political leaders who choose to leave the Creator out of the equation are not only making a wrong moral choice, but are not even consistent with the very documents that frame out democracy.

That doesn’t mean that governments forfeit their moral responsibility to protect its citizens.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that when a government fails to meet the moral needs of its people, it forfeits its right to govern. In other words, it is disqualified. He wrote this into the Declaration of Independence and into his private writings. Check them out.

That said, governments evolve. Remember that full civil rights for African Americans was only granted about 50 years ago. The so-called Christian country of the United States had a very hard time coming to terms with civil rights for a very long time.

This is true. All world governments evolve.

I have not advocated an atheistic government absent moral responsibility.

I understand that you did not.

First, a secular government is not an atheistic government. A secular government neither acknowledges nor denies a Divine entity. It simply removes the concept from the equation.

But the government of the United States is based on three fundamental documents all of which mention and acknowledge God: Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. God has never been taken out of those documents. Nor has God ever been taken out of taking oaths, our currency or even our congress, which always opens with prayer.

But a secular government also recognizes the freedom of its citizens to believe as they wish, ensures that their religious practices are protected while also protecting those who choose not to believe.

This freedom is protected by the moral law of the Church in its statement on religious freedom. The problem is that abortion is not a religious problem. It is a problem of genocide. That falls under the category of human rights.

I don’t agree that government has overstepped its right with regard to abortion. The government is following the will of the majority which, in this case, is to keep abortion legal.

In Muslim countries the will of the people is to execute and erradicate Jews and Christians. Does the government have the moral obligation to follow the will of its majority?

I will say once again that I believe that if abortion were placed within the context of human rights, it would be much more acceptable to ban the practice. Just as torture and genocide are recognized as human rights violations, by granting the fetus the status of “human”, it would fall under the same statutes that protect us all from abuses like genocide.

The Church has always placed it under the context of human rights. Even the violation of human rights brings moral consequences to individuals and society.

But once again, as a practical matter, isn’t it more important to change the hearts and minds of the women having abortions, rather than threatening them with life in prison, as suggested by one poster?

I can’t remember the man’s name. A few years ago a man in California was found guilty of double murder for the killing of his pregnant wife. I believe her name was Lacy, but I could be wrong. It was a very famous case. How can the government condemn a man for the murder of his unborn child, if that fetus does not have rights? I remember that the man’s first name was Scott.

If this man killed an unborn child and was sentenced to life in prison for a double murder or to death roll, what makes others exempt?

I don’t advocate the death penalty for this or any other sin. We have better ways of dealing with these issues than killing people. I’m pointing out that the State is talking out of both sides of its mouth and our citizens are allowing it.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[jmcrae]

In the United States, it is never too late. You can kill a pre born baby through all 9 months.

There are those who also want to make it legal to kill children born alive, up to three days old (because, hey, abortion isn’t very safe for the mother, either). I am betting we will see proposals for legislation for this within the next five years or so.

 

[JReducation]

There are those who also want to make it legal to kill children born alive, up to three days old (because, hey, abortion isn’t very safe for the mother, either). I am betting we will see proposals for legislation for this within the next five years or so.

That is just plain gruesome. Isn’t that what the Nazis did with children who were born with handicapping conditions?

JR

 

[jmcrae]

That is just plain gruesome. Isn’t that what the Nazis did with children who were born with handicapping conditions?

JR

I think the Nazis did that to all of the handicapped; not just those under three days old.

 

[hasikelee]

As they did in Pleasy V Ferguson and Dred Scott.

There is a book called:

"Arguing about Slavery: John Quincy Adams and the Great Battle in the United States Congress " by John Mills

I strongly suggest reading this book for an insight about the last great moral issue to face this nation. If when reading it everytime they mention slavery you subsitute “abortion” you will find that the exact same arguments used to justify keeping abortion legal were used to argure that slavery should be legal.

You will alo be introduced to the “immediasts” and the “gradualists” Both groups opposed slavery but the “immediasts” beleived it had to be ended now while the gradualist beleived we had to first convince the people that slavery was wrong. Sound familar??

Yes, I remember going through the stage of researching that issue in context of abortion.

Ever since I took a Holocaust class, that period has been nagging at me, too.

It’s really depressing how eager we are as a whole to repeat the same ridiculous things.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, I remember going through the stage of researching that issue in context of abortion.

Ever since I took a Holocaust class, that period has been nagging at me, too.

It’s really depressing how eager we are as a whole to repeat the same ridiculous things.

It always starts the same way. Society decides that not all human life deserves protection. It then moves to labeling the class at risk-Blacks were considered only 3/5 human. jews were "sub-human : the unborn became “the product of conception” . or a matter of “choice” Invariably after the dehumanization is complete the slaughter begins.

The exact same arguments are used to jusify the killing in each situation. One has to wonder which group will be next? The elderly? The handicapped? The mentally impaired?

 

[hasikelee]

It always starts the same way. Society decides that not all human life deserves protection. It then moves to labeling the class at risk-Blacks were considered only 3/5 human. jews were "sub-human : the unborn became “the product of conception” . or a matter of “choice” Invariably after the dehumanization is complete the slaughter begins.

The exact same arguments are used to jusify the killing in each situation. One has to wonder which group will be next? The elderly? The handicapped? The mentally impaired?

It seems to go mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, elderly. Then it goes political opponents, journalists/whistleblowers, those of differing religious/racial backgrounds.

It is arguable that America started with the elderly first. But I tend to think that the actual slaughter hasn’t started yet, just some preemptive attempts and legislative framing.

 

[narrowpath]

After we’ve defeated abortion?

WE START ON CONTRACEPTION OF COURSE!!!

 

[Mr_Fausto]

Sarah and Jane - there is always adoption insteading of destroying child. Seriously, how can you use a scenario to anyway to display whatever “impracticalities” of not being able to dismember little children…WHO can by the way feel pain and has all organs developed only few weeks after conception. As for Mary…? Ah, since the child “probably won’t survive” anyway, let’s use some bizarre cruel method to kill it sooner, “saving the mother”. This last scenario tends to call out for the intercession of St. Gianna Molla. Honestly.

 

[Wirraway]

…labeling the class at risk-Blacks were considered only 3/5 human. … Invariably after the dehumanization is complete the slaughter begins.

The exact same arguments are used to jusify the killing in each situation. …

actually, not with the Three-Fifths Compromise, which was a constitutional dispute over how to count slaves for purposes of allocating members of the house of representatives. you can read it at Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3. the dehumanization of slaves began long before the compromise.

you can make your case well enough without the inaccuracy.

 

[Lizziebel]

Sarah and Jane - there is always adoption insteading of destroying child. Seriously, how can you use a scenario to anyway to display whatever “impracticalities” of not being able to dismember little children…WHO can by the way feel pain and has all organs developed only few weeks after conception. As for Mary…? Ah, since the child “probably won’t survive” anyway, let’s use some bizarre cruel method to kill it sooner, “saving the mother”. This last scenario tends to call out for the intercession of St. Gianna Molla. Honestly.

Well said!

It does seem, in Mary’s situation, to be the prevailing mentality to murder the child, since the child isn’t “likely to survive to birth or much beyond anyway”.

But I wasn’t likely to survive to birth. I have a genetic condition that has the potential to cause heart problems and kidney problems, and only 2% survive to birth.

Yet I’m here. With none of those problems that might have been detected, or presented to my parents as likely.

And I never even knew until this year of this condition, or that it was such a miracle that I was born. Or that doctors are now encouraging expectant mothers to deprive those babies with this genetic condition of any chance at life! I thank God that my mom never had to go through knowing this diagnosis prenatally, and being presented by the doctors as if there’s some agonizing decision to make!

If all that had happened, I wouldn’t be here now. I wouldn’t have my husband, my family and friends, my job…my life!

 

[estesbob]

actually, not with the Three-Fifths Compromise, which was a constitutional dispute over how to count slaves for purposes of allocating members of the house of representatives. you can read it at Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3. the dehumanization of slaves began long before the compromise.

you can make your case well enough without the inaccuracy.

There is no inaccuracy at all in my comment. Slaves were constitutionally counted as only three fiths a person . Now the interesting thing from a historical standpoint is that the North did not want them counted it all , the South wanted them counted as a whole. The extra representatives the southern states got from this allocation made it extremely difficult to end slavery by legislative means.

I guess we could debate whether the Constitution saying they were only 3/5s a person dehumanizes them or not. I think it does

 

[Wirraway]

I didn’t say the 3/5 compromise wasn’t dehumanizing, I took exception with your characterization:

… Invariably after the dehumanization is complete the slaughter begins. …

The exact same arguments are used to jusify the killing in each situation. …

slaves weren’t slaughtered because of the compromise and were dehumanized long before it.

other than that, its a good analysis.