Abortion should be Criminalized and Punishable under the law

[PRmerger]

I don’t know if it should be the same sentence, but I do believe that both should have to spend at least some amount of time in prison for manslaughter and criminal negligence.

If a young or teenage girl gets an abortion, than she should be tried as a child and receive a child’s sentence (such as probation, mandatory therapy, or [at the very worst] imprisonment in a Youth Detention Center). If she was forced into it by her parents or her boyfriend, than those people get arrested instead of her.

When I say that we should send women who get abortions to prison for murdering their children I am talking about adult women who is acting freely and who either wants to avoid the scandal of a wedlock childbirth or who doesn’t want to deal with the hassle of pregnancy.

Yep. This ^^

 

[PRmerger]

So my class mate was criminally guilty of murder, even though she was 15, and not aware of fetal development, and thought that abortion was something that made her “not pregnant anymore”

I’m not getting your arguments.

I object to your argument, Mary Gail, that a crime is less punishable, less objectionable, less criminal, if a person doesn’t think that what she’s done has killed a human being.

That’s absurd.

You are saying that a woman who gets an abortion should receive the same CRIMINAL sentence as a woman tho kills a 2 day old baby.

No, not necessarily.

Circumstances matter greatly.

There are factors that would mitigate the CRIMINAL guilt of the woman who aborts that would not necessary apply to a woman who kills her 2 day old baby. Mainly, she cannot argue that she did not know it was a baby.

But if she did argue that, you think she should be given a lesser sentence than a woman who does the same thing but admits, “Yes, I did know this was a baby”?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I object to your argument, Mary Gail, that a crime is less punishable, less objectionable, less criminal, if a person doesn’t think that what she’s done has killed a human being.

That’s absurd.

I think it is less absurd than you are perhaps implicitly recognising below.

Abortion by a mother is fairly reasonably held to be “less punishable” than infanticide which in turn is less punishable than fratricide, patricide or spousicide. Perhaps that is why we have different names for these generically different types of killings and why we just don’t call them all “murder”.

I am not sure what “less criminal” means as criminality seems to be somewhat digital in nature rather than analog in nature (as “grave matter is”).

And if we zoom out to discussing vices rather than legal crimes then I think the contributor is right in observing it is more difficult to correctly read the natural law written in our hearts that objectively abortion actually is as gravely disordered as infanticide.
The reason being that evidence of human life is more remote and abstract.

 

[Rau]

…And if we zoom out to discussing vices rather than legal crimes then I think the contributor is right in observing it is more difficult to correctly read the natural law written in our hearts that objectively abortion actually is as gravely disordered as infanticide.
The reason being that evidence of human life is more remote and abstract.

I tend to think the bold does not quite capture the difficulty. I’d have thought it hard to conclude that the offspring of human parents is anything other than human life (though others may argue there is no human **life **until, say, brain activity is present). Different people hold different positions on what it is that makes the act of terminating the life wrong. While we here would say “nothing beyond its humanity”, others I think are quite influenced by factors related to the stage of development, understandable since we naturally distinguish human life by its evident “higher capabilities”. Evidence of the stage of development include: the appearance of a human form, presence of critical organs, brain activity, self-awareness, capacity to feel pain, movement, etc. There is probably a notion at work along the lines that the degree of “affront” to the (human) life is much lessened with lesser stages of development.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I tend to think the bold does not quite capture the difficulty. I’d have thought it hard to conclude that the offspring of human parents is anything other than human life.

I am afraid history, both “scientific” religious and secular, and even Church theology history until about 200 yrs ago is likely against this relatively novel line of reasoning. See the other discussion I am currently involved with which has been discussing your position.

The fact is the Church has until recent times gone with the ancient scientific view of delayed ensoulment in the first 40 to 80 days after conception. It has never explicitly repudiated this view even though it now tentatively aligns itself to the one you state.

Regardless, if the Church could have been mistaken for 1700 years re when a human soul is provided to the life within the womb then why cannot we reasonably opine a young pregnant mother cannot find it equally difficult given she cannot see a kicking baby, nor even a human form should she miscarry in the earliest stages?

But of course, regardless of what the Church thought re when a true human person is present in the womb…it has always taught this life must always be accorded the same rights as a mature adult from the moment of conception.

As you suggest, we all too easily define something by its characteristic presence to the senses or by characteristic functions. If both of these two tangibles are missing then a certain amount of abstract reasoning is required to make the connection to a “blob of protoplasm”.
That is why I believe infanticide is normatively more grave than abortion re the mother. It is also why even abortion may not intrinsically require significant protection by the law when compared to murder but left to the moral order.

 

[Rau]

I am afraid history, both “scientific” religious and secular, and even Church theology history until about 200 yrs ago is likely against this relatively novel line of reasoning. See the other discussion I am currently involved with which has been discussing your position.

The fact is the Church has until recent times gone with the ancient scientific view of delayed ensoulment in the first 40 to 80 days after conception. It has never explicitly repudiated this view even though it now tentatively aligns itself to the one you state.

Regardless, if the Church could have been mistaken for 1700 years re when a human soul is provided to the life within the womb then why cannot we reasonably opine a young pregnant mother cannot find it equally difficult given she cannot see a kicking baby, nor even a human form should she miscarry in the earliest stages?

But of course, regardless of what the Church thought re when a true human person is present in the womb…it has always taught this life must always be accorded the same rights as a mature adult from the moment of conception.

As you suggest, we all too easily define something by its characteristic presence to the senses or by characteristic functions. If both of these two tangibles are missing then a certain amount of abstract reasoning is required to make the connection to a “blob of protoplasm”.
That is why I believe infanticide is normatively more grave than abortion re the mother. It is also why even abortion may not intrinsically require significant protection by the law when compared to murder but left to the moral order.

The piece of my post you quoted has not much to do with the line of reasoning, certainly not as applicable in the 21st century.

BTW, there is no teaching on the timing of ensoulment AFAIK.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The piece of my post you quoted has not much to do with the line of reasoning, certainly not as applicable in the 21st century.

BTW, there is no teaching on the timing of ensoulment AFAIK.

I don’t know what you mean.
The Church cannot really “teach” science as it would a doctrine as it has no infallible charism or especial wisdom more than the scientific community to so do.

However the Church does regularly clothe it’s rightful doctrines in the scientific attire of its day which is so closely conjoined that at times the two seem symbiotic and joined at the hip. Such was the case with Man seen as the pinnacle of God’s creation hence the earth being the centre of the cosmos until Galileo and others proved otherwise.

And re delayed hominisation the Church did also strongly teach the ancient scientific view given by Aristotle of around 40 days for males and 90 for women. Aquinas argues this too.

Before this 40/90 point abortion was not considered homicide but more like what we know as contraception. Both mortal sins of course, though of differing gravity.

 

[AiyanaS]

BTW, there is no teaching on the timing of ensoulment AFAIK.

Church teaching fluctuated:

Circa 380 CE: The Apostolic Constitutions allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape and contained a soul.

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) accepted the Aristotelian Greek Pagan concept of “delayed ensoulment”. He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. 3 Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated).

Pope Innocent III (1161-1216):
He determined that a monk who had arranged for his lover to have an abortion was not guilty of murder if the fetus was not “animated” at the time.
Early in the 13th century, he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of “quickening” - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. Before that time, abortion was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human person, not an actual human person.

Pope Sixtus V (1588) issued a Papal bull “Effraenatam” which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.

Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull and reinstated the “quickening” test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).

Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the “fetus animatus” and “fetus inanimatus.” The soul was believed to have entered the pre-embryo at conception.

religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

 

[Rau]

…And re delayed hominisation the Church did also strongly teach the ancient scientific view given by Aristotle of around 40 days for males and 90 for women.

Hominisation? Sounds like something you do to milk . 40/90 days? Two questions arise: From where do these numbers come? And did the Church “teach” this, or “accept” it as fact [much as it accepts the reality of some persons having a predominant SSA, but is not a teacher of THAT.]

 

[PRmerger]

I think it is less absurd than you are perhaps implicitly recognising below.

Really? So when the Nazi soldier shoots a Jew in a concentration camp because he doesn’t think this person is really a human person this is considered a mitigating factor?

In your estimation, this is “less punishable” than the soldier who shoots a Jew in a concentration camp who acknowledges that this person is really a human person after all?

Abortion by a mother is fairly reasonably held to be “less punishable” than infanticide which in turn is less punishable than fratricide, patricide or spousicide.

And…

Perhaps that is why we have different names for these generically different types of killings and why we just don’t call them all “murder”.

So do you propose to have a different name for when a man kills a Jew because he doesn’t view the Jew as fully human?

 

[PRmerger]

The fact is the Church has until recent times gone with the ancient scientific view of delayed ensoulment in the first 40 to 80 days after conception. It has never explicitly repudiated this view even though it now tentatively aligns itself to the one you state.

Not sure which position you’re professing here, Blue?

Re your use of the phrase “gone with”: Are you saying that until recent times the Church has *taught *the “scientific view” of delayed ensoulment? And if so, can you please provide a source for this? (With a Church document, please).

Or, are you simply saying that the Church didn’t repudiate delayed ensoulment…which, of course, is otiose as it applies to this conversation.

Who cares if the Church didn’t repudiate this? She didn’t teach it, proclaim it or endorse it, so…

 

[PRmerger]

BTW, there is no teaching on the timing of ensoulment AFAIK.

You are correct, Rau.

From now on, you can confidently assert “There is no teaching on the timing of ensoulment” without the “AFAIK”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Hominisation? Sounds like something you do to milk . 40/90 days? Two questions arise: From where do these numbers come? And did the Church “teach” this, or “accept” it as fact [much as it accepts the reality of some persons having a predominant SSA, but is not a teacher of THAT.]

Noone said it was a doctrine…but the Church clearly does and has taught many things as unchanging fact/teachings including the science of the time even if it shouldn’t have.
We all know this and it isn’t a big deal, at least for me.

Though it should I think make us much more humble and less dogmatic in our certitudes when debating with non believers and apologetics.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Not sure which position you’re professing here, Blue?

Re your use of the phrase “gone with”: Are you saying that until recent times the Church has *taught *the “scientific view” of delayed ensoulment? And if so, can you please provide a source for this? (With a Church document, please).

Or, are you simply saying that the Church didn’t repudiate delayed ensoulment…which, of course, is otiose as it applies to this conversation.

Who cares if the Church didn’t repudiate this? She didn’t teach it, proclaim it or endorse it, so…

I am afraid she did teach this and also based legal judgements on this presumption as other posters note. You may find more detail on the other thread I am currently contributing to.
Just look up delayed hominisation. It’s standard Aristotle and Aquinas.

 

[PRmerger]

Noone said it was a doctrine…but the Church clearly does and has taught many things as unchanging fact/teachings including the science of the time even if it shouldn’t have.

You seem to be uninformed about what constitutes a Church teaching, Blue.

The Church has NEVER taught delayed ensoulment.

That there were some priests and bishops who endorsed this is not to be confused with “the Church taught”.

 

[PRmerger]

I am afraid she did teach this and also based legal judgements on this presumption as other posters note. You may find more detail on the other thread I am currently contributing to.

How about you post a link to a document?

Again, what a particular priest, bishop, or even ECF espoused is not to be confused with “the Church taught”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You seem to be uninformed about what constitutes a Church teaching, Blue.

The Church has NEVER taught delayed ensoulment.

That there were some priests and bishops who endorsed this is not to be confused with “the Church taught”.

Give it up PR. If it makes moral judgements/teachings based on the principle then it has in fact done so and the horse bolted on you.

Abortion for example was not considered murder/homicide as recent ahistorical younger minds like yours probably assume today .
That is, before hominisation it was considered more like what we call contraception.

Sounds like a teaching to me.
It has changed nowadays of course. But it was a teaching for 1800 years… a bit like limbo really.

I don’t know why you must defend all teachings as if they are infallible rather than a developing work in progress as they often are. Some live, some die, some are better refined. So what .

 

[PRmerger]

Give it up PR. If it makes moral judgements/teachings based on the principle then it has in fact done so and the horse bolted on you.

Abortion for example was not considered murder/homicide as recent ahistorical younger minds like yours probably assume today .
That is, before hominisation it was considered more like what we call contraception.

Sounds like a teaching to me.
It has changed nowadays of course. But it was a teaching for 1800 years… a bit like limbo really.

I don’t know why you must defend all teachings as if they are infallible rather than a developing work in progress as they often are. Some live, some die, some are better refined. So what .

So, no documentation…

You ought to retract the above error you’ve been professing, then?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

How about you post a link to a document?

Again, what a particular priest, bishop, or even ECF espoused is not to be confused with “the Church taught”.

PR it’s a common knowledge for the theologically trained and I draw on clear memory from 30 yrs ago, sources and commentary abound on the Net. Just get off your butt and look. I have already pointed you to Aquinas who is based, like all the Catholic ancients, on the science of Aristotle.
I don’t need to prove it to you, it’s a common place thing for crying out loud.

 

[Rau]

I am afraid she did teach this and also based legal judgements on this presumption as other posters note. You may find more detail on the other thread I am currently contributing to.
Just look up delayed hominisation. It’s standard Aristotle and Aquinas.

I read that a Pope (long ago) found a monk not guilty of murdering an unborn because the deed was done too early in the pregnancy. Clearly the Pope believed, or assumed, something about the nature of that unborn connected to stage of development. Did this rise to the level of teaching? Certainly noone could be blamed for taking the pope’s action as guidance in the matter, though it should be noted that the Pope did not mislead anyone into believing the act was moral or permisssble.