Abortion should be Criminalized and Punishable under the law

[BornInMarch]

According to the bible, the unborn are human beings from conception. According to science, the unborn have all the characteristics of life and have human DNA (making them human lives). According to every Enlightenment Thinker, every single human being is created with special rights that they have by virtue of being human, that said rights are unalienable (they can never be taken away and anyone who tries to take them away is wrong), and that said rights include Life (the right to exist and to be alive).

Based on this, anyone who infringes on the Unalienable Rights of another should be punished both out of justice for the one they harmed and for the security of everyone else. For this reason if one human attempts to kill another human (whether successful or not) that person is declared a murderer and is punished with imprisonment or worse.

Does it not follow reason and logic that these same rules should follow when a human who was born attempts or succeeds in murdering a human who is unborn? After all, if we agree that an unborn human is just as human as a born one than there is no good reason for not giving him/her the same rights and legal protection and justice.

 

[Rau]

According to the bible, the unborn are human beings from conception. According to science, the unborn have all the characteristics of life and have human DNA (making them human lives). According to every Enlightenment Thinker, every single human being is created with special rights that they have by virtue of being human, that said rights are unalienable (they can never be taken away and anyone who tries to take them away is wrong), and that said rights include Life (the right to exist and to be alive).

Based on this, anyone who infringes on the Unalienable Rights of another should be punished both out of justice for the one they harmed and for the security of everyone else. For this reason if one human attempts to kill another human (whether successful or not) that person is declared a murderer and is punished with imprisonment or worse.

Does it not follow reason and logic that these same rules should follow when a human who was born attempts or succeeds in murdering a human who is unborn? After all, if we agree that an unborn human is just as human as a born one than there is no good reason for not giving him/her the same rights and legal protection and justice.

It would be a good thing were the respect for human life at all of its stages acknowledged and upheld by all; arguably the legal framework would then follow, as laws in a democracy are by and large intended to reflect the will of the people.

It is not self-evident, IMHO, that the right course of action - were it even feasible - would be to pursue the implementation of that legal framework without first having secured widespread societal support that human life deserves respect at all its stages, and the societal means to help those who feel driven to abortion as a last resort.

 

[Rhubarb]

Well there’s a few snags, if we’re coming at this from the point of logic and reasoning. The first is that it’s my understanding that what amounts to life is not decided by science. It’s decided by philosophy. This is because there is no one thing you can directly point to and say “ah-ha, there’s the life.” You point to characteristics, like respiration, metabolization, growth, reproduction, and eventual death and say “all these make up what it is to be alive” and in that moment, you’re doing philosophy.

The second is developing a theory of personhood using DNA. Considering something containing human DNA as a human person is problematic because my skin cells have human DNA. My hair clippings does too. The same DNA as every other cell in my body. So if the only condition for human personhood is that it has human DNA, we have to consider my hair clippings at the barber as human persons. This isn’t a fatal flaw, it just means that the conditions for human personhood need to be clarified and explained. This again is philosophy, not science. And it’s really hard to drill down to a theory of personhood that everyone can accept.

 

[Lea101]

There is a similar thread not too long ago, maybe you should read what the posters said?

 

[BornInMarch]

It would be a good thing were the respect for human life at all of its stages acknowledged and upheld by all; arguably the legal framework would then follow, as laws in a democracy are by and large intended to reflect the will of the people.

Yes, popular support is needed for such a law.

It is not self-evident, IMHO, that the right course of action - were it even feasible - would be to pursue the implementation of that legal framework without first having secured widespread societal support that human life deserves respect at all its stages, and the societal means to help those who feel driven to abortion as a last resort.

To be honest, I have no illusion that Abortion will g the way of Slavery soon or even within my lifetime. It might take a century or even more, and (continuing the comparisons between the anti-slavery and the anti-abortion movements) I fear that we are closer to Bartolomé de las Casas than we are to Abraham Lincoln. But I have hope that sooner or later the day will come.

Of course societal support will be necessary as well as legal action, both in convincing society that abortion is unnecessary and in ensuring that nobody tries to circumvent the law after the fact.

 

[Rau]

Well there’s a few snags, if we’re coming at this from the point of logic and reasoning. The first is that it’s my understanding that what amounts to life is not decided by science. It’s decided by philosophy. This is because there is no one thing you can directly point to and say “ah-ha, there’s the life.” You point to characteristics, like respiration, metabolization, growth, reproduction, and eventual death and say “all these make up what it is to be alive” and in that moment, you’re doing philosophy.

The second is developing a theory of personhood using DNA. Considering something containing human DNA as a human person is problematic because my skin cells have human DNA. My hair clippings does too. The same DNA as every other cell in my body. So if the only condition for human personhood is that it has human DNA, we have to consider my hair clippings at the barber as human persons. This isn’t a fatal flaw, it just means that the conditions for human personhood need to be clarified and explained. This again is philosophy, not science. And it’s really hard to drill down to a theory of personhood that everyone can accept.

I’m not sure of your point here. AFAIK, no particular difficulties exist in recognising human life; the presence of human DNA is necessary but not sufficient - No one has suggested otherwise.

What do you understand by the word “person”? I find the term is apt to be defined by various people in such a way as suits a purpose. Eg. Personhood commences at birth, or at conception plus X weeks, etc. Then rules (such as the legality of abortion) can be made addressing distinctly persons and non-persons. But the demarcation made is not pre-existing, it is made for the purpose at hand.

 

[BornInMarch]

Well there’s a few snags, if we’re coming at this from the point of logic and reasoning. The first is that it’s my understanding that what amounts to life is not decided by science. It’s decided by philosophy. This is because there is no one thing you can directly point to and say “ah-ha, there’s the life.” You point to characteristics, like respiration, metabolization, growth, reproduction, and eventual death and say “all these make up what it is to be alive” and in that moment, you’re doing philosophy.

True, there is some philosophy involved, but the same can be said of every aspect of science. For example, for a scientist to conduct an experiment or make an observation at all he or she must accept the philosophical theory that induction is possible (something that isn’t as obvious as it appears at first glance, as David Hume and Rene Descartes demonstrate). Additionally no scientist who is brilliant enough to make a big discovery is also empty-headed enough to not ponder it’s implications on the world.

This is sad because in many cases respected scientists (respected for their time period) have defined some groups of humans as not being human enough for rights, resulting in such things as racism and eugenics.

The second is developing a theory of personhood using DNA. Considering something containing human DNA as a human person is problematic because my skin cells have human DNA. My hair clippings does too. The same DNA as every other cell in my body. So if the only condition for human personhood is that it has human DNA, we have to consider my hair clippings at the barber as human persons. This isn’t a fatal flaw, it just means that the conditions for human personhood need to be clarified and explained. This again is philosophy, not science. And it’s really hard to drill down to a theory of personhood that everyone can accept.

You raise a good point. In addition to having human DNA and the characteristics of life, I should have also added a third item to what makes a human being: being an individual organism. I know not everybody will accept this definition of human, but in any case I feel that it is better to err on the side of caution than to accidentally deny humanity to a group of humans (such as in the past, when serious doctors who went to serious universities categorized some humans as fauna based on skin pigmentation or mental ability).

I believe that the unborn (zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc) count as individual organisms because of the way they develop as well as because of abnormal circumstances (premature births, embryonic freezing, etc).

 

[BornInMarch]

There is a similar thread not too long ago, maybe you should read what the posters said?

The topic, while similar, is still very different.

 

[mVitus]

One issue with punishing women is that it’s conceivable a miscarriage could be seen as a pill abortion (accidentally) so there’d have to be ways to make sure only abortions got criminilized. (The last thing I’d want to do to a woman with a miscarriage wouod be to say, “Hey I know you’re having a hard time with losing the baby, but you’re going to prison.”)

That’s not to say a provable case shouldn’t have a penalty, but it is something to consider. Though I believe it’d be easuer to proescute the abortion givers.

We’d also want a strengthened foster care system, better maternity leave rights, and a system of financial aid for women in hard times to make sure that carrying to term doesn’t ruin their ecomonc lives. (Pus that’d also help relieve desires for abortion.)

 

[SusanneT]

And maybe discourage pre-marital sex !

 

[jediliz]

There was legislation that feminists for life wanted to get passed called the pregnant and parenting student support act (or something like that). If we gave single moms the support they NEED instead of making them feel like they must abort…no need to jail them. I’d jail people more like the guy from philadelphia instead (Gosnell).

Make abortion unthinkable and we can eventually make it a thing of the past.

 

[SusanneT]

There was legislation that feminists for life wanted to get passed called the pregnant and parenting student support act (or something like that). If we gave single moms the support they NEED instead of making them feel like they must abort…no need to jail them. I’d jail people more like the guy from philadelphia instead (Gosnell).

Make abortion unthinkable and we can eventually make it a thing of the past.

Unthinkable is the right word.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Well there’s a few snags, if we’re coming at this from the point of logic and reasoning. The first is that it’s my understanding that what amounts to life is not decided by science. It’s decided by philosophy. This is because there is no one thing you can directly point to and say “ah-ha, there’s the life.” You point to characteristics, like respiration, metabolization, growth, reproduction, and eventual death and say “all these make up what it is to be alive” and in that moment, you’re doing philosophy.

The second is developing a theory of personhood using DNA. Considering something containing human DNA as a human person is problematic because my skin cells have human DNA. My hair clippings does too. The same DNA as every other cell in my body. So if the only condition for human personhood is that it has human DNA, we have to consider my hair clippings at the barber as human persons. This isn’t a fatal flaw, it just means that the conditions for human personhood need to be clarified and explained. This again is philosophy, not science. And it’s really hard to drill down to a theory of personhood that everyone can accept.

It is both scientific AND philosophical.

Scientifically, there is a heart beat and a pain threshold and a self-viablility outside the womb. There is also DNA … the fetus is not a mouse or an eagle.

Philosophically, the fetus is the product of a human male uniting with a human female.

So, the unborn baby is a human child and must be protected.

Criminal? It certainly is a crime for the doctor or abortionist.

For the mother, she needs counseling or reassurance and some spiritual direction and reconciliation.

 

[esieffe]

One issue with punishing women is that it’s conceivable a miscarriage could be seen as a pill abortion (accidentally) so there’d have to be ways to make sure only abortions got criminilized. (The last thing I’d want to do to a woman with a miscarriage wouod be to say, “Hey I know you’re having a hard time with losing the baby, but you’re going to prison.”)

That’s not to say a provable case shouldn’t have a penalty, but it is something to consider. Though I believe it’d be easuer to proescute the abortion givers.

We’d also want a strengthened foster care system, better maternity leave rights, and a system of financial aid for women in hard times to make sure that carrying to term doesn’t ruin their ecomonc lives. (Pus that’d also help relieve desires for abortion.)

There would have to be strong evidence in order to prosecute such a thing. If such a law were passed however, there would be no morning after pill, so a miscarriage would be a miscarriage.

Such a law would close all abortion clinics, and punish independent abortion practitioners, who in all likelihood, would be caught after a botched procedure or citizens alert to their activities. There would have to be solid proof, otherwise the law would not stand up to legal scrutiny.

 

[BornInMarch]

Criminal? It certainly is a crime for the doctor or abortionist.

For the mother, she needs counseling or reassurance and some spiritual direction and reconciliation.

Why? If a woman pressed a gun to her four year old son’s head and pulled the trigger then I can assure you that nobody would be calling for “reassurance and spiritual direction”, they’d be calling for justice in the form of a criminal sentencing.

We we all agree that the unborn child is just as much a human person as a born child, then why should a woman who kills one not be given the same punishment she would receive if she killed a born child?

 

[BornInMarch]

One issue with punishing women is that it’s conceivable a miscarriage could be seen as a pill abortion (accidentally) so there’d have to be ways to make sure only abortions got criminilized. (The last thing I’d want to do to a woman with a miscarriage wouod be to say, “Hey I know you’re having a hard time with losing the baby, but you’re going to prison.”)

That’s not to say a provable case shouldn’t have a penalty, but it is something to consider. Though I believe it’d be easuer to proescute the abortion givers.

We’d also want a strengthened foster care system, better maternity leave rights, and a system of financial aid for women in hard times to make sure that carrying to term doesn’t ruin their ecomonc lives. (Pus that’d also help relieve desires for abortion.)

Innocent Until Proven Guilty would still apply here.

A woman wouldn’t be arrested if she only has a miscarriage; the authorities would need something more tangible than mere suspicion (such as if an illegal abortionist named her as one of his customers while being investigated, or if she was caught at the illegal abortionists’s office when the police came to arrest him, or if real doctors discovered chemicals that only come from illegally smuggled abortion pills, etc).

I thought the support system should go without saying, but if it doesn’t then yes we should have one as well.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

According to the bible, the unborn are human beings from conception. According to science, the unborn have all the characteristics of life and have human DNA (making them human lives). According to every Enlightenment Thinker, every single human being is created with special rights that they have by virtue of being human, that said rights are unalienable (they can never be taken away and anyone who tries to take them away is wrong), and that said rights include Life (the right to exist and to be alive).

Based on this, anyone who infringes on the Unalienable Rights of another should be punished both out of justice for the one they harmed and for the security of everyone else. For this reason if one human attempts to kill another human (whether successful or not) that person is declared a murderer and is punished with imprisonment or worse.

Does it not follow reason and logic that these same rules should follow when a human who was born attempts or succeeds in murdering a human who is unborn? After all, if we agree that an unborn human is just as human as a born one than there is no good reason for not giving him/her the same rights and legal protection and justice.

Whether a directly procured abortion is always wrong and whether a Catholic politician voting against criminalising such societal vices is always wrong are too very different, though related, moral issues.

The moral principles used to decide the latter may have some wiggle room, the former not.

Or do you believe the two moral scenarios are exactly the same?

 

[BornInMarch]

Whether a directly procured abortion is always wrong and whether a Catholic politician voting against criminalising such societal vices is always wrong are too very different, though related, moral issues.

The moral principles used to decide the latter may have some wiggle room, the former not.

Or do you believe the two moral scenarios are exactly the same?

Yes.

I believe that an unborn child is fundamentally the same as a born child, and that he/she should have all the same legal protections. That includes the assurance that his/her parents will be punished by the law if they attempt to have the child killed.

 

[mVitus]

There would have to be strong evidence in order to prosecute such a thing. If such a law were passed however, there would be no morning after pill, so a miscarriage would be a miscarriage.

Such a law would close all abortion clinics, and punish independent abortion practitioners, who in all likelihood, would be caught after a botched procedure or citizens alert to their activities. There would have to be solid proof, otherwise the law would not stand up to legal scrutiny.

Personally I think there’d be a black market for morning after pills, hence why I feel there’s still be cases of it, though as has been noted it’d have to be able to be proven (from records of a supplier for example) that they had definitely used it.

One thing I will admit is I wonder how long it would be until popular support turned back to pro-choice again though. (The saved babies would be born to pro-choice mothers.) Not that we shouldn’t try, but it’s one concern I’d have about maintaining it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes.

I believe that an unborn child is fundamentally the same as a born child

I dont quite understand your point here.
That both the Church and the State have always considered killing of the unborn abortion), the recently born (infanticide) and innocent children/adults (murder) as different crimes involving different types of intention and circumstance and punishments suggests the crimes are significantly different and the gravity of the crime, while still grave in all cases, in fact varies.

It is interesting to note, for the Church, that the difference in gravity of such unjust killings is posited on the basis of depth of personal relationship involved or the damage done to the future material welfare of those who survive. Curiously CCC 2268 singles out a number of especially grave breakings of the 5thC but while patricide and infanticide is mentioned abortion is not.

From the Church’s point of view, which I think may be the point you make here, is that in all cases we regard the one murdered as an innocent human person from the moment of conception with the same right to life as an adult.

that he/she should have all the same legal protections.

I do notr think this necessarily follows for the reasons stated above.
Certainly all innocent persons should be protected in some way by the State.
But whether the legal protections have to be the same would not appear to follow.
Different typical situations (abortion, infanticide, adult murder) may well require different types of State legislative protection. That is a matter of prudence and intelligent and sincere Catholics, including politicians, may differ on application of this principle.

I do not believe there is a clear Catholic Doctrine that would support your assertion that moral theology demands the same legal protection or legal punishment be meted out to all forms of unjust killing in society. Yes the Church certainly has strong official positions on such things aimed at politicians both Catholic and secular but these applied, prudential disciplinary judgments or rules (much akin to not eating fish on Fridays) are quite different from Moral Doctrine.

The Church in fact extends significant understanding compassion towards mothers who procure abortions and “wrath” is often directed more at health professionals,institutions and even States who set up the societal conditions which sometimes lead such mothers to feel they have no other choice but to abort. Perhaps that is where punitive legislation is better targeted. This seems to be the position of Kaine.

That includes the assurance that his/her parents will be punished by the law if they attempt to have the child *
While this may be a perfectly acceptable prudential view for a Catholic (and indeed even the Vatican) I do not believe you will find it is directly demanded of Catholic politicians by Church ethical teachings.*