Abortion should have nothing to do with criminal law

  • Thread starter Thread starter pennsylvan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pennsylvan

Guest
The Wade in Roe v. Wade was the District Attorney.

I do not think abortion should be subject to criminal penalties, which means it must perforce be legal.

This in no way contradicts the essential moral wrong inherent in abortion.

There are far better ways to teach on abortion than by rattling the bars of jail cells.
 
Yeah, we should totally do away with criminal penalties for all homicide and man slaughter too. Far better ways to teach people taking life is wrong, because the criminal justice system is not at all supposed to punish people for injustice against others.
 
pennsylvan said:
I’ll play your game. Arrest people who miss Mass.
Click to expand...
The difference here is the type of law and what type of immorality is occurring. Skipping Mass isn’t a criminal offense because it isn’t a social evil. Rather, skipping Mass intentionally and committing a mortal sin puts a rift between you and God.

Now, on the other hand, it is important to note that abortion is also a moral evil that puts a rift between you and God. However, abortion results in the murder of another human being, and murder is a social evil.

For that reason, abortion must be a criminal penalty–simply because it is murder.
 
Domnall said:
The difference here is the type of law and what type of immorality is occurring. Skipping Mass isn’t a criminal offense because it isn’t a social evil. Rather, skipping Mass intentionally and committing a mortal sin puts a rift between you and God.

Now, on the other hand, it is important to not that abortion is also a moral evil that puts a rift between you and God. However, abortion results in the murder of another human being, and murder is a social evil.

For that reason, abortion must be a criminal penalty–simply because it is murder.
Click to expand...
There are lots of differences. The reply was hyperbole to hyperole.

As to your example, murder itself is a term of criminal law. As to the reality, there is very little in common between a woman terminating her abortion and a murderer.

That’s part of the problem, the rhetoric.
 
pennsylvan said:
There are lots of differences. The reply was hyperbole to hyperole.

As to your example, murder itself is a term of criminal law. As to the reality, there is very little in common between a woman terminating her abortion and a murderer.

That’s part of the problem, the rhetoric.
Click to expand...
I think there’s a difference based on how someone is perceiving their action. I just looked up the definition of murder, and most definitions I found have something to do with malice. I doubt many women who procure abortions are malicious.

However, if the crime is not murder, there is a crime that comes from ending the life of an individual without their consent.

Now, if abortion were illegal, it would be harder to get and more individuals would be spared from this death.
 
Domnall said:
However, if the crime is not murder, there is a crime that comes from ending the life of an individual without their consent.
Click to expand...
I agree with that entire statement with the exception of replacing “crime” with “sin”.

When civil law prevents sin, it is a coincidence,

The Church has a compelling argument against abortion. It should make it. Invoking secular power and authority only diminishes it.
 
pennsylvan said:
I agree with that entire statement with the exception of replacing “crime” with “sin”.

When civil law prevents sin, it is a coincidence,

The Church has a compelling argument against abortion. It should make it. Invoking secular power and authority only diminishes it.
Click to expand...
Here I disagree with you. Even if you replaced my instances of “crime” with “sin” it wouldn’t change anything.

It is objectively immoral to end the life of another human being without their consent. And, if laws are meant to protect people, banning abortion is protecting that life from being ended by it’s mother. Therefore, it still can be categorized as a crime.
 
pennsylvan said:
The Wade in Roe v. Wade was the District Attorney.

I do not think abortion should be subject to criminal penalties, which means it must perforce be legal.

This in no way contradicts the essential moral wrong inherent in abortion.

There are far better ways to teach on abortion than by rattling the bars of jail cells.
Click to expand...
I believe abortion should be subject to criminal penalties. As the earliest stage of life if humans, the embryo, in its defenseless state, needs protection of the law because of their vulnerability to harmful acts against them. I believe we must be the voice for the voiceless…speaking out to protect the weakest in our society. Otherwise, we risk a morally corrosive degradation of respect for human life. We should work to establish and maintain a society were ALL life is valued and welcomed, and protection of law is a means by which we can protect the most vulnerable.
 
pennsylvan said:
So does poverty. Who will you arrest?
Click to expand...
Poverty is not an intentional act of the will against another person. That argument is a strawman. Are you prepared, however, to argue that legalized abortion has had a positive impact on ending poverty? I don’t think you can show any evidence to support that position.
 
Domnall said:
Here I disagree with you. Even if you replaced my instances of “crime” with “sin” it wouldn’t change anything.

It is objectively immoral to end the life of another human being without their consent. And, if laws are meant to protect people, banning abortion is protecting that life from being ended by it’s mother. Therefore, it still can be categorized as a crime.
Click to expand...
Actually, there is no crime unless a society legislates it. Prohibition is an example.

Criminal laws are not a response to objective immorality. History is littered with immoral laws.

The Church exists to articulate morality, not the state.
 
pennsylvan said:
The Wade in Roe v. Wade was the District Attorney.

I do not think abortion should be subject to criminal penalties, which means it must perforce be legal.

This in no way contradicts the essential moral wrong inherent in abortion.

There are far better ways to teach on abortion than by rattling the bars of jail cells.
Click to expand...
If Abortion is not a crime, then nothing is
 
pennsylvan said:
Actually, there is no crime unless a society legislates it. Prohibition is an example.

Criminal laws are not a response to objective immorality. History is littered with immoral laws.

The Church exists to articulate morality, not the state.
Click to expand...
Criminal laws are a response to objective morality. Hence the reason they are considered laws, because something contrary to morality was transgressed against.
 
ahs said:
I believe abortion should be subject to criminal penalties. As the earliest stage of life if humans, the embryo, in its defenseless state, needs protection of the law because of their vulnerability to harmful acts against them. I believe we must be the voice for the voiceless…speaking out to protect the weakest in our society. Otherwise, we risk a morally corrosive degradation of respect for human life. We should work to establish and maintain a society were ALL life is valued and welcomed, and protection of law is a means by which we can protect the most vulnerable.
Click to expand...
Think about what you’re saying.

Doubtless socity’s highest priority is to protect the most vulnerable.

But, do you really want to impose criminal sanctions on a woman who uses an abortifacient? The logic of your assertion that criminal sanctions are appropriate, if not necessary, to protect human life compels that result.
 
ahs said:
Poverty is not an intentional act of the will against another person. That argument is a strawman. Are you prepared, however, to argue that legalized abortion has had a positive impact on ending poverty? I don’t think you can show any evidence to support that position.
Click to expand...
Your opinion that poverty is not the result of intentional acts is dubious. Even if you engage in some sort of double effect juggling.

And no, I am not claiming that abortion alleviates poverty (lthough there are studies that suggest that).

What I am claiming is that criminal laws are not the means to prevent abortion.
 
pennsylvan said:
Think about what you’re saying.

Doubtless socity’s highest priority is to protect the most vulnerable.

But, do you really want to impose criminal sanctions on a woman who uses an abortifacient? The logic of your assertion that criminal sanctions are appropriate, if not necessary, to protect human life compels that result.
Click to expand...
Sure, I believe the earliest stage of life, the embryo, in its defenseless state, needs protection of the law because of their vulnerability to harmful acts against them. Protection of the law is a means by which we can protect the most vulnerable in our society. We should work to establish and maintain a society were ALL life is valued and welcomed, otherwise, we risk a morally corrosive degradation of respect for human life.

Do you believe that unborn babies don’t need the same protection as the mothers who carry them? If we exempt the unborn, who are most vulnerable, from legal protection, then why bother protecting the mothers, who are not as vulnerable, who carry them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top