W
wanner47
Guest
Were women who procured abortions in the U.S. penalized prior to Roe v. Wade?
- Status
M
menotti8
Guest
This is ridiculous. God’s moral law is binding on everyone, regardless if they’re Catholic or not. If you believe in Truth, you must also state that it doesn’t change when someone suddenly becomes a politician. If a person believes in something, it’s a no-brainer that one should operate from what one believes in all aspects of his/her life or else he/she is by definition a hypocrite! Furthermore, Catholicism is the truth, and if you really believe that, there’s no justified reason to think that Catholics should not influence our society on issues of morality. A moral society will always be a better society than an immoral one!
Homosexuality is a moral issue – a non-negotiable moral issue! I used to think that civil unions for homosexuals were ok, but I’ve come to understand that it will become a huge pitfall if we allow it in, just like allowing contraception into our society has hurt society. Look, if we allow immorality into our society, which so-called same sex marriage is and contraception still is, then we’re cooperating with a serious attack on the fundamental unit of society, which is the family (and it will be the cooperator’s sin equally, not just those who enact the given homosexual “marriages”). Since the 1960s, America has been attacking the family via the Pill’s mainstreaming affects. Look at the current divorce rate in our country (i.e. 1 out of every 2). Catholics are on par with that divorce rate too! Not surprisingly there are a ton of Catholics that are all for contraception as well, which destroys families by divorcing the procreative aspect of marriage AND sex, leaving casual, free-love, and pleasure. Not only to this, but it has also led to fatherless homes, or what my grandma’s generation would call broken families, which I am a product of, and an unspoken message that says “well, heterosexuals can’t seem to be getting this right, why not let homosexuals have a go at it too?” and you’ve got our current problem.
Why is homosexual marriage a further attack on the family? 1) It is against the natural law. It is impossible for homosexuals to procreate via natural means. Thus, a homosexual couple would have to invoke a thrid party, which even in fertility issues between heterosexual couples, the Church is against that idea. Thus, same-sex “marriage” can’t be marriage because there’s no reproduction naturally possible. 2) EVERY child deserves the right to have a man as a father and a woman as a mother. When children go through their gender identity phases and psychological development in general, they learn by imitation (especially before they can verbally communicate). How is a male child going to learn how to be a man if he has two mothers? How can a female child learn to be a girl if she has two fathers? How are either genders going to learn about the opposite gender if they are not allowed to develop a schema for what a man/woman is like within their own home? Those are SERIOUS psychological deveolpment problems that all of human history has not yet had to face (I studied psychology and history in college, and even the Romans didn’t do stuff like adoption to homosexual couples that I’m aware of). 3) If we redefine marriage, this is what’s probably going to happen to you one day: your daughter/son comes home from school and says, “Mommy/Daddy! Guess what I learned in [public] school today! My teacher read us a story about a charming prince who lived in a castle until, one day, an evil, fire-breathing dragon kid-napped him and took him to his cave. Luckily, Sir Lancelot raced to the rescue, slayed the dragon, and then the prince and Sir Lancelot fell deep in love and lived happily ever after. Love is so wonderful, isn’t it mommy/daddy?” Now you put yourself in that situation as a parent and you honestly tell me that you’re ok with society encroaching like that on your and your child’s religious beliefs. It WILL certainly happen with time! 4) Finally, the worst thing of all: If we redefine marriage to include same-sex partners, it will only open up the flood-gates for redefinition after redefinition. Most pro-gay marriage folks portray religion as discriminatory, which is garbage (at least with the Catholic Church… I won’t speak for other religions). Chaste homosexuals can partake of the Blessed Sacrament just as chaste heterosexuals can – including married men and women, who are called to chastity just like everyone else in the Church; thus, no discriminaion at all. Furthermore, the pro-gay marriage camp usually says they are for marital equality, but I’d bet I can find at least one or two instances of marriage in which they’d NOT be in favor. How about polygamy? Marriage between a 50 year old man and a 10 year old girl? Two 5 year old boys? A 27 year old man and a 2 year old regardless of gender? A mother and her son? A Father and his son? Two first cousins? A brother and sister or two brothers/two sisters? Any combination of polygamy within the immediate family (i.e. a father married to the mother and his 3 daughters)? How about a whole brothel of women who are married to each other, yet postitute themselves out to men and other women? How about a sadist male being able to practice his “sexual pleasures that he was born with” freely under the law on his unconsenting wife? What about a guy and his dog (or any other pet you want to insert into the equation)? You may think that’s absurd, but if PRECEDENT is established to redefine marriage, don’t think for one minute that pedophiles, sex offenders, and any other person seeking to justify his/her immoral desires will not use the fallacious “born that way” argument to further their own cause. IT WILL HAPPEN!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
You tell me. I’m merely asking what the proposed legal penalties might be for procuring an abortion if abortion were again outlawed. If there are no criminal penalties for the woman, the law would be essentially toothless.
M
MarianD
Guest
Not necessarily. If heavy punishments were placed on a doctor who performs an abortion (including removal of medical license and imprisonment) and upon anyone who attempts to perform one, then there would be no doctors willing to do it and no where to get an abortion.
Of course, there’d always be underground clinics. It’s impossible to stop anything 100%, but by making it illegal, at least the rate will drop.
Women usually don’t want to get abortions. They feel like they’re forced to. So don’t punish the woman. Rather, show her that adoption is a valid option and show her that the fetus is still a life (ultrasounds help this out a lot). The punishments should be upon those who force the woman to get an abortion—namely parents or a would-be deadbeat “father”—and upon those who attempt the operation.
E
estesbob
Guest
In the past the law went after the abortionist. I suspect it would be the same if things reverted to the way they were before Roe was imposed.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Then that’s the direction to take in your political campaign to get Roe v.Wade overturned. Be explicit in the campaign advertisements that it’s physicians who will go to prison, not the pregnant women themselves. Going after physicians will get you a lot farther with an electorate that is more than 50% female than will going after women.
B
buffalo
Guest
Laws set standards. An underage child requesting an abortion? By herself? Where does she come up with the money? Usually adults are involved. The doctor and parents should be liable since the child is entrusted to them.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
One of the purposes of a law against abortion is to teach that abortion is a grave evil.
The goal of such a law would not be to fill the jails with women, but to empty the hospitals of doctors who perform abortions on demand.
The quacks that abound in a world where abortion is no longer sanctioned by law, on the other hand, would require preventative measures against them, such as jail.
Not that is going to even happen anyways for the next 40 years of course. The Catholic vote in America has assured that abortion is going to be a much stronger presence among us than the next generation ever will be.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Not quacks. Those medically qualified Ob-Gyns who are now performing abortions would go underground or be very discreet about letting women know about their availability - the money is too good to give up. But, quacks? No. There’s no lack of qualified physicians that would inspire untrained abortionists to flourish.
R
rlg94086
Guest
So, just murderers and potential criminals…not quacks.
E
estesbob
Guest
I am sure there would be physicians that would perform illegal abortions. Just as I am sure that one can discreetly hire somebody to kill an enemy
or quickly by any number of illegal drugs from in every major city in the country however the fact that people break the law does not translate into the the law be wrong
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Never said it meant that. My opinion is the same as that of a number of physicians whom I know personally. There will not be “backroom coat hanger abortions” any more. There are just too many physicians with medical skills who will be happy to get the unreportable income from performing abortions illegally.
C
Christopher68
Guest
The above quote is a rather curious one.
To the poster - if you believe abortion is murder, then why wouldn’t you advocate jail time for a woman who has an abortion? After all, if a robber kills someone during a break-in, the driver of the getaway car is charged as well.
I’ll tell you why - it would be political suicide for any politician who held this position. And that tells me that supposed hardcore pro-lifers realize that the majority of society views this issue a bit differently.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
So what the Church actually says on the matter irrelevent to you? Do you not believe the Church speaks in the name of Christ? Or are you a Protestant who makes up his/her own rules?
Since the Church says the individuals in question are indeed Catholic then we should listen to Her instead of making up our own terms, rules, and classes of Catholic.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Without a doubt.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Not everyone who kills another person is prosecuted. Circumstances dictate whether a person is charged and/or what kind of penalty they are to receive.
Most abortions aren’t had by cold hearted calculating individuals. We all recognize that fear is the #1 reason for abortions.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Political suicide perhaps, but this could be advocated. A better analogy than getaway driver would be murder for hire: the person who contracts with a hit man is just as culpable as is the hit man. If you want to stop abortion, put women in prison when they have abortions. And the same with nine year old girls like the one in Brazil last year.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
I agree. Unless the abortionist somehow forced or induced the woman to come to his clinic, the woman came at her own behest. She is the one who, for whatever reason, hired the “hit man.” To blame the actual murderer alone is to forget what happened to that woman who was executed several weeks ago. The actual killers got life, she the death penalty. The situation is analogous.
W
wanner47
Guest
The nine-year-old had the abortion forced upon her by her mother, and her physicians. She’s not culpable.
Actually, most women aren’t culpable. They’re co-victims who have been misled into believing that their babies aren’t human, are “just a blob of cells,” or just part of her body, or other lies perpetuated by the pro-abortion side.
That’s why most pro-lifers hold that they should be treated as co-victims, and the abortionist prosecuted for the crime – since someone who is trained as an OB should be well aware that what s/he is killing is a human being.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
A lot of women know exactly what they’re doing. Just prosecute those?
Keep in mind that a good number of abortionists, though aware that the fetus is human, consider an early abortion as other than taking a human life with factors such as psychological health of the mother in play, and, if fact, a beneficial act. I’m not claiming that their reasoning is valid, but it doesn’t automatically make them murderers or more culpable than the women.
Unless a girl is under age, I see no reason to treat them less harshly than the abortionist they’ve hired to perform the procedure.
- Status