How Quickly Should We Overturn Roe?

[EvangelistVictor]

I hope it gets overturned as killing babies is horrific.

If we look at these types of events historically, babies were getting killed to try to prevent the birth of Moses and Jesus.

Anybody think there’s any parallels to this?

Only thing I can think of is Satan’s time is getting shorter, and he’s stepping up his onslaught.

 

[Arwing]

I don’t think it’s difficult to see why when we believe something is murder we would not want it to be legal regardless of whether or not others consider it murder.

Not sure what science you’re referring to, but “the science” on the matter doesn’t contradict Catholic teaching (which affirms the natural law) or do anything to justify the direct killing of an innocent human person, which exists from the moment of conception, not after the first trimester or anything else. Nothing justifies that.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I would like to see it go back to the states. So I guess that means slow. I supported Barrett but I can’t deny I feared that her confirmation hearings would set the left on fire and jeopardize the GOP’s chances in the midterms with her possibly not making it. Kavanaugh is milder, easier to take. I am not convinced he would vote to overturn Roe v Wade. Strange to say, I am reluctant to violate precedent so violently. This was my problem with the gay marriage decision. Leave all of this to the states. The judicial branch needs to cool its heels. Then the people can decide to abolish abortion either over time through voting, or just go to another state. I think if America phases abortion out over 50-100 years (kind of like slavery went by the wayside) maybe the rest of the West would follow suit.

 

[Elf01]

And honestly, who are any of us to dictate to a rape victim, what choices she should be allowed to make based on her conscience.

Would you support her killing her rapist after his release?

 

[phil19034]

I don’t get you abortion nuts. I say it with all due respect, but it’s just hard to grasp why you so desperately feel the need to overturn a law that was ruled on decades ago. I have a personal pro life stance, but that doesn’t mean I can tell other people what they can do with their bodies. And the science is hard to deny on this issue. I am fine with 1st trimester, but late in the pregnancy, I don’t condone, unless it’s a life of the mother type of circumstance.

And btw I’ve heard a few people on here saying, “we don’t give the babies a choice” or something like that. Well, they don’t have the cognitive ability to make a choice. I don’t remember being born and most likely non of you do either.

It’s pretty simple. We view abortion is legalized murder. Just like the Republicans in the 19th century viewed slavery as a legalize injustice to fellow humans.

 

[joeybaggz]

joeybaggz:

And honestly, who are any of us to dictate to a rape victim, what choices she should be allowed to make based on her conscience.

Would you support her killing her rapist after his release?

I originally considered this question moronic at best. Then rereading my post, I can see how someone could make that inference, though I still think it’s a stretch. So, my post was concerning a rape victim, sitting in an emergency room, making a decision about her next step immediately after her attack. Should she have access to the “morning after” pill? As to killing her rapist, no (unless of course it is in self defense should he attack her again)

 

[Elf01]

Provided that ovulation has not occurred she usually does have access to the morning after pill and that seem reasonable to me.

She has the right to prevent a baby from being conceived, not to kill one.

 

[joeybaggz]

I would like to see it go back to the states. So I guess that means slow. I supported Barrett but I can’t deny I feared that her confirmation hearings would set the left on fire and jeopardize the GOP’s chances in the midterms with her possibly not making it. Kavanaugh is milder, easier to take. I am not convinced he would vote to overturn Roe v Wade. Strange to say, I am reluctant to violate precedent so violently. This was my problem with the gay marriage decision. Leave all of this to the states. The judicial branch needs to cool its heels. Then the people can decide to abolish abortion either over time through voting, or just go to another state. I think if America phases abortion out over 50-100 years (kind of like slavery went by the wayside) maybe the rest of the West would follow suit.

Nice idea, but in reality, if you overturn Roe/Wade and all states make abortion a capital crime, the abortionist will simply move to Canada, the Bahamas, Costa Rica, or wherever, and open up again. Wherever ultra liberals (like Trudeau) or thugs who can be paid off are in power, there will be abortion clinics. Sad fact of life.

 

[Elf01]

If making something illegal prevented it anyway prisons wouldn’t be needed.

It’s going to happen anyway is not a good reason to keep it legal.

 

[joeybaggz]

It’s going to happen anyway is not a good reason to keep it legal.
[/quote]

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. But in the real world………

 

[FollowChrist34]

Well to put it more clearly I mean make it illegal. I realize abortions will continue as they occurred throughout history before legal abortion. From time to time we still find a newborn (alive or dead) in a McDonald’s bathroom, garbage can, woods, etc. I get that. I don’t accept the argument that legalizing abortion prevents these tragedies or that the main victim of a coat hanger abortion is the woman. I think there are two victims. Restricting guns won’t stop murder either, but try and tell that to the left. I want to restrict guns too not to derail the thread. My point is abortion should be illegal - but with that we want accessible healthcare, shelters, clinics etc for pregnant women who need help, don’t want / can’t keep their babies. Adoption services, all that. Available to low income, etc. We have to be prolife across the board.

 

[joeybaggz]

Well to put it more clearly I mean make it illegal. I realize abortions will continue as they occurred throughout history before legal abortion. From time to time we still find a newborn (alive or dead) in a McDonald’s bathroom, garbage can, woods, etc. I get that. I don’t accept the argument that legalizing abortion prevents these tragedies or that the main victim of a coat hanger abortion is the woman. I think there are two victims. Restricting guns won’t stop murder either, but try and tell that to the left. I want to restrict guns too not to derail the thread. My point is abortion should be illegal - but with that we want accessible healthcare, shelters, clinics etc for pregnant women who need help, don’t want / can’t keep their babies. Adoption services, all that. Available to low income, etc. We have to be prolife across the board.

I’m not really disagreeing with anything you said. I’m just saying that the real world is a lot different than the one we should live in.

 

[jtavington]

I’m a pro-lifer. The main problem I see with making abortion illegal is how do you prosecute it without being truly heinous? Something like 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, most without the woman even knowing. So how do we know when an abortion occurred, given that most abortions do occur early in the pregnancy? Do we prosecute the woman? The doctor? If we don’t prosecute the woman, how is that consistent with her dignity as a moral agent? Are we prepared to compromise Church teaching and allow for health and rape exceptions? If we aren’t, are we prepared to become political persona non grata? We might become that anyway and see all our gains wiped out at the ballot box. That shouldn’t matter, but these are issues to consider.

 

[Elf01]

I’m a pro-lifer. The main problem I see with making abortion illegal is how do you prosecute it without being truly heinous? Something like 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, most without the woman even knowing. So how do we know when an abortion occurred, given that most abortions do occur early in the pregnancy? Do we prosecute the woman? The doctor?

Beginning with just prosecuting the doctor will prevent a woman who had a miscarriage being convicted. I think that the woman should be prosecuted but at the moment it’s not feasible. It may be possible to find evidence of an appointment when that time does come.

Are we prepared to compromise Church teaching and allow for health and rape exceptions?

Compared to the current situation that would be a good start.

We might become that anyway and see all our gains wiped out at the ballot box. That shouldn’t matter, but these are issues to consider.

A valid concern. Whatever case overturned it would need to produce a ruling that could not be easily overturned.

 

[thistle]

I agree abortion is a terrible sin.

If it is made illegal what then? Crimes have punishments under law.
There are more than 600,000 reported abortions a year in the US. Are you going to jail 600,000 plus women every year?

Currently, at any given time there are around 2.3 million people under lock and key in the US which is already the highest incarceration rate in the world.

 

[Augustinian]

There are more than 600,000 reported abortions a year in the US. Are you going to jail 600,000 plus women every year?

Presumably the number of abortions will decrease significantly if its outlawed.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m a pro-lifer. The main problem I see with making abortion illegal is how do you prosecute it without being truly heinous?

It probably won’t be prosecuted often as proving one happened would be very difficult. Physicians would likely be the only targets of charges.

The mechanism of the law would like be to essentially eliminate places that officially do it, forcing women to a black market for that service. That would likely be about it.

 

[kkerwin1]

First amendment of the Constitution of the United States;

“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

So follow whatever religion you want. You just can’t make other people do it.

IThis is not a Catholic country, we do not live by religious laws … I definitely take the view that the government should not impose religious laws.

@Vonsalva and @brishen

To these quotes, and any others like them:

Banning abortion is an acceptable topic of legislation because one may begin from a secular, non-religious premise and arrive at the conclusion that abortion is immoral. For example, the Ten Commandments forbid theft, but theft is still against civil law. Therefore, banning abortion does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Premises:

1. Murder is a crime.
2. Upon fertilization of an egg by a sperm, an embryo has the following three characteristics: (a) The embryo has a complete and unique genetic code that will never be repeated, making it an individual; (b) the embryo is able to form all types of cells in the human body; and (c) the embryo is able to follow a body plan, unlike a tumor.

Argument Points:

1. From premise #2, the embryo satisfies the biological definition of alive as: (a) it is able to grow and develop as demonstrated in 2.b and 2.c; (b) it is able to reproduce offspring cells as demonstrated in 2.b; (c) it has inherited traits from its parents as demonstrated by 2.a; (d) it is able to maintain homeostasis internally in its individual cell(s) as demonstrated by 2.a, and is able to maintain homeostasis between its cells as demonstrated by 2.c; (e) it is able to metabolize energy from various molecules using the organelles coded for in its DNA as demonstrated by 2.a; (f) it is cellular; (g) it is able to respond to its environment by managing its internal homeostasis as demonstrated by argument point 1.d; and (h) even individual twin zyogotes each separately satisfy each of these requirements.
2. From premise #2 and argument point #1, the embryo is a unique, living member of the human species.
3. From premise 2.b and 2.c, the embryo will only develop into a full-grown human being; it will not develop into a tumor; it will not develop into only one human organ or even complete organ systems (eg. the cardiopulmonary system) ; it will not develop into a different organism.
4. From argument points #2 and #3, each zygote therefore represents a unique human being.

(continued below)

 

[kkerwin1]

(continued below)

1. Pro-choice advocates argue that to be entitled to protection from death with criminal prosecution of your killer as a “murderer”, one must be a “person”. This is a false, invented distinction. As above in argument point #3, the fertilized zygote will only become a fully mature human individual. Therefore, the zygote is substantially the same as a fully-developed human (ie. “substantially” here means “in substance”). No, the only difference between a zygote and a fully-developed human is progression along the developmental sequence. These do not represent substantial changes, but rather “accidental” or temporal changes.
2. From argument point #5, a pro-choice advocate could argue for, at best, killing the embryo on the basis of disability; ie. it is unable to think, speak, etc. However, the law forbids the killing of the disabled, citing it is still murder. Further, utilization of this rationale smacks of a Nazi-like mentality toward moral expediency.
3. From argument points #4, #5, and #6, killing of the embryo therefore represents murder.

Conclusion

From premise #1 and argument point #7, the killing of the embryo is immoral, given only secular premises.

 

[kkerwin1]

I’m a pro-lifer. The main problem I see with making abortion illegal is how do you prosecute it without being truly heinous? Something like 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, most without the woman even knowing. So how do we know when an abortion occurred, given that most abortions do occur early in the pregnancy? Do we prosecute the woman? The doctor? If we don’t prosecute the woman, how is that consistent with her dignity as a moral agent? Are we prepared to compromise Church teaching and allow for health and rape exceptions? If we aren’t, are we prepared to become political persona non grata? We might become that anyway and see all our gains wiped out at the ballot box. That shouldn’t matter, but these are issues to consider.

Beginning with just prosecuting the doctor will prevent a woman who had a miscarriage being convicted. I think that the woman should be prosecuted but at the moment it’s not feasible. It may be possible to find evidence of an appointment when that time does come.

I tend to favor non-criminal legal intervention. I am in favor of revoking a doctor’s license to practice under the “do no harm” provision of the Hippocratic Oath for the first offense, civil penalties for performing an operation without a license for the second offense, and finally criminal prosecution for the third offense.