If abortion is murder, should those responsible be tried for murder? And if found guilty, should they be imprisoned like other murderers?

[Spirithound]

If abortion is murder, should those responsible be tried for murder? And if found guilty, should they be imprisoned like other murderers?

• The mother
• The abortionist
• Any friend or family member materially responsible, etc.

Yes. Materially responsible parties may only be guilty of conspiracy, or aiding and abetting or something of that sort…

 

[JimG]

Before Roe, every State had laws regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the practice of procured abortion. The evil brought about by Roe and its companion case, Doe v Bolton, consisted in invalidating every single one of those state laws—which had been passed by popularly elected legislatures. Not only that, the law is a teacher, and it now taught that abortion is no longer an evil, not even a necessary evil, but a constitutional right. Is it any wonder that the number of abortions exploded? The US Supreme Court was our teacher, and the country believed it’s teaching. Abortion was now a good thing.

Roe and Doe together, meant that abortion was suddenly legal through 9 months of pregnancy. The ‘health of the mother’ requirement left a loophole big enough to allow any abortion to be performed, and to make a Wichita abortionist rich by doing late term abortions.

It may be a moral shortcut to say “abortion is murder,” and then to call for extreme criminal penalties for women who obtain abortions, but it is not correct either in criminal or canon law. State laws did not classify abortion as murder in pre-Roe days, nor would it be so classified, post-Roe. In state criminal law, there are a whole variety of classifications relating to the taking of human life, as well as a whole variety of possible consequences. There is not just one classification of ‘murder’ and that’s it.

Simply calling for abortion to be treated as murder and punished the same as the BTK serial killer is simplistic and counterproductive.

The question, “how should women be punished?” was first brought by the pro-abortion side as an argument stopper, not the pro-life side. Well, how were women punished pre-Roe?
They weren’t.

 

[c659smith]

Abortion in most states is illegal and a person causing harm or death to a fetus(baby) in the womb can and will be charged with murder unless the person that commits this harm or death is a licensed doctor. Giving doctors a special license and that is to kill.

 

[c659smith]

Why even the pregnant woman who is a drug addict can be prosecuted for causing harm to the baby in the womb and can be jailed esspecially during the time of her pregnancy to ensure the safety of the baby in the womb.
For if as the pro-choice advocates argument that the baby in the womb is not a seperate life during this time period in question than the woman is jailed in possibly causing harm to what?

A young married man wishes to join the United States Military and his young wife is 3 months pregnant with twins.
This young couple has no other children.

this young man at this point needs a waiver to get in the military why?

Because the United States Military considers the unborn twins as dependents — Human Lives—

 

[c659smith]

The point I am Making is that United States Federal,State , and local laws today consider the Baby in the womb a life when harm is brought upon a baby in the womb and is completely an oxymoron

 

[mapleoak]

It may be a moral shortcut to say “abortion is murder,” and then to call for extreme criminal penalties for women who obtain abortions, but it is not correct either in criminal or canon law.

Yes it is. It is absolutely correct to call abortion murder and it is wrong treat the taking of the life of persons less seriously simply based on how old they are.

State laws did not classify abortion as murder in pre-Roe days, nor would it be so classified, post-Roe.

but they should.

In state criminal law, there are a whole variety of classifications relating to the taking of human life, as well as a whole variety of possible consequences. There is not just one classification of ‘murder’ and that’s it.

You would be referring to the difference between manslaughter, first, second, and third degree murder, etc. Murder of the unborn cannot be ‘classified’ as any different than infanticide, killing of pre-school children, killing of adults, or the elderly. They are all murder one and the same. Their is no reason manslaughter, first, second, third degree, etc. cannot be applied to abortion any different than from the murder of any other age groups.

Simply calling for abortion to be treated as murder and punished the same as the BTK serial killer is simplistic and counterproductive.

Simplistic and counterproductive in what way? As was pointed out earlier, an abortion doctor has all the markings of a true serial killer indeed.

 

[fix]

Just because two actions are equivalent moral evils, it does not necessarily mean the two actions should be civilly equal (and carry the same sanctions).

Ok.

Now of course if you want to believe that they should, that is your right (and a debate that I will not enter). You will have a lot of interesting questions to answer if that is the case, hating your brother being the moral equivalent of whacking your brother being just one of them. But then again, my only point in all of this is to note that it does not logically follow that this necessarily has to be the case.

But, hating one’s brother is not equal in moral gravity to murder of the body. They both may be grave sins, but not exactly equal. I know you are not Catholic, but the CCC explains my point.

I do not think anyone here has argued direct abortion should receive the exact same penalty in each case as other forms of murder. That does not mean it is not murder though.

So, once again your point is lost on me. You seem to argue that because some sins exist and not every sin can be codified into civil law that means abortion should not be codified into civil law but your argument does not hold up.

 

[fix]

Just curious as to how many of you posting on this thread have spent time volunteering in places that support women who are convinced to have their baby and not abort it. Life Care Center? If post abortion Project Rachel? Do you at minimum drop a few bucks to support those places that support pregnant and post partum women in need?
Places that aid battered women?

I am curious to know how this changes any arguments? Do oncologists need to have cancer to discuss ways to prevent cancer?

Kinda like those who say those old celibate men have no business teaching on sexual morality.

 

[fix]

B
It may be a moral shortcut to say “abortion is murder,” and then to call for extreme criminal penalties for women who obtain abortions, but it is not correct either in criminal or canon law.

What is incorrect about calling abortion murder? Can you, or anyone, explain the difference between the intentional and unlawful direct killing of innocents and the word murder?

I am not referring to which type of penal sanctions are needed or not.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What is incorrect about calling abortion murder? Can you, or anyone, explain the difference between the intentional and unlawful direct killing of innocents and the word murder?

I am not referring to which type of penal sanctions are needed or not.

How is it less of a crime to kill a baby in January than it is to kill the same baby the following October?

 

[mozart-250]

So, once again your point is lost on me. You seem to argue that because some sins exist and not every sin can be codified into civil law that means abortion should not be codified into civil law but your argument does not hold up.

No, that is not what I am saying at all.

In fact I would be delighted if Roe / Wade were overturned and the unborn were protected to the same extent they were at say 1960.

But (as another poster here pointed out), they were not protected under murder statutes. They were protected under separate abortion statutes with lesser penalties than murder. At that time (as the poster pointed out) the women were not prosecuted at all. The abortionist (if prosecuted) received lesser penalties than the murderer.

My only point is that the legal status of abortion in 1960 is not inconsistent with a belief that it is murder. The point is that in 1960 abortion was morally equivalent to murder. Civilly however, it was something less.

I understand that you want abortionists prosecuted the same as murderers. Although I do not necessarily agree with this point(although I can convince myself that in a perfect world it should be this way), it is not one I wish to debate.

 

[mozart-250]

But, hating one’s brother is not equal in moral gravity to murder of the body. They both may be grave sins, but not exactly equal. I know you are not Catholic, but the CCC explains my point.

I understand. But the words of Jesus do indicate that at least in some respects hating your brother is the moral equivalent of murder.

But the proposition that sins of equal gravity should receive equal civil sanctions poses some interesting questions when comparing sins from different subject areas.

For example what sins are of equal gravity to homosexuality and adultery. Is smoking reefer? Is smoking crack? Is petty theft? Is grand larceny? Is perjury? Yet some of these offenses can land you serious jail time. At the same time we don’t prosecute homosexuals and adulterers.

 

[SoCalRC]

Where? Where does the Church make this distinction?

Catechism of the Catholic Church
Code of Canon Law
Multiple Papal Decrees and Encyclicals (ex. EVANGELIUM VITAE)

They are morally related (as are euthanasia and the death penalty), but they are treated as different offenses.

But, as pointed out, war falls under the Commandment as well, but you dont’ seem anxious to declare them equal.

 

[SoCalRC]

Abortion is a direct, intentional, and unquestionable infliction of death on an innocent human being. Nothing short of murder.

You seem incensed at the comparison, but what is the distinction? If I invade you with military might, I know that, unquestionably, innocent people will die.

There is only one Commandment, it prohibits killing, but both the Church and secular law have always accepted that killing happens in different moral contexts.

My point was that Vern uses this principle for himself, it is just in regards to other situations that he proclaims such thinking specious.

 

[estesbob]

I hate to puncture your balloon, but even if Roe/Wade were overturned, the most likely result would be to leave the question up the the states. Some states might ban abortion, but a lot more would keep it legal. And there would be no way to stop women from leaving a banned state and going to a legal state for the operation.

In the unlikely event of a Constitutional Amendment, the same thing would happen as with Prohibition. The Mafia would move in to provide safe abortions…because that is where the money is.

We’ve lost the War On drugs, we would lose the War on abortion.

Even the Mafia is not so immoral if they would want to profit from killing children. They were not involved in it when abortion was illegal before.

The idea that you can’t pass laws if people are going to disobey them is specious. Would there be abortion and abortion was banned? Of course. Could there be 1.2 million of them? Of course not. Prior Roe V. Wade it is estimated there were approximately 400,000 abortions a year. After Roe V. Wade within a couple years it had increased to 1.5 million a year. You do the math

 

[fix]

I understand. But the words of Jesus do indicate that at least in some respects hating your brother is the moral equivalent of murder.

But the proposition that sins of equal gravity should receive equal civil sanctions poses some interesting questions when comparing sins from different subject areas.

But, no one has argued that equal gravity requires codification into the civil.

For example what sins are of equal gravity to homosexuality and adultery. Is smoking reefer? Is smoking crack? Is petty theft? Is grand larceny? Is perjury? Yet some of these offenses can land you serious jail time. At the same time we don’t prosecute homosexuals and adulterers.

Again, it is not about the gravity of sin that means civil law must be used. Not every vice can be made into a civil law. But, that does not mean the civil law must exclude all vices.

In regard to the unlawfulness of abortion we can start here:

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined.

. . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

 

[estesbob]

What is incorrect about calling abortion murder? Can you, or anyone, explain the difference between the intentional and unlawful direct killing of innocents and the word murder?

I am not referring to which type of penal sanctions are needed or not.

One of the primary tactics of those you support abortion is to try to change the subject. When given the chance they will drag you into endless arguments about whether abortion meets the legal definition of murder. That very neatly moves the discussion away from what an abject evil the procedure is itself regardless of what one calls it. We see that in this thread where the legal definition of abortion is not even in question because the thread says "***IF *abortion is murder…"

 

[fix]

But (as another poster here pointed out), they were not protected under murder statutes. They were protected under separate abortion statutes with lesser penalties than murder. At that time (as the poster pointed out) the women were not prosecuted at all. The abortionist (if prosecuted) received lesser penalties than the murderer.

I do not know what each state law was in the past, but that does not mean they were just laws. It seems what is at issue here is the terminology used to describe the act and what type of penal sanctions are needed. It seems you agree the act is murder. The question I have is why should it not be called murder under the law? The punishments are another matter.

My only point is that the legal status of abortion in 1960 is not inconsistent with a belief that it is murder. The point is that in 1960 abortion was morally equivalent to murder. Civilly however, it was something less.

This is a word dance. If it is not called murder by the state does that mean it is not murder? What is the benefit to having a civil law not calling murder murder? If there is another term than murder that denotes the same thing as murder what do you want to use?

I understand that you want abortionists prosecuted the same as murderers.

Actually, I have not said what punishments I support.

 

[fix]

One of the primary tactics of those you support abortion is to try to change the subject. When given the chance they will drag you into endless arguments about whether abortion meets the legal definition of murder. That very neatly moves the discussion away from what an abject evil the procedure is itself regardless of what one calls it. We see that in this thread where the legal definition of abortion is not even in question because the thread says “***IF ***abortion is murder…”

I am no philosopher but what is that category called when someone attempts to change the very nature of an act or thing simply by changing its name?

In other words if the law decides to call an orange a bus does that make the orange a bus? And should we stop calling an orange an orange because the law calls it a bus?

Is the orange less orange because the civil law calls it a bus?

 

[mapleoak]

One of the primary tactics of those you support abortion is to try to change the subject. When given the chance they will drag you into endless arguments about whether abortion meets the legal definition of murder. That very neatly moves the discussion away from what an abject evil the procedure is itself regardless of what one calls it. We see that in this thread where the legal definition of abortion is not even in question because the thread says “***IF ***abortion is murder…”

just another example of the debate tactic of creating tangents to divert attention from the issue.