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

[vern_humphrey]

Also often times true; yet the abortionist IMHO carries much greater guilt in most cases!

The abortionist exhibits all the marks of a serial killer.

He kills with premeditation.
He feels no remorse.
He feels he has a right to do what he does
He has no empathy for the victim.

 

[CapIV]

abortionists ought to have prison sentences

 

[SoCalRC]

Please provide evidence of any instance where the Catholic Church teaches that direct abortion is ever anything, but murder.

In modern terms:

Decree of the Tribunal of the Holy Office 28 May, 1884

Decree of the Tribunal of the Holy Office 18 August, 1889

The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith DECLARATION ON PROCURRED ABORTION 18 November, 1974

All three include the concept of ‘anticipated murder’, “supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul…”

Please also note that The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon law both treat Murder and Abortion as two distinctly different things. As does EVANGELIUM VITAE, which declares both to be, infallibly, “grave moral disorders”.

Historically, we can trace the teaching back to St. Augustine. It was reiterated by St. Jerome and St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as several Popes (off the top of my head I know that Innocent III and Gregory XIV expressed it in writing)

This in no way makes the transgression less grave, it just means that there are strong theological and Sacred Tradition reasons the two are presented as seperate teachings. As mentioned, we are ‘Creationists’, we each receive an indivisable soul which is a unique creation of God.

 

[JimG]

Please ask anyone who was alive before Roe v Wade. Were women prosecuted for having abortions? No. Were abortionists? Yes.

 

[SoCalRC]

Actually, I just remembed a couple more. Tertullian seems to have actually coined the term first (JPII quotes him using it in EVANGELIUM VITAE). And Pope Pius IX used it in a decree in 1869, but I can’t remember the date (though Pope Leo refers to it in the later decrees I cited.

Also, the Catechism referred to the fetus as the “animated fetus” until the 20th century.

Again, it is an important theological distinction, but has no effect on gravity (as I’ve said all along).

 

[mapleoak]

All three include the concept of ‘anticipated murder’, “supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul…”

Please also note that The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon law both treat Murder and Abortion as two distinctly different things. As does EVANGELIUM VITAE, which declares both to be, infallibly, “grave moral disorders”.

However to say that abortion is distinctly different from murder is the same as to say that euthanasia is distinctly different from murder. This would be making an illogical distinction between the two which is not the intent behind the Catechism’s separate treatment of the two. The very definition of murder itself predisposes the nature of abortion (the unjust and willful killing of innocent human life) to be an act of murder. Murder can be defined in a general sense. Abortion is a specific subset of the general set inclusive of murder.

 

[Catholig]

Ensoulment? I always believe that our soul was created at the very moment of our conception.

Catholig

 

[SoCalRC]

Please ask anyone who was alive before Roe v Wade. Were women prosecuted for having abortions? No. Were abortionists? Yes.

Actually, not even abortionists very often. During one short period in the 1940s we have about 5000 abortion related maternal deaths, but only a few abortion crime related prosecutions in the same period. NOTE, such deaths dropped dramatically with the widespread use of plasma and antibiotics, but that came later.

Remember, back alley abortions were largely a myth. Most illegal abortions were done by medical professionals. And if you were a rural town with limited care, there was a large incentive to let things slide.

Also, it took awhile for prohibition to be accepted. Abortion was openly advertised as a service until the latter part of the 19th century. For awhile, it was illegal in the sense that prostitution is today. Yes, it’s illegal, but it is still advertised under euphemisms…

Frankly, over the hundred years or so we tried prohibtion, I don’t know if we ever had a period of widespread agressive enforcement.

 

[SoCalRC]

Ensoulment? I always believe that our soul was created at the very moment of our conception.

Catholig

We know that is unlikely, because fertilized zygotes can divide into twins (or become uterine cysts for that matter). But we teach that the soul cannot be divided.

It doesn’t mean that we don’t believe that the zygote is human life and must be preserved, it just means the Church takes things like Virgin Birth, assumption of Mary, etc. seriously.

 

[SoCalRC]

However to say that abortion is distinctly different from murder is the same as to say that euthanasia is distinctly different from murder. This would be making an illogical distinction between the two which is not the intent behind the Catechism’s separate treatment of the two. The very definition of murder itself predisposes the nature of abortion (the unjust and willful killing of innocent human life) to be an act of murder. Murder can be defined in a general sense. Abortion is a specific subset of the general set inclusive of murder.

I think you are confused. From a Catholic theological perspective, it is illogical to seperate abortion from a wide variety of issues:

"In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of the rights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: <<All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator>>" - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI #38

As the Pope notes, we reject abortion and torture on the same basic grounds. But for distinct theological reasons, abortion is sometimes not murder, but a seperate, grievous act. You can get angry at me, but your beef is with Saints, Popes, and Doctors of the Church, not me.

 

[Lepanto]

But for distinct theological reasons, abortion is sometimes not murder, but a seperate, grievous act.

As mentioned in the original post, I am assuming that abortion IS murder for the purposes of this thread.

The question then is: do we treat the perpetrators the same as any “other” murderers in terms of their trial and punishment?

 

[stringbeanduck]

What would need to happen for the roe vs wade decsion to be overturned???

 

[CentralFLJames]

At the risk of making heads explode, abortion is not always murder under Catholic teaching.

It is always a “grave moral disorder”, but it isn’t always murder. Past the point of ensoulment, it is murder. Prior to that, it is “anticipated murder”. We’ve had different traditions on when that point is (historically 80-116 days), but our current position is that we do not know.
…

I thought the traditional view in light of doubt was to give the benefit of the doubt to the first moment of conception - even before it is attached in the uterus (which has the sad consequence of leaving millions of baby’s in limbo [now deprecated?] who are naturally aborted by the body’s inability to successfully implant the fertilized egg).

The civil crime would most definitely be at least willful man slaughter with accessories.

But the moral crime against God and life would not change and for those dieing impenitent would remain eternal jail in hell.

James

 

[Jennifer123]

In modern terms:

Decree of the Tribunal of the Holy Office 28 May, 1884

Decree of the Tribunal of the Holy Office 18 August, 1889

The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith DECLARATION ON PROCURRED ABORTION 18 November, 1974

All three include the concept of ‘anticipated murder’, “supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul…”

Please also note that The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon law both treat Murder and Abortion as two distinctly different things. As does EVANGELIUM VITAE, which declares both to be, infallibly, “grave moral disorders”.

Historically, we can trace the teaching back to St. Augustine. It was reiterated by St. Jerome and St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as several Popes (off the top of my head I know that Innocent III and Gregory XIV expressed it in writing)

This in no way makes the transgression less grave, it just means that there are strong theological and Sacred Tradition reasons the two are presented as seperate teachings. As mentioned, we are ‘Creationists’, we each receive an indivisable soul which is a unique creation of God.

Statements by the saints or even a letter from the Vatican do not make doctrine.

Please refer to the CCC:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
"Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."2258

"Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74"2270

 

[SoCalRC]

Statements by the saints or even a letter from the Vatican do not make doctrine.

I think you are missing the point. It was doctrine, as in part of the Catechism, up until the 20th century. The distinction was dropped, not because the doctrine was changed, but because Pope Pius IX asserted that, even though the distinction was “undoubtedly” real, it was not relevant. This was elaborated on by Pope Leo and Pope Pius XI. And it was reinforced by the Second Vatican Council. Pope John Paul declared it an infallible teaching by virtual of universal belief of the Bishops in Evangelium Vitae, just a little over a decade ago.

This is what we see in the Catechism now, we recognize the fertilized zygote as human life. Our understanding of the inalienable rights of the human person has expanded. But the distinction still remains theologically relevant.

Why this bothers people I really cannot fathom. Most of the secular complaints about, say, Evangelical Protestant ‘pro life’ teachings are, I think, with merit. On the other hand, Catholic teaching, which is actually more restrictive, is quite consistant and defensible. In other words, I find it much easier to explain why our understanding about abortion has shifted fairly significantly in the last 150 years than to pretend that it has not. It is just too easy for someone to pull up evidence of our own history and declare it ‘proof’ of hypocrisy.

 

[mapleoak]

I think you are missing the point. It was doctrine, as in part of the Catechism, up until the 20th century. The distinction was dropped, not because the doctrine was changed, but because Pope Pius IX asserted that, even though the distinction was “undoubtedly” real, it was not relevant. This was elaborated on by Pope Leo and Pope Pius XI. And it was reinforced by the Second Vatican Council. Pope John Paul declared it an infallible teaching by virtual of universal belief of the Bishops in Evangelium Vitae, just a little over a decade ago.

This is what we see in the Catechism now, we recognize the fertilized zygote as human life. Our understanding of the inalienable rights of the human person has expanded. But the distinction still remains theologically relevant.

You seem to be arguing dubious a position of ambiguity. Can you give an example of what you mean when you say sometimes abortion is not murder and show how it relates to the theological distinction between murder and abortion.

 

[fix]

…Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. 73…

Evangelium vitae

 

[mozart-250]

Interjecting my :twocents: from a heretic Protestant standpoint.

When you talk about murder there are two senses in which the word is used.

First of all there is the moral sense. I think we should all agree that morally abortion is the equivalent of murder.

But second we have the legal sense. In this case murder is a felonious crime punishable often by death in the case of first-degree murder (there is also second-degree murder, manslaughter, on down the line).

My one comment here is just because abortion is morally the same as murder does not necessarily mean that it should be legally the same as murder (didn’t Jesus say that hating your brother is morally the same as murder at least in some sense). So it does not necessarily follow that we must start sentencing women who have (illegal) abortions to the electric chair.

This is why when talking to non-Christians I try to avoid the word murder (which has both a moral and legal sense) and use the word more neutral word killing (abortion is the deliberate killing of innocent human life).

Other than this note, carry on.

 

[st_lucy]

Interjecting my :twocents: from a heretic Protestant standpoint.

When you talk about murder there are two senses in which the word is used.

First of all there is the moral sense. I think we should all agree that morally abortion is the equivalent of murder.

But second we have the legal sense. In this case murder is a felonious crime punishable often by death in the case of first-degree murder (there is also second-degree murder, manslaughter, on down the line).

My one comment here is just because abortion is morally the same as murder does not necessarily mean that it should be legally the same as murder (didn’t Jesus say that hating your brother is morally the same as murder at least in some sense). So it does not necessarily follow that we must start sentencing women who have (illegal) abortions to the electric chair.

This is why when talking to non-Christians I try to avoid the word murder (which has both a moral and legal sense) and use the word more neutral word killing (abortion is the deliberate killing of innocent human life).

Other than this note, carry on.

Thank you for this very Christian like post. And for the great ideas on how to talk to non-Christians about what abortion is.

 

[Newbie2]

This is why when talking to non-Christians I try to avoid the word murder (which has both a moral and legal sense) and use the word more neutral word killing (abortion is the deliberate killing of innocent human life).

.

That’s not a bad idea; methinks although the distinction is significant in both a legal and theological sense, practically, until such laws may change, using “killing” makes sense.