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

[fix]

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).

I am not sure I can see your point? We agree it is murder, right? As you said the state has differing degrees of murder depending on certain factors, so why not call it what it is?

In other words, what is the difference between saying one directly intends to kill innocent persons and saying one intends to murder?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am not sure I can see your point? We agree it is murder, right? As you said the state has differing degrees of murder depending on certain factors, so why not call it what it is?

In other words, what is the difference between saying one directly intends to kill innocent persons and saying one intends to murder?

It’s like the Cowardly Lion, “I’ll fight ya wid’ one paw tied behind me back.”

Of course, the Cowardly Lion had no intention of fighting at all.

 

[estesbob]

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

Catholig

Basically this discussion goes back to the fifth century. Not only were there deep theological discussion about when ensoulment took place but also what the status of the the child was before and after the " quickening" .Contrary to what many assert today in all cases abortion was consider a mortal sin. The discussion was about what pennance should be given for procuring an abortion and the pennance was greater after the child had been “ensouled” and/or quickened" than it was before.

The question on ensoulment has nothing to do with the Church’s view on abortion

 

[fix]

It’s like the Cowardly Lion, “I’ll fight ya wid’ one paw tied behind me back.”

Of course, the Cowardly Lion had no intention of fighting at all.

Yes. If we nuance this teaching I assume that should apply to other things as well?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes. If we nuance this teaching I assume that should apply to other things as well?

“Nuance?” Does that mean “a politician with Big Hair?”

 

[mozart-250]

I am not sure I can see your point? We agree it is murder, right? As you said the state has differing degrees of murder depending on certain factors, so why not call it what it is?

In other words, what is the difference between saying one directly intends to kill innocent persons and saying one intends to murder?

We agree that abortion is morally murder. Where we might disagree is what the state sanctions for abortion should be if it is ever recriminalized.

If you believe that the state should prosecute both the woman and the abortionist for the felonies of murder (and receive the penalties for the felony upon conviction) should abortion be criminalized again, then there is no ambiguity concerning the term murder.

If you believe that the state should not prosecute both the woman and the abortionist for the felonies of murder (perhaps a lesser charge), then the use of the word murder in respect to abortion is still morally correct but in the cival sense is incorrect.

My point is that the second scenario is not inconsistent if you are using the word murder in a moral manner only. However the use of the word murder in the second scenario is likely to be confusing to our secular society.

 

[vern_humphrey]

My point is that the second scenario is not inconsistent if you are using the word murder in a moral manner only. However the use of the word murder in the second scenario is likely to be confusing to our secular society.

Which is why we should call it what it is, and treat it for what it is.

We routinely have homicides in this country that are evaluated to determine what the charge should be – what might be First Degree Murder can have extenuating factors that would lead a prosecutor to charge Second Degree Murder, or even Manslaughter.

Why should the killing of a child be any different?

And more importantly, why should we say it is different?

 

[fix]

We agree that abortion is morally murder. Where we might disagree is what the state sanctions for abortion should be if it is ever recriminalized.

If you believe that the state should prosecute both the woman and the abortionist for the felonies of murder (and receive the penalties for the felony upon conviction) should abortion be criminalized again, then there is no ambiguity concerning the term murder.

If you believe that the state should not prosecute both the woman and the abortionist for the felonies of murder (perhaps a lesser charge), then the use of the word murder in respect to abortion is still morally correct but in the cival sense is incorrect.

My point is that the second scenario is not inconsistent if you are using the word murder in a moral manner only. However the use of the word murder in the second scenario is likely to be confusing to our secular society.

It is the unlawful taking of an innocent life. That is murder. How each state classifies that murder and how each particular case is prosecuted does not change the fact it is a murder.

I am trying to see your point, but I am still having trouble.

 

[mapleoak]

My point is that the second scenario is not inconsistent if you are using the word murder in a moral manner only. However the use of the word murder in the second scenario is likely to be confusing to our secular society.

Calling abortion anything but the murder for which it is, would be the cause of confusion. No reason to be needlessly confusing society.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Calling abortion anything but the murder for which it is, would be the cause of confusion. No reason to be needlessly confusing society.

Calling abortion anything but the murder it is, is granting standing to the “it’s a choice” school of sophism.

 

[mozart-250]

Which is why we should call it what it is, and treat it for what it is.

We routinely have homicides in this country that are evaluated to determine what the charge should be – what might be First Degree Murder can have extenuating factors that would lead a prosecutor to charge Second Degree Murder, or even Manslaughter.

Why should the killing of a child be any different?

And more importantly, why should we say it is different?

If you believe that both the abortionist and the mother should receive the same criminal penalties that we now have on the books for the assorted felonies of murder, then there is not inconsistencies or ambiguity in standing up and stating that abortion is murder.

If you believe that the abortionist or the mother should receive lesser penalties (perhaps under a different statute) than those that are on the book for murder, then you believe that abortion is murder only in the moral sense, but not in the criminal sense. In this case the term murder is confusing to secular society.

In other words, a natural question in any debate by a secular pro-abor* umm… choicer is “If abortion is murder then why shouldn’t the woman receive the electric chair”. A possible answer to this question is (if you do not believe the woman should receive the electric chair) would be to differentiate between the moral versus civil definitions of the word murder. .

I will let you all debate how abortion should be classified and prosecuted should it ever be criminalized again. I am not going to be pulled into this one. .

I am here only to point out that the word “murder” has both a moral and civil sense. It is not inconsistent to believe that abortion is morally the same as murder but civally should receive lesser sanctions than the felonies of murder that are now on the books. In fact, if you must have perfect consistency between the moral and civil definitions of the word murder, then everyone who ever hated somebody should also receive the electric chair since Jesus said that hating your brother is the moral equivalent of murder.

Fact check: I just remembered that the electric chair has been called “cruel and unusual punishment” by our supreme court. Substitute “lethal injection” for “electric chair” please.

 

[Al_Masetti]

A judge in New Jersey a few years ago stated that abortion is a legal execution.

Since it is legal, then there are no criminal charges possible.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you believe that both the abortionist and the mother should receive the same criminal penalties that we now have on the books for the assorted felonies of murder, then there is not inconsistencies or ambiguity in standing up and stating that abortion is murder.

Where are you getting that from?

Under our system of justice, every crime is treated as an idividual case. Murders can be charged as first or second degree murder, first or second degree manslaughter, negligent homicide, and so on. The prosecutor considers the circumstances of the case, and makes charges accordingly.

It is not uncommon to charge the same act under several headings at the same trial, and in some states a jury can find the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense – a person charged with first degree murder can be found guilty of manslaughter, for example.

But since abortion is pre-meditated, and it is killing the most helpless and innocent of victims, the idea that it is somehow less of a crime that, say killing a 6-month old infant, is literally beggin the question – we are asked to accept at the outset that the unborn child is somehow ‘less human.’

 

[SoCalRC]

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.

Remember, our faith is not a random collection, but an attempt at a coherent whole. It is not enough to have a consistant view about abortion, that view has to be consistant with every line in the Nicene Creed, and all that they represent.

Now, why do I think this matters. Let’s say you are trying to discuss abortion with secular progressives. And you assert, ‘abortion is murder, it always has been murder, end of story…’ Then they start pulling out quotes, Pope Innocent III specifically ruling that early abortion is not murder, St. Thomas Aquinas arguing the correctness of the doctrine, Pope Gregory the XIV reaffirming the teaching centuries later.

Next you say, ‘well, maybe we believed that once, but not now’, then they pull out documents from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on procurred abortion and respect for fetal life and point to the actual text and footnotes. And, behold, the same language is there.

So you say, 'well, I’m not up on the whole history of this, but I know what is right, just look at our earliest Christain writings". So they pull out Tertullian, who did have views on abortion remarkably close to our modern ones (although for heretical reasons), and show you that right between two very popular quotes on pro-life websites in another paragragh, one that describes a primitive ‘partial-birth’ abortion in gruesome detail and describes it as a “necessary cruelty”, the moral correctness even the greatest proponents of life would not argue with.

It is really hard to ‘wing’ such a discussion and remain at all consistant. If you want to cite faith as a justification for belief, then it is very helpful to really dig into the beliefs and try to understand and embrace it.

When I discuss my beliefs about abortion with the secular community (which is inevitable, since it is what most secularists now seem to associate with Catholicism), we may not agree, but I don’t get dismissed as inconsistant or hypocritical. In fact, I usually can find common ground on other manifestations on our pro life teachings and get them to concede that my ‘extreme’ views are just a broader, more consistant application of things they already believe.

But this is really secondary. For me the principle benefit is that striving for a deeper undertanding on this one teaching is that it helps keep me more honest with myself. It is so easy to fall into a pattern of moral superiority. ‘No, I’m not perfect, but it’s not like I’m one of those baby killers…’ Such thinking is, I believe, a very poor way to follow Christ.

 

[fix]

In other words, a natural question in any debate by a secular pro-abor* umm… choicer is “If abortion is murder then why shouldn’t the woman receive the electric chair”.

Because each case is different. Not every one convicted of murder gets the death penalty.

A possible answer to this question is (if you do not believe the woman should receive the electric chair) would be to differentiate between the moral versus civil definitions of the word murder.

I think the definitions are the same. The penalties vary.

In fact, if you must have perfect consistency between the moral and civil definitions of the word murder, then everyone who ever hated somebody should also receive the electric chair since Jesus said that hating your brother is the moral equivalent of murder.

Murder of the physical body is what we are talking about here. The intentional and unlawful taking of an innocent life. How that plays out in each circumstance will vary and the law has ways of addressing that right now.

 

[fix]

Remember, our faith is not a random collection, but an attempt at a coherent whole. It is not enough to have a consistant view about abortion, that view has to be consistant with every line in the Nicene Creed, and all that they represent.

Now, why do I think this matters. Let’s say you are trying to discuss abortion with secular progressives. And you assert, ‘abortion is murder, it always has been murder, end of story…’ Then they start pulling out quotes, Pope Innocent III specifically ruling that early abortion is not murder, St. Thomas Aquinas arguing the correctness of the doctrine, Pope Gregory the XIV reaffirming the teaching centuries later.

Next you say, ‘well, maybe we believed that once, but not now’, then they pull out documents from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on procurred abortion and respect for fetal life and point to the actual text and footnotes. And, behold, the same language is there.

So you say, 'well, I’m not up on the whole history of this, but I know what is right, just look at our earliest Christain writings". So they pull out Tertullian, who did have views on abortion remarkably close to our modern ones (although for heretical reasons), and show you that right between two very popular quotes on pro-life websites in another paragragh, one that describes a primitive ‘partial-birth’ abortion in gruesome detail and describes it as a “necessary cruelty”, the moral correctness even the greatest proponents of life would not argue with.

It is really hard to ‘wing’ such a discussion and remain at all consistant. If you want to cite faith as a justification for belief, then it is very helpful to really dig into the beliefs and try to understand and embrace it.

When I discuss my beliefs about abortion with the secular community (which is inevitable, since it is what most secularists now seem to associate with Catholicism), we may not agree, but I don’t get dismissed as inconsistant or hypocritical. In fact, I usually can find common ground on other manifestations on our pro life teachings and get them to concede that my ‘extreme’ views are just a broader, more consistant application of things they already believe.

But this is really secondary. For me the principle benefit is that striving for a deeper undertanding on this one teaching is that it helps keep me more honest with myself. It is so easy to fall into a pattern of moral superiority. ‘No, I’m not perfect, but it’s not like I’m one of those baby killers…’ Such thinking is, I believe, a very poor way to follow Christ.

What is your answer to the question he asked you?

 

[mozart-250]

It is the unlawful taking of an innocent life. That is murder. How each state classifies that murder and how each particular case is prosecuted does not change the fact it is a murder.

I am trying to see your point, but I am still having trouble.

If you believe that abortion is murder in the civil sense of the word, my point is moot. Please disregard everything I say.

I only have a point if you believe that abortion is murder in the moral sense of the word only. And my point is only pointing out that this belief is not inconsistent with itself (and in providing a basis for that belief).

I guess my point (if I have any) reduces to disputing the premise implied in the title of the thread; that if one believes that abortion is murder, then it logically follows that abortion should be prosecuted as murder. B does not necessarily follow from A. Otherwise everyone who ever hated somebody should also be prosecuted as a murderer.

I am not going to debate what civil statutes and penalties a hypothetical crime of abortion should receive. Some here obviously believe that abortion should be prosecuted under the murder statutes on the books (yes there are various degrees of murder on the books). And that is fine.

 

[He_Man]

I’m completely against imprisonment of any of them, they truly believe it’s not murder. They need prayer, not prison.

You don’t know what “they” believe. There is no group mindset here. Some abort callously; so do it with great reservation. But all murder.

And that is irrelevant either way.

Most of the Muslims who flew planes into the world trade center thought they were doing the right thing as well. Should we have simply thrown the surviving terrorists a “prayer party”, and called it a day?

That’s what laws are for; to protect society. Many of these women statistically will have more than one abortion if not locked up and stopped.

 

[fix]

IB does not necessarily follow from A. Otherwise everyone who ever hated somebody should also be prosecuted as a murderer.

There are several ways of refuting this reasoning, but I would ask the person who reasons this way why we have laws against bank robbery if we have no laws against hating in one’s heart? Should bank robbery laws be repealed until we have laws against hating in our hearts?

 

[SoCalRC]

Interjecting my :twocents: from a heretic Protestant standpoint.

I just had to take a moment and compliment this whole post. Very astute on many levels. I’ve actually gone back and read it several times.

FWIW, Jesus’ comment is not neglected in Catholicism. Pope John Paul II connected abortion to the death penalty in EVANGALIUM VITAE and “the right to life” to torture, slavery, and many other injustices in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI.

We are supposed to treasure life “in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor”, something all too easy to forget.

P.S. Don’t think that the compliment gets you off the hook for being a Sox fan - though I do think I can make a sound theological case for hating the Yankees…