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

[vern_humphrey]

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 Should bank robbery laws be repealed until we have laws against hating in our hearts?

This is one of the rocks upon which many pro-choice arguments founder, the assumption that somehow killing children is different from killing adults. And from that, we are asked to assent to the proposition that a law against killing children is somehow different from all the other laws we have.

 

[SoCalRC]

This is one of the rocks upon which many pro-choice arguments founder, the assumption that somehow killing children is different from killing adults. And from that, we are asked to assent to the proposition that a law against killing children is somehow different from all the other laws we have.

If nothing else, you are consistant. Nothing but lockstep agreement is a clear sign of closet abortionists…

But it is still a silly argument. The Church makes a distinction between murder and abortion because even though they both fall under the same Commandment, they are different acts with different moral contexts.

You, yourself, accept precisely such a distinction. For example, the WHO has just released our best study to date which indicates that more than 150,000 Iraqi civilians have died from violence related to our pre-emptive invasion. But although two successors to Peter have noted that the entire endeaver is at odds with our Catechism on war and military force, you would scoff at labelling these deaths ‘murders’.

Similiarly, since our invasion we have been unable to provide electricity or potable water, a situation that is estimated to have cost the lives of over 30,000 Iraqi children. But you would object to my calling this ‘infaticide’.

And, of course, we know that in at least one incident, Pinochet thugs from Chile, in the US’s employ, targetted Iraqi civilians for sport, including intentionally shooting a pregnant woman in the stomach. No perpetrator was held accountable under US law and the State Department used hush money and political muscle to protect the perpetrator(s) from Iraqi civil authority. But you would object to my description of such an act as ‘forced abortion’…

Presumably the difference is that you are certain of your own moral authority.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If nothing else, you are consistant. Nothing but lockstep agreement is a clear sign of closet abortionists…

But it is still a silly argument. The Church makes a distinction between murder and abortion because even though they both fall under the same Commandment, they are different acts with different moral contexts.

Where? Where does the Church make this distinction?

Presumably the difference is that you are certain of your own moral authority.

Not nearly as certain as you seem to be of yours.

 

[JimG]

The Church makes a distinction between murder and abortion because even though they both fall under the same Commandment, they are different acts with different moral contexts.

Yes. Not only does the Church make this distinction, so did civil law in the years before Roe v Wade. As I mentioned before, women were not prosecuted for procuring an abortion. Neither were abortionists sent to the electric chair; they were charged with the crime of performing an abortion.

Whenever I see threads about potential criminal punishment to be visited upon women should Roe be reversed, it seems to me that in promoting this line of thought, we do the pro-abortionist’s work for them.

The more discussion there is about criminal penalties for women post-Roe, the less chance there will ever be of Roe being overturned. I don’t know of any pro-life groups advocating criminal penalties for women. Many of them offer support for post-abortive women.

 

[He_Man]

As heart wrenching as that sounds, you still can’t go around killing your children.

As sad as I feel for some people and what they endure in life, they don’t get a pass for murder or theft, or whatever because of a tear-jerker of a story.

And Roe v Wade will be overturned based on an actual understanding of the constitution, not based oninterpret the what will happen to the women afterwards. That isn’t the concern of the USSC. That is the role of Congress.

 

[fix]

But it is still a silly argument. The Church makes a distinction between murder and abortion because even though they both fall under the same Commandment, they are different acts with different moral contexts.

What distinction? Are you saying the moral gravity is different when one intentionally kills innocents in the womb from outside the womb?

I would like to read about this. If you mean canonical penalties differ over time, fine we can discuss why that was.

 

[fix]

Yes. Not only does the Church make this distinction, so did civil law in the years before Roe v Wade. As I mentioned before, women were not prosecuted for procuring an abortion. Neither were abortionists sent to the electric chair; they were charged with the crime of performing an abortion.

That means it is not murder?

 

[mapleoak]

For example, the WHO has just released our best study to date which indicates that more than 150,000 Iraqi civilians have died from violence related to our pre-emptive invasion. But although two successors to Peter have noted that the entire endeaver is at odds with our Catechism on war and military force, you would scoff at labelling these deaths ‘murders’.

Similiarly, since our invasion we have been unable to provide electricity or potable water, a situation that is estimated to have cost the lives of over 30,000 Iraqi children. But you would object to my calling this ‘infaticide’.

Abortion is a direct, intentional, and unquestionable infliction of death on an innocent human being. Nothing short of murder. You are comparing this to an action(s) which may indirectly result in, enable, or otherwise instigate other causes which result in, the loss of life, whether there be intention or not? In addition you are lumping the action of pre-emptive invasion together with the actions of individual rioters. An individual rioter who kills someone is indeed be guilty of murder.

 

[Jennifer123]

Yes. Not only does the Church make this distinction, so did civil law in the years before Roe v Wade. As I mentioned before, women were not prosecuted for procuring an abortion. Neither were abortionists sent to the electric chair; they were charged with the crime of performing an abortion.

Whenever I see threads about potential criminal punishment to be visited upon women should Roe be reversed, it seems to me that in promoting this line of thought, we do the pro-abortionist’s work for them.

The more discussion there is about criminal penalties for women post-Roe, the less chance there will ever be of Roe being overturned. I don’t know of any pro-life groups advocating criminal penalties for women. Many of them offer support for post-abortive women.

Thank you - there is a reason why the discussion with pro-choicers will always end up touching upon this very topic, it’s a scare tactic and one of the last arguments they feel they have to keep abortion “safe” and legal.

 

[Jennifer123]

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

Thank you - this is absolutely the point.

 

[Jennifer123]

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.
.

I fail to see what this proves. Those opposed to the Church’s teachings use anything other than infalliable doctrine all the time to supposedly shore up their arguments, even the individual writings of the saints and popes. Their opinions do not make infalliable Church teachings and to concede this point is to give credence to their arguments. The Church has always been clear about abortion - it is murder. The documents and writings you cite aren’t proof that abortion wasn’t thought to be murder up to some philosophical point of being, but to determine when exactly penalties could be assessed against those involved in procuring an abortion.

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.

Wow - this is pretty judgemental and actually sad coming from one Catholic to another. I really hope you don’t think that our involvement in this is anything related to the moral superiority you think we espouse and believe. I, like most people here on the forums and in the movement in general, am involved in the pro-life movement in order to save women from the lies and death the secular culture provides us all, as women and as a society. To think that we are in it to shame and condemn is not charitable to say the least.

 

[mozart-250]

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?

Either you deliberately are misrepresenting what I was saying, or I am not expressing myself clearly and therefore am misunderstood. Assuming the second option, let me try to say it again.

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). 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.

 

[mozart-250]

Yes. Not only does the Church make this distinction, so did civil law in the years before Roe v Wade. As I mentioned before, women were not prosecuted for procuring an abortion. Neither were abortionists sent to the electric chair; they were charged with the crime of performing an abortion.

…and you dear friend just made my point for me.

 

[Brendan]

Prison should certainly be an option for those who get abortions.

And mandatory for those who perform them.

 

[rwoehmke]

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?

 

[estesbob]

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 do-how about you?

 

[He_Man]

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?

Many of us do. Rachel’s Vineyard here.

And I suppose if we hadn’t, it would make it less murderous?

You seem to be implying lazy prognosticators allow people who kill their children off the hook.

Why, I have no idea.

 

[Jennifer123]

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?

Really, now. More about our perceived righteous indignation?

 

[mapleoak]

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?

Of course, but that would be an understatement. What do you do?
BTW - This is what is called making a tangent, and has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever.

 

[Andruschak]

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.

(Obviously, I’m assuming that Roe vs. Wade is overturned, and abortion is considered murder by the legal system.)

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.