If abortion were criminalized should women getting an abortion and abortionists face prison time?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AthenaC said:
Absolutely - Please see post #126 and #128.
Click to expand...
I read the posts, and I don’t see anything wrong with what they said. In fact, I believe what they said is common sense. What part of what they said in those posts do you disagree with and why? Please provide the exact quotes from those posts when explaining.
 
AthenaC said:
Attachment to an infant comes from the conscious choice to take care of said infant, during and after pregnancy. It is not magically granted upon conception. Such attachment (in many cases) is not fully realized until about a month after birth.

That is all I was saying, and I am wondering on what basis certain posters are saying that this isn’t the case.
Click to expand...
The basis of reason and natural law. The same basis that provides motivation for 90+% of all arguments between Catholics.😉

I am troubled that you consider natural law magic, and the Lord’s blessings magic. There are plenty of things that we are inclined towards, in accordance with the order of God, that transcend conscious decision. This is fully taught and supported by the Church and Her leaders. Given that the majority of attachments we feel are beyond our initial conscious will, it is fairly reasonable to put forth the case, as many do, that there is a biological maternal instinct that takes no thought to implore, it simply exists because that is the Law of nature, and the Law of God. It is further demonstrable elsewhere in the animal kingdom.

And remarkably, I specified that it might not be universal. I specified that there may be exceptions. I specified that what I said is in general. I specified that I will thence speak in general terms. I also argue that exceptions to this rule are a result of culture, not biology. On what basis do I make my biological and logical arguments? Four years of biochemistry courses and two years of laboratory research on humans. I need not be a woman to understand human biology.

I did not mean to so terribly upset you. Good day.
 
FaithBuild18 said:
Ah of course.

Forgive me for insisting that accomplices to murder be given a fair trial. I had no idea this was an extreme position. I apologize.

Allow me to inform you that the law of the Church is a different story. The law of the land currently permits abortion freely without penalty. I find it rather extreme to be glad that the law of the land is such.

Convince me, that you are not creating additional sympathies for these criminals simply because of their gender. As a feminist, surely you don’t view women as less capable of discernment than men, therefore they should be treated equally in the court of law, held fully accountable for their actions as a man would, yes?

Honestly, I feel like the biggest feminist in this topic for insisting that women be treated equally in all aspects of civil life, including the legal system. Why is it that other feminists only want the benefits of equal treatment, including pay and work opportunities, but not the burden of equal responsibility? Perhaps I am the wrong one in this topic. Maybe, due to my -]traditional/-] Catholic beliefs, I should be agreeing with you kind women.
Click to expand...
You have a right to believe whatever you want, and should not apologize just because someone else thinks you are being extreme. In the end, it’s just your opinion, and we are not ruled by selective opinion, yours or mine.
 
I just don’t see all of this prosecution ever happening - going after those who may have ‘coerced’ someoneone into having an abortion?? The courts just don’t have the time the money or the inclination to any let alone all of this. Who is going to fund this? I guess I’m just trying to be realistic here - I just don’t see any of this being given priority. The reason Scott Peterson’s unborn child was included with the murder o Lacey was because the child was obviously wanted - if it’s an unknown and the courts are deciding they will tend to go with believing the child was wanted- but honestly, there are two camps of people and we all know about them - those that believe that what is there after the sperm and egg meet what is produced is just a blob of cells and those that believe that after the sprem and egg meet that it is a human life. IF abortion is ever made illegal (which I honestly, seriously doubt it will ever be completely - meaning that in any situation where an egg and sperm have met if it is purposely gotten rid of or aborted that it would be considered a crime in all situation) it would take decades of really changed beliefs of all American’s on this issue - I just don’t believe that will happen - and there are even other camps of ‘pro lifers’ - those that believe that there is NEVER a situation where abortion is acceptable and those that believe that in cases of rape or in cases where the mother’s health and life are in jeopardy that it is acceptable (and yes there are cases where a mother’s life can be saved - as rare as those are).
Unless something fairly odd happened and America suddenly became a Catholic Country (and even then - I’m skeptical)- I just don’t ever see it happening. And there will be so many American’s who will say ‘this is seriously what you want to clog up the court systems with’ or ’ aren’t there more important infractions or crimes (I have a hard time believing all American’s would ever consider abortion or taking the morining after pill a ‘crime’) -that the courts and the systems dollars need to go to?
And there are those that belive that using abc that may be an ‘abortifacient’ would be just as bad as having an abortion - how are you going to deal with that - and how are you going to police that? What about those that need to be on it? There are so many variable that I just question would ever be dealt with/given importance or turned around -
I’m not saying I agree with everything I’ve brought up - I just believe that these are some very logical points.
God Bless
Rye
 
livingwordunity said:
That’s the appeal to emotion/personal attack logical fallacy. If one has to be a woman and been pregnant to be qualified to speak about abortion then the same ones who say this have to also say that Roe vs Wade is invalid since it was decided by an all male Supreme Court. By the same standard, only pregnant women would be qualified to give their opinion about abortion and not women who haven’t ever been pregnant. This would mean that most lesbians don’t have a right to give their opinion about abortion. Are you willing to say that? But many women who have had an abortion say they deeply regret it.
Click to expand...
Most of the ‘research’ I’ve seen regarding whether or not a woman regrets her abortion is put out by Catholic agencies which definitely have an agenda - (I will conceed so does the other side)- I really disagree that ‘most’ women that have an abortion regret it - do you realize that in countries like Russia for quite some time a large percentage of those having abortions were on their 3rd abortion or more? I honestly belive that most women view having an abortion as soemthing getting ‘fixed’ - (I know there are plenty of women on this Catholic site who do indded regret their abortion but there are millions and millions of women the world over who have had abortions and for many, it’s just the answer to a ‘problem’ they’re having. They may wish they didn’t have to have it but I did have a friend describe it to me this way in college (and I do paraphrase) - ‘it’s like going to the dentist - I Really don’t want to have the root anal but I also don’t want to loose the tooth or deal with the pain - in the end it’s the best decision…’
God Bless
Rye
 
ryecroft said:
The reason Scott Peterson’s unborn child was included with the murder o Lacey was because the child was obviously wanted -
Click to expand...
Well, the main reason he was gone after for the second charge was that he was being prosecuted for murder of his wife. Had be been responsible for pressuring her to have an abortion, for example (but not for murdering her), he would not have been prosecuted under current law, but I guess the point of the thread is that the OP is posing a hypothetical; therefore, I should not have responded, because, like you,
ryecroft said:
I just don’t see all of this prosecution ever happening - going after those who may have ‘coerced’ someoneone into having an abortion?? The courts just don’t have the time the money or the inclination to any let alone all of this. Who is going to fund this? I guess I’m just trying to be realistic here - I just don’t see any of this being given priority.
Click to expand...
It will also be immediately challenged unless Roe is overturned, so I think the additional assumption by the OP is that Roe would/will be overturned (or radically modified). I’m not saying that that is not possible, nor desirable, just that it is probably unlikely in the very near future. I’m of the mind that more indirect strategies are more effective, ones designed first to increase public awareness, second to reduce the number of incidents (through various legislation).
 
We also don’t know, (after it is hypothetically made illegal), how many people will get abortions illegally. I certainly don’t think all abortions will stop, but I think it would in fact cut it down drastically, if not for inconvenience and associated lawlessness then because of the inherent life threatening danger of such a complicated procedure being performed in a back alley. We aren’t talking about something as accessible and easy to use as illegal drugs or bootleg liquor (during prohibition). So I think there may be a chance that the number of abortions is significantly reduced to a number that is in fact manageable by the courts. The current number of yearly murders is already more than manageable. But again this is all just my speculation.

…And I am quite the optimist, so my predictions may be biased towards the direction of hopefulness.😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top