Agreed.
I’ve also heard it used in reference to school choice, such as vouchers and homeschooling, and vaccines.
Fair enough. I’d respond that elective, induced abortion deliberately takes the life of a defenseless human being, and is therefore a sin.
Knowing that the Church teaches abortion is a sin of grave matter satisfies the “full knowledge” condition.
Ah! In line with this logic, I have a modest proposal: why don’t we simply depopulate (by humane execution) areas where the land cannot support the whole population?
But “pro choice” is simply a euphemism for “pro legalising abortion”
Can AI determine whether or not a suspect is guilty of the crime? Or whether he was coerced to commit the crime? Can AI determine whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone ? Can AI tell us what happened to James R. Hoffa ? Can AI tell us how long we or some other person has to live? Can AI tell us who will win the Presidential election in 2020 or in 2024?
True, but there is at least one CAF poster who insists that women should not be punished for having an abortion because as a rule they are coerced into it, in some way or another. In order for a sin to be mortal, the choice has to be made freely without coercion, No? And in any case, should the woman be punished by life imprisonment for contracting out the murder of her child? Or should she be left alone, even though she is guilty of contracting for murder?
Yes, frontline campaigners I know confirm this. Women are often coerced into abortion by men (eg the baby’s father who is married to someone else, or the mother’s father who thinks it will ruin her university education)
See above. There are good choices and bad choices. Acknowledging that free-will exists does not mean one is “pro-bad-choice.”
True. But that’s not how I read @Polak’s question. Certainly if the woman were aware of the Church’s teaching on abortion, it doesn’t matter what she might believe about the humanity of the unborn. But I think the point was more general, and not specific to Catholic doctrine.
I don’t think you were referring to me. But my emphasis on “full” is about the level of culpability. As the back and forth I had with @(name removed by moderator), degrees of knowledge may alleviate some of the guilt, and in the case of complete ignorance might eliminate all of it. And I agree with your point. The level to reach for full knowledge isn’t that difficult.
I’m not sure to whom you are referring, but I think as a practical matter, the first line of attack is to punish those with the fullest knowledge and fullest consent–the abortionist. I have posted that I think women from a legal perspective should not generally be punished, unless it could be shown that she too knew exactly what was going on and freely consented to it.
In order to be guilty of mortal sin, the object has to be grave matter, the choice has to be freely made and with full knowledge. I make the distinction of guilt with respect to CCC 1860, which notes that “[t]he promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders.” This clearly implies diminished consent can reduce guilt imputed.
See above. As a practical, legal matter, I think unless it can be shown that the woman acted with full knowledge and full consent, then the primary punishment should fall on the abortionist. Now, we could practically separate the offenders here. I think the abortionist always acts will full knowledge (they are very highly trained) and full consent (they act as independent, uninterested agents). As for women, that can be judged independently.
No I was not referring to you. Just making a general comment.
Yes and no. I do think that the way abortionists mislead women, e.g. with euphemistic language about “evacuating uterine contents,” can make that whole “full knowledge” concept a fuzzy one. That depends on the context and the woman herself.