Law being considered in Ohio House would ban abortions based on Down syndrome diagnosis

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bibcat said:
I doubt there’s less promiscuity in the Netherlands than in the US. But the Dutch have better sex education and availability of contraceptives. As for banning abortion based on a diagnosis of Down Syndrome, forcing parents to accept the birth of a seriously deformed child is a really bad idea, both on grounds of eugenics and just plain common sense. This is the sort of thing that gives the pro-life movement a bad name. This is a classic case of where only the parents and their physician should be the shot-callers.
Click to expand...
From the CCC

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. the murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.68

Infanticide,69 fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. **Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.
**
2270 **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.71

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.72
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.73

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.
Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.75

2272** Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
"A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78 **
The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.
Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.
Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."79

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined…
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."80

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual…
It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."81

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."82
"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."83
"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities.
Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"84 which are unique and unrepeatable.
 
bibcat said:
I doubt there’s less promiscuity in the Netherlands than in the US. But the Dutch have better sex education and availability of contraceptives. As for banning abortion based on a diagnosis of Down Syndrome, forcing parents to accept the birth of a seriously deformed child is a really bad idea, both on grounds of eugenics and just plain common sense. This is the sort of thing that gives the pro-life movement a bad name. This is a classic case of where only the parents and their physician should be the shot-callers.
Click to expand...
How does one reconcile this view with the teachings of their church
 
estesbob said:
How does one reconcile this view with the teachings of their church
Click to expand...
Good question. It seems there needs to be more talk about how one shares the guilt of anothers sin. In this case, at the least it’s by defending the ill done.
 
estesbob said:
How does one reconcile this view with the teachings of their church
Click to expand...
One cannot. However I take comfort in the fact that scripture scarcely mentions abortion. The same cannot be said for homosexuality, which is proscribed not only in Leviticus (OT), but also in Romans, Corinthians and Timothy as well. Hence my vehement opposition to same-sex “marriage.”
 
Cider said:
Good question. It seems there needs to be more talk about how one shares the guilt of anothers sin. In this case, at the least it’s by defending the ill done.
Click to expand...
I was just surprised that a Catholic was endorsing eugenics.
 
bibcat said:
One cannot. However I take comfort in the fact that scripture scarcely mentions abortion. The same cannot be said for homosexuality, which is proscribed not only in Leviticus (OT), but also in Romans, Corinthians and Timothy as well. Hence my vehement opposition to same-sex “marriage.”
Click to expand...
The Church has clearly spoken on it, and there is no question on what She teaches.
 
bibcat said:
One cannot. However I take comfort in the fact that scripture scarcely mentions abortion. The same cannot be said for homosexuality, which is proscribed not only in Leviticus (OT), but also in Romans, Corinthians and Timothy as well. Hence my vehement opposition to same-sex “marriage.”
Click to expand...
So you disagree with church teaching on abortion?

You said
As for banning abortion based on a diagnosis of Down Syndrome, forcing parents to accept the birth of a seriously deformed child is a really bad idea, both on grounds of eugenics and just plain common sense
Click to expand...
 
Again, can someone explain to me why the heartbeat bill doesn’t matter?
 
Crossbones said:
Again, can someone explain to me why the heartbeat bill doesn’t matter?
Click to expand...
I don’t think estebob meant that it doesn’t matter. It’s that those set on voting Democrat will find any excuse to reject it as flawed to feel better about voting for a pro-abortion candidate.
 
I suspect if a homosexual gene was discovered the Democrats would rush to be the first ones to introduce a bill banning abortions based on sexual orientation
 
Dawnia said:
I don’t think estebob meant that it doesn’t matter. It’s that those set on voting Democrat will find any excuse to reject it as flawed to feel better about voting for a pro-abortion candidate.
Click to expand...
What you say doesn’t make sense. The Heartbeat Bill is the most important piece of pro-life legislation in the state of Ohio. Passing it would demonstrate the firm commitment to life of the Ohio Republican Party and motivate its base and convince those who rightly claim that the Ohio Republicans are weak on the issue that they are wrong. Furthermore, it would shore up the pro-life credentials of Governor Kasich who seems to have national ambitions.

I guess we’ll have to wait for estesbob to explain what he meant.
 
bibcat said:
One cannot. However I take comfort in the fact that scripture scarcely mentions abortion. The same cannot be said for homosexuality, which is proscribed not only in Leviticus (OT), but also in Romans, Corinthians and Timothy as well. Hence my vehement opposition to same-sex “marriage.”
Click to expand...
Not at all true. “Thou shall not kill”, I think this is found in scripture in many areas. Abortion, no matter the reason, no matter the “need”, no matter the perceived “benefit”, is evil and should be seen as prescribed by Mother Church as intrinsically evil, always evil. Period.
 
Crossbones said:
What you say doesn’t make sense. The Heartbeat Bill is the most important piece of pro-life legislation in the state of Ohio. Passing it would demonstrate the firm commitment to life of the Ohio Republican Party and motivate its base and convince those who rightly claim that the Ohio Republicans are weak on the issue that they are wrong. Furthermore, it would shore up the pro-life credentials of Governor Kasich who seems to have national ambitions.

I guess we’ll have to wait for estesbob to explain what he meant.
Click to expand...
Some people refuse to be convinced regardless of how much proof you set before them. 🤷
 
Abortion was legalized initially under the premise that it would be safer for women who mostly choose to abort, due to economic reasons,pressure from boyfriends,being too young ,etc.
Fast forward forty + years.Now it is the medical community pushing woman to abort through all phases of pregnancy,due largely to what they consider anomalies with the baby,deemed incompatible with life. Here in Colo.there is still a Dr. In Boulder who will abort babies at 36weeks.
I see this push for late term abortions as part of a more (if that is even possible) diabolical plan,to eventually include women being able to end their babies lives after birth.Lets face the reality that this is essentially what is happening now. Euthanasia will be the next big “right to choose” issue.
On a more hopeful note,the fact that legislation like this is even getting any momentum at all is encouraging.
 
-]/-]
Paulg2010 said:
Not at all true. “Thou shall not kill”, I think this is found in scripture in many areas. Abortion, no matter the reason, no matter the “need”, no matter the perceived “benefit”, is evil and should be seen as prescribed by Mother Church as intrinsically evil, always evil. Period.
Click to expand...
If abortion were as important as same-sex deviancy it would have been specifically mentioned in scripture. We wouldn’t have to rely on scriptural bootstrapping. But let’s face facts, in the USA, 90 percent of fetuses, pre-born children, whatever you wish to call them, if they are found via amniocentesis to have Down Syndrome are aborted. When 90 percent of Americans agree on anything, it takes on a correctness all its own. And why did our Creator give us the knowledge to develop amniocentesis in the first place? Just to find out if the nursery should be painted blue or pink?
 
estesbob said:
Don’t let yourself be sucked down the rabbit hole.
Click to expand...
It’s interesting that you would quote my post and then won’t explain it. Guess it’s easier to be snarky than defend a point, eh?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top