Legal problems that may arise if abortion is considered murder?

[wynnejj]

The OP seems to beg the question of “what about Orwellian Big Brother overreach of the government?” — you know, the same kind of overreach when pursuing social justice for the born. We wouldn’t want to see that kind of “big brother” approach protect the least of our brothers in the womb, would we?

When Jesus was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became Man … that doesn’t mean that He should have been treated as Man, equal to any other Man, under the protection of law, does it?

How about applying the same measure of social justice for the unborn, as you do for the born?

If you are comfortable with government “big brother”, well, fine!

But remember we all have a “big brother” and He as much as said “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, that you do unto me!”.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I think perhaps what has happened is that the rhetoric of many pro-life advocates has engulfed their actual policy proposals.

Were abortion to be outlawed, it seems that it would be very unwise to do it by defining it as murder; there’d be a host of legal complications and implications that nobody would want to deal with. The procedure could simply be made illegal; it doesn’t need to be the crime of murder.

Exactly, that’s the point I have tried to make on other threads yet have been shouted down. This thread was an attempt to find out whether people do really want it to become murder.

 

[Bezant]

I think perhaps what has happened is that the rhetoric of many pro-life advocates has engulfed their actual policy proposals.

Were abortion to be outlawed, it seems that it would be very unwise to do it by defining it as murder; there’d be a host of legal complications and implications that nobody would want to deal with. The procedure could simply be made illegal; it doesn’t need to be the crime of murder.

Agreed.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

The issue is, when I’ve seen the morality question placed here about “A train is traveling down a track with 10 people over it and you have a choice to flip the switch so it goes town a track with only one person on it” The majority of people state that the Catholic answer would be to not touch the lever and allow the unstoppable evil to take its course.

Does this mean that the real answer is to be utilitarian and flip the switch killing one to save ten?

You’re arguing improbable hypothetical occurances as if they were everyday events. Your example is absurd.

Its not even worth answering and irrelevent to the issue of abortion.

 

[wynnejj]

Note: This is specifically asking about the effects of making abortion murder, assuming that this means an unborn baby has the same right to life all people have in that country. Abortion can be illegal without this happening, but a lot of pro-life people are campaigning for abortion to be classed as murder too.

Anybody actually have a link to a Pro-Life advocacy group that actually proposes prosecuting pregnant woman for the crime of abortion as murder?

Frankly, I’m not aware of any Pro-Life organization that actually articulates a need to prosecute the woman in an abortion for the crime of murder.

I see many websites that say “Abortion Is Murder”, but that is geared more to convincing folks not to elect an abortion, not a plea for prosecuting the mother.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I don’t think many people have answered the question.

My OP was asking for people’s opinions on the pro-life groups calling not only for abortion to be outlawed but also the pro-life movement have been consistantly describing abortion as murder and saying it should be defined as such. Thus this thread was asking whether those in the pro-life movement who advocate abortion as murder have thought about what might happen IF abortion does become defined as murder as well as being illegal.

I have answered the question but I’ll repeat it here.

The circumstances of the mother can always mitigate the punishment that may be handed out depending on her intent-possibly down to no state punishment at all. That can always be decided on a case-by-case basis by the presiding judge. So again depending on her state of mind, the circumstances, and the intent of the mother she should be charged accordingly and so punished.

Doctors that perform abortions on the other hand are a different matter, again, because of intent and circumstances. Doctors who knowingly would violate the law and use their knowledge and tools to perform abortions should be treated the same as those who are hired hitmen.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I don’t think many people have answered the question.

My OP was asking for people’s opinions on the pro-life groups calling not only for abortion to be outlawed but also the pro-life movement have been consistantly describing abortion as murder and saying it should be defined as such. Thus this thread was asking whether those in the pro-life movement who advocate abortion as murder have thought about what might happen IF abortion does become defined as murder as well as being illegal.

What happened before 1973 when abortion was illegal?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Legal system already classifies the killing of the unborn as murder; under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. An individual can be trialed for homicide or feticide for killing the unborn. You can even be trialed for double homicide if you kill a pregnant woman.

But abortionists who kill the unborn is legal.

This is shows the inconsistency of the legal system and abortion law.

 

[LemonAndLime]

What happened before 1973 when abortion was illegal?

That is irrelevant, as I am specificaly asking whether pro-life people now have thought it through when saying abortion is murder.

I think Lujack is right, the rhetoric of the pro-life movement has long since disassociated itself from their actual policies and manifestos. They are shouting it’s murder it’s murder but are reluctant to actually campaign for it to be defined as murder - beyond just making it illegal.

 

[GEddie]

That is irrelevant, as I am specificaly asking whether pro-life people now have thought it through when saying abortion is murder.

I think Lujack is right, the rhetoric of the pro-life movement has long since disassociated itself from their actual policies and manifestos. They are shouting it’s murder it’s murder but are reluctant to actually campaign for it to be defined as murder - beyond just making it illegal.

Murder is the intentional ending of a human life. Human beings die naturally, and when someone is found dead, society does not assume a priori that murder has been done.

Abortion is the intentional ending of pregnancy. Pregnancies miscarry naturally. Why would the society need to assume each time that abortion was involved?

No one really wants to punish women who abort. Getting rid of the abortion industry is all that is desirable.

ICXC NIKA

 

[wynnejj]

True. The rhetoric of “Abortion is Murder” has found little traction in terms of hard proposals in the Pro-Life movement to make those who seek to procure an illegal abortion liable to the same punishment as those who provide an abortion.

For that to work, one has to put an equal responsibility on the biological father to take responsibility for the developing baby to financially support the mother & child through the pregnancy and childhood.

For that to work, one has to make casual sex illegal by insisting that anyone caught in the act of sex without a marriage certificate would be subject to some form of criminal offense.

If that were in place, there would be public disapproval of media entertainment that promotes casual sex without taking responsibility, modesty would be in vogue, and children would be much more likely to respect authority because they come from responsible two-parent households.

As it is, the Pro-Life movement is totally focused on articulating attacking supply-side abortion. Once past this point, it would indeed be good for the Pro-Life movement to continue the battle for these next phases.

As far as the Orwellian “big brother” approach with excessive regulation of activities of pregnant women, well it could indeed happen with over-reaching public sector economy whose income depends on coming up with new and creative ways to create jobs.

 

[Uriah_Betrayed]

You’re arguing improbable hypothetical occurances as if they were everyday events. Your example is absurd.

Its not even worth answering and irrelevent to the issue of abortion.

Nevertheless you don’t do you side any favors by just brushing the question under the carpet.

So I’ll be more blunt. Are we suppose to take a utilitarian view of unborn life and accept that sometimes its best to kill the unborn so the life of the mother can be preserved?

 

[Lujack]

What happened before 1973 when abortion was illegal?

In England in the 1700 and 1800’s, abortion was at least a transportable offense (you would get sent to Australia) and possibly a capital one (its tough to find out exactly). However, it seems that the typical American penalty was that which was on the books in New York-imprisonment between three months and a year and a fine of $1,000, and presumably the loss of one’s medical license.

I don’t know how often anyone was prosecuted under that law; it seemed like it was a topic that everyone was absolutely desperate to never, ever, under any circumstances talk about happening, even though it was not unheard of (folk methods of ending a pregnancy were not rare).

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Nevertheless you don’t do you side any favors by just brushing the question under the carpet.

Spare me. Its just a rediculous and contrived situation developed to “prove” your preconceived ideology. Premises have to be true for their conclusions to properly follow from them.

The premise itself is not based in reality so it is entirely logical to dismiss it.

So I’ll be more blunt. Are we suppose to take a utilitarian view of unborn life and accept that sometimes its best to kill the unborn so the life of the mother can be preserved?

Just as absurd is your characterization that the scenario is “utilitarian” which in that you presuppose that the Church would advocate this explicitly to increase the “pleasure” of the mother or of society in general. Essentially its a Straw man.

 

[TimothyH]

There is no slippery slope.

Just pass a law which says that if you go to a building where they insert a wire loop into your uterus and use it to sever the arms, legs and head from the torso of the child in your womb without giving the child anesthesia, suck the body parts into a jar with a vacuum, and ship it to a medical waste facility to be burned, then you and the people who work at the building go to jail for a long time.

Make it the same law which says that if you dismember your six month old in her crib you go to jail. What’s so slippery about that?

We are not talking about making sex or bungee jumping illegal. We are talking about butchering infants, ripping their limbs and heads off while the writhe in agony. That’s what we are talking about.

I don’t see what’s so slippery.

-Tim-

 

[wynnejj]

What happened before 1973 when abortion was illegal?

LIFE BEFORE ROE
A BRIEF SURVEY OF US ABORTION LAW BEFORE THE 1973 DECISION
by Brian Young

ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/LIFBFROE.TXT

By 1910, every state except Kentucky had passed an anti-abortion
law (and Kentucky’s courts had declared abortion at any stage of
gestation to be illegal).

 By 1967, not much had changed.  In 49 states, abortion was a

felony; in New Jersey, it was a high misdemeanor. Furthermore, 29
states banned abortion advertising, and many outlawed the manufacture or
distribution of abortifacients.

 In 1967, though, state abortion laws began to change, but only

after years of organized campaigns by pro-abortion forces.

 

[Uriah_Betrayed]

Just as absurd is your characterization that the scenario is “utilitarian” which in that you presuppose that the Church would advocate this explicitly to increase the “pleasure” of the mother or of society in general. Essentially its a Straw man.

Why don’t you spare me the arguments over minor details. You know what I mean by the argument, the Church determines with Double Principle that 2 dead is worse than going out of the way to kill one human embryo that is destined to die and take its mother with it in any case. So where is the defense of life as sacred when the life in question is something that is just going to develop until it kills its mother?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Why don’t you spare me the arguments over minor details. You know what I mean by the argument,…

Because your “minor details” are your major premise. And the premise is absurd and simply not based in reality. Its fallacious, therefore your conclusion is false.

the Church determines with Double Principle that 2 dead is worse **than going out of the way to kill one human embryo that is destined to die and take its mother with it **in any case. So where is the defense of life as sacred when the life in question is something that is just going to develop until it kills its mother?

One, I’ve already answered your attempts to impose you version of absolutism onto Church teaching.

Two, these ideologically and emotionally driven faulty generalizations like what you have written above is the reason why I simply cannot take you seriously. You’re wording is so far and away from Catholic belief and teaching. It’s merely you distorting what the Church has taught and appealing to emotional rhetoric.

That you would say that a doctor calling on a surgery to correct the defect that is an EP is the same as “Going out of the way to kill on human embryo…” then you are simply blinded by your ideology and this conversation is really fruitless.

 

[Uriah_Betrayed]

One, I’ve already answered your attempts to impose you version of absolutism onto Church teaching.

Two, these ideologically and emotionally driven faulty generalizations like what you have written above is the reason why I simply cannot take you seriously. You’re wording is so far and away from Catholic belief and teaching. It’s merely you distorting what the Church has taught and appealing to emotional rhetoric.

That you would say that a doctor calling on a surgery to correct the defect that is an EP is the same as “Going out of the way to kill on human embryo…” then you are simply blinded by your ideology and this conversation is really fruitless.

Ok so instead of just going “No you’re wrong” how about defending the Church’s stance on this issue? You keep saying that this issue isn’t absolute, so can I take that too mean that Human life is only sacred in relativist terms? I don’t see why not, you’re choosing to accept that an EP is a defect and thus not deserving to continue to develop. Whether you want to say kill or not the end result is the termination of that life.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Ok so instead of just going “No you’re wrong” how about defending the Church’s stance on this issue? You keep saying that this issue isn’t absolute, so can I take that too mean that Human life is only sacred in relativist terms? I don’t see why not, you’re choosing to accept that an EP is a defect and thus not deserving to continue to develop. Whether you want to say kill or not the end result is the termination of that life.

I didn’t say that the issue was absolute, I said that in your objection you’re demanding that the Church must be absolutist, which is absurd.

What I am saying, and is the Church’s position, is that morality consists of three factors: absolute and objective principles, relative and objective situations, and subjective motives. All three must be right, not just one. ** And its the last two that you continue to ignore.**
The defect of EP is tragic, but neither was it willed by any party. No Catholic doctor is going around saying to themselves, “Oh boy!, how many EP babies do I get to kill today?!”

The defect determined its fate, not the doctor nor the mother. That motive is all important, and is the very thing you continue to ignore, along with the situation. They are a physical evil directly caused by no one.

My father died three years ago from complications from cancer. I was there in the ICU when they shut the machine off that kept him alive. Did my step mother committ murder? Absolutely not! Its absurd to argue that she did. Neither she, nor I, nor the doctor willed his death. His death was the result of that his body shut down.

All this time you have by your rhetoric characterized the Church’s positon and the choice of having surgery to correct EP as something flippant and crude, assuming that the Church( which IS made up of people with conscience) sees it as some light matter that looks at the embryo no different as Peter Singer would. That you would go to such lengths makes me pity you more than anything. That’s probably the only reason I continue to respond…