Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice

[Doc_Keele]

If you believe each side has the right to define the description of the other side, you’re going to a whole lot of problems, and more importantly if the media don’t accept these terms what difference will it make?
It also gets very close to the “1984” situation for me.

 

[Greg27]

I think this question is specifically about where abortion should be legal in some circumstances (though narrow) or it should be illegal in all situations and anyone who gets an abortion should be prosecuted and sent to prison (along with those who perform the abortion, whether medically qualified or not). This question is distinct from whether you believe abortion is always morally wrong no matter what the subjective justification in the person’s conscience might be, or whether you believe abortion can be morally justified in some situations (such as rape, incest, or danger to life or health) as the person may in some cases feel in conscience they cannot continue the pregnancy.

Without trying to enter into the merits of the abortion debate, which generates more heat than light, I think trying to use penal criminal laws to enforce what is essentially a moral issue is problematic. Most people, regardless of religious belief, agree that the intentional killing of the innocent is always wrong, and I am sure most would also agree that where a human outside of the womb is concerned, a person who does this should be criminally liable for such an act.

Unfortunately such agreement does not exist in relation to the unborn. The application of principles of criminal law in relation to abortion would be problematic. Should a woman who terminates a pregnancy at say, two weeks be treated in the same manner as a robber who shoots a store owner down in cold blood during a botched robbery? Should a woman who procures an abortion following a rape or act of incest by a relative be sent to prison? Should a woman who would die if she did not have an abortion be imprisoned? Any good defence lawyer acting for a client in such a case would be able to portray the victim in a sympathetic light and the person charged would probably be able to avoid being convicted, after a costly criminal trial. Such laws would also likely lead to outcries of injustice, especially from women, who would see such a law as further punishment and victimisation of women who had already been violated by sexual offenders.

Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, making abortion illegal in all circumstances is fraught with problems, just as the criminalisation of other actions (i.e. homosexuality, recreational drug use, prostitution, prohibition, etc) on moral grounds can often lead to questionable outcomes. Criminalisation often drives these activities underground, leading people to seek the same thing from questionable sources. Criminalisation of abortion on moral grounds in the past led to the phenomenon of ‘backyard’ abortions which led to severe internal injuries and deaths of women, often in considerable numbers, and this continues in countries where criminal sanctions for abortion still exist.

I think the law is not the appropriate tool to use to try and deal with the problem of widespread abortion, especially the harsh sanctions of criminal law. I would not want to see a woman who had been raped and then obtained an abortion serve prison time and be further punished and traumatised.

 

[DaddyLarry]

If you believe each side has the right to define the description of the other side, you’re going to a whole lot of problems, and more importantly if the media don’t accept these terms what difference will it make?
It also gets very close to the “1984” situation for me.

Doc, do you recall in the book 1984 the term “newspeak”? Newspeak was the government’s way of redefining terms to deceive people into believing the government’s propaganda. “Pro-choice” is an example of newspeak. It uses deception by not allowing choice to the majority of people, including its own victims. Where is choice in Obamacare when we are forced to pay for abortions? Where is choice when pharmacists are coerced into filling prescribed abortifacients? “Pro-choice” is only for those who would choose abortion for themselves and their unborn children. Even then they are being denied information about what an abortion entails, preventing them from being able to make an informed choice.

We don’t have to accept newspeak for ourselves. Pro-life people should not concede the terminology of the debate to their opponents especially among themselves. After all, this is a Catholic website.

 

[DaddyLarry]

I think this question is specifically about where abortion should be legal in some circumstances (though narrow) or it should be illegal in all situations and anyone who gets an abortion should be prosecuted and sent to prison (along with those who perform the abortion, whether medically qualified or not). This question is distinct from whether you believe abortion is always morally wrong no matter what the subjective justification in the person’s conscience might be, or whether you believe abortion can be morally justified in some situations (such as rape, incest, or danger to life or health) as the person may in some cases feel in conscience they cannot continue the pregnancy.

Without trying to enter into the merits of the abortion debate, which generates more heat than light, I think trying to use penal criminal laws to enforce what is essentially a moral issue is problematic. Most people, regardless of religious belief, agree that the intentional killing of the innocent is always wrong, and I am sure most would also agree that where a human outside of the womb is concerned, a person who does this should be criminally liable for such an act.

Unfortunately such agreement does not exist in relation to the unborn. The application of principles of criminal law in relation to abortion would be problematic. Should a woman who terminates a pregnancy at say, two weeks be treated in the same manner as a robber who shoots a store owner down in cold blood during a botched robbery? Should a woman who procures an abortion following a rape or act of incest by a relative be sent to prison? Should a woman who would die if she did not have an abortion be imprisoned? Any good defence lawyer acting for a client in such a case would be able to portray the victim in a sympathetic light and the person charged would probably be able to avoid being convicted, after a costly criminal trial. Such laws would also likely lead to outcries of injustice, especially from women, who would see such a law as further punishment and victimisation of women who had already been violated by sexual offenders.

Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, making abortion illegal in all circumstances is fraught with problems, just as the criminalisation of other actions (i.e. homosexuality, recreational drug use, prostitution, prohibition, etc) on moral grounds can often lead to questionable outcomes. Criminalisation often drives these activities underground, leading people to seek the same thing from questionable sources. Criminalisation of abortion on moral grounds in the past led to the phenomenon of ‘backyard’ abortions which led to severe internal injuries and deaths of women, often in considerable numbers, and this continues in countries where criminal sanctions for abortion still exist.

I think the law is not the appropriate tool to use to try and deal with the problem of widespread abortion, especially the harsh sanctions of criminal law. I would not want to see a woman who had been raped and then obtained an abortion serve prison time and be further punished and traumatised.

Greg, morality can best be defined as a system of right and wrong. Recognizing that fact, the legal system reflects the morality of society. Every law governing conduct has a moral basis, whether it is stopping at red traffic lights or laws prohibiting fraud.

As for the enforcement of laws prohibiting abortion, they have been enforced prior to 1973 in the US. It was the Supreme Court that legislated abortion on demand from the bench. In his dissent, Justice Byron White recognized this as going beyond the normal authority of the court. The court justified its decision by defining the unborn out of personhood. It smacks very much of the previous court decision upholding slavery by defining black human beings as property. Justice demands otherwise.

In the United States, we have the principle of probable cause before a person can be arrested and brought to trial. If a woman aborts at two weeks police and prosecuters would have a very diffiicult time establishing probable cause. This is because a woman wouldn’t even know if she were pregnant. The victim, if there were one, would likely be unrecoverable. An arrest and prosecution would not go forward in this case. The prosecutor would be very unlikely to proceed in a case of life threatening situation based on the policy of self defense. As you can see, hard cases make bad law.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Doc, do you recall in the book 1984 the term “newspeak”? Newspeak was the government’s way of redefining terms to deceive people into believing the government’s propaganda

Yes, exactly what I was alluding to, although I couldn’t recall the precise term.

“Pro-choice” is an example of newspeak

OK, then “Pro-Life” is too.

After all, this is a Catholic website.

It’s called “taking your ball back” and doesn’t really advance the debate any.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Every law governing conduct has a moral basis, whether it is stopping at red traffic lights or laws prohibiting fraud

Sorry, but you can’t say that. Driving on the right hand side of the road has no moral basis.

 

[JimG]

Sorry, but you can’t say that. Driving on the right hand side of the road has no moral basis.

But picking one side of the street and having everyone drive the same way does have a moral basis. It prevents a lot of death and injury, which is a moral good. It’s a limitation on personal freedom in order to prevent harm to others.

 

[Doc_Keele]

But picking one side of the street and having everyone drive the same way does have a moral basis. It prevents a lot of death and injury, which is a moral good. It’s a limitation on personal freedom in order to prevent harm to others.

It’s not a moral basis as such - have a look at Aquinas’ classifications of law. And note my specific phraseology - driving on the right hand side of the road. Clearly this is no more moral than driving on the left hand side of the road. There’s plenty of other examples of laws that have no moral basis.
The law has no necessary moral content. Did all the laws in Nazi have moral content? All the laws in apartheid South Africa have moral content?

 

[JimG]

Where I live, driving on the left hand side of the road would be a danger to myself and others, and therefore immoral as well. But I quite agree that not all law needs to be derived from moral principles, although all law should seek the common good. (Those who write regulations, however, often seem to have no clue as to the practical effect of the regs.)

 

[DaddyLarry]

OK, then “Pro-Life” is too.

Actually, “pro-life” is not an example of newspeak. There is no attempt to deceive by using terms that draw attention away from its intended view. “Pro-choice” is intended to make people think that everyone is given a choice when it comes to abortion which is definitely not the case. It is intended to deflect attention away from what the choice is.

It’s called “taking your ball back” and doesn’t really advance the debate any.

Not at all. I am merely pointing out that Catholics should not be using terminology that puts themselves on the defensive.

 

[DaddyLarry]

It’s not a moral basis as such - have a look at Aquinas’ classifications of law. And note my specific phraseology - driving on the right hand side of the road. Clearly this is no more moral than driving on the left hand side of the road.

After the society decides which side of the road is to be driven on, violating that decision becomes immoral, thereby making it the moral decision of the society.

There’s plenty of other examples of laws that have no moral basis.
The law has no necessary moral content. Did all the laws in Nazi have moral content? All the laws in apartheid South Africa have moral content?

Yes. Our reaction to all of these laws, whether in obeying them or not require moral decisions. Sometimes when following a higher moral law, we might have to disobey a lower one. The Law of God is higher than the law of man. Morally, we are required to obey the Law of God when it conflicts with the law of man. If the law of man does not conflict with the Law of God, then we are required to obey the law of man. Direct killing of the innocent violates the Law of God.

 

[Doc_Keele]

After the society decides which side of the road is to be driven on, violating that decision becomes immoral, thereby making it the moral decision of the society

No, it’s still not a morally-based law. You just don’t seem to understand the concept

Yes. Our reaction to all of these laws, whether in obeying them or not require moral decisions. Sometimes when following a higher moral law, we might have to disobey a lower one. The Law of God is higher than the law of man. Morally, we are required to obey the Law of God when it conflicts with the law of man. If the law of man does not conflict with the Law of God, then we are required to obey the law of man. Direct killing of the innocent violates the Law of God.

Right - you don’t seem to understand what I’m on about here either. Never mind.

 

[DaddyLarry]

Actually Doc, I understand both of your concepts. I simply disagree with them. Actions that are morally neutral on a normal basis can take on moral dimensions when enacted into law.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Sorry but you don’t, I promise you.

 

[kfinstad]

Pro-Life is a term meaning more than anti-abortion. One priest I know was fond of stating, what Bishop Fulton Sheen stated: Pro-Life means–from the womb, to the tomb. When weighing the value of one person’s life, against another’s, it become hard to say, what is Pro-Life. Catholicism with numerous other religions, philosophies, and legal entitities, provide people with opportunities to kill other people, generally in defense, of what a country might both morally, and legally, determine to be a fair taking of another’s life. Can you be both Pro-War and Pro-Life? Where criminals are concerned: even the taking of criminal’s lives are seen to be only a last resort. Rape may not constitute grounds for execution, but it is a horrible crime. A woman becomes pregnant, and the pregnancy becomes a threat to her life–a criminal, as a rapist, has a better chance it would seem of living, than the child of a pregnancy, that is a threat to the mother’s life. It may be ironic, or simply a sad twist of – human nature: murder is a theological issue, killing is an issue of license. State law in CA, does not recognize abortion as murder, but theologically across Judaism, Islam, and Catholicism, murder is the taking of a human life, either able, or capable, or both able and capable of cogently reasoning, that God does in fact, exist. Murder is horrific from a theological view, because to deprive a person of this opportunity, is a grave offense against The Creator, of our person, and our soul.

 

[DaddyLarry]

Sorry but you don’t, I promise you.

Doc, I think you misunderstand what I’ve been saying. You are correct that certain actions can be morally neutral such as which side of the road you drive on, or whether you stop at red or green traffic lights. What you don’t seem to get is that the moral basis for these laws is the right of governments to legislate them. When these actions are legislated, they become the law and it then takes a moral decision on our part to obey them. Deciding to drive on the left side of the road in the USA then becomes an immoral act.

The moral decision that one makes concerning the obedience to these laws depends on whether these laws conflict with the Law of God or not and then acting accordingly.

 

[Doc_Keele]

OK, got you now… some confusion over what we were both meaning by “moral basis”
as you rightly say, the moral choice is not the choice to obey or disobey the law. The law has NO necessary moral content. You may judge the law by reference to “natural law”, be it theologically based or not.

 

[Newbie2]

I could see you were talking past each other.