Should Abortion be illegal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neithan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Neithan

Guest
Abortion is a grave sin (potentially mortal); but should it be illegal?

Here we have the case of two human beings, one of which is incapable of surviving without the body of another - should the State intervene and force the mother to abdicate rights over her own body in favour of the fetus’ right to life? Isn’t this a conflict of inalienable rights?

I’m not a biology or legal expert, but I’ve thought about this question a lot lately. Abortion is horrifying to me, but in a secular, democratic, pluralistic society the majority rules and most people do not adhere to Catholic morality. Certainly masturbation is gravely sinful (not to the same degree as Abortion), but do any of us think it should be a criminal offense? So where should the government draw the line in legislating morality for the public?

Pax Christi
 
Abortion is not a ‘religious’ issue.

It is a human rights issue.

We’re not talking about whether some person ‘feels’ that abortion is ‘okay’ for them, and another that it is not ‘okay’ for them.

We are talking about the brutal murder of a person who has done no wrong, committed no crime, has no representation or say in his/her death, being chopped into pieces, or burned alive or poisoned.

Because some may not ‘believe’ in a moral truth does not make the truth somehow ‘not true.’
 
Neithan said:
…should the State intervene and force the mother to abdicate rights over her own body in favour of the fetus’ right to life? Isn’t this a conflict of inalienable rights?
Click to expand...
Don’t get caught up in the “rights of the woman” idea. The right to do what you want does not include the right to murder people who are inconvenient to you.

Abortion should be illegal not because it is sinful, but because it is murder. Murder is wrong even from a secular perspective.
 
We make killing illegal in quite a few circumstances where a lot of people, not to say a majority, think it would be justified. (I’m sure a lot wouldn’t mind us going back to the old Celtic way, for example, of permitting someone to kill a cheating wife or husband - although only if they were killed within three days, of course :eek: )

We restrict marriage to two people and don’t (yet, and never will please God) allow polygamy, even though some, not to say a majority, probably think it should be legal.
 
Neithan said:
Abortion is a grave sin (potentially mortal); but should it be illegal?

Here we have the case of two human beings, one of which is incapable of surviving without the body of another - should the State intervene and force the mother to abdicate rights over her own body in favour of the fetus’ right to life? Isn’t this a conflict of inalienable rights?

I’m not a biology or legal expert, but I’ve thought about this question a lot lately. Abortion is horrifying to me, but in a secular, democratic, pluralistic society the majority rules and most people do not adhere to Catholic morality. Certainly masturbation is gravely sinful (not to the same degree as Abortion), but do any of us think it should be a criminal offense? So where should the government draw the line in legislating morality for the public?

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
The woman had a choice. I guess she should have chosen not to have sex if she didn’t want a baby. Why should the baby have to pay?
So what if the world is secular. It still belongs to God. He created it and when we obey his truth we’re always better off. Morality has to be legislated because of the sinfulness of man. Do we have to teach children to be bad? We have to have “rules” so we’ll have a more pleasant world. Otherwise we end up with an anything-goes society where everything is permitted. Everything. Even people wanting to marry a dolphin…
As an aside, I find it very interesting that some men think it is worth it to risk going blind in order to have a few hours of pleasure by taking the “male enhancement” drugs. Maybe masturbation really can make one go blind later in life. :eek:
 
nannygirl said:
The woman had a choice. I guess she should have chosen not to have sex if she didn’t want a baby. Why should the baby have to pay?
So what if the world is secular. It still belongs to God. He created it and when we obey his truth we’re always better off. Morality has to be legislated because of the sinfulness of man. Do we have to teach children to be bad? We have to have “rules” so we’ll have a more pleasant world. Otherwise we end up with an anything-goes society where everything is permitted. Everything. Even people wanting to marry a dolphin…
As an aside, I find it very interesting that some men think it is worth it to risk going blind in order to have a few hours of pleasure by taking the “male enhancement” drugs. Maybe masturbation really can make one go blind later in life. :eek:
Click to expand...
Those drugs are really so stupid. Taking them is not only wrong morally but health wise as well.

Besides If Abraham and Sarah could “do it” at their old ages don’t you think a 44 year old man can “do it” as well.
 
nannygirl said:
As an aside, I find it very interesting that some men think it is worth it to risk going blind in order to have a few hours of pleasure by taking the “male enhancement” drugs. Maybe masturbation really can make one go blind later in life. :eek:
Click to expand...
Nope. If that were the case, I’d be needing a seeing eye dog:rolleyes:
 
Andruschak said:
Nope. If that were the case, I’d be needing a seeing eye dog:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Actually, I know a man who lost the sight in one of his eyes for about 3 months after taking one of the drugs. I didn’t ask him about his youthful experiences.😊 🙂
 
The question was “Should abortion be illegal?” In a word, YES!

The conflict of rights between the right of the woman’s body and the right of the life of the baby does come into play, but the right to life trumps the right of the woman to choose to kill the baby…
 
There is no right to life in the Constitution.

And the right to life in the Preamble is not a reference to abortion or being born. It means that a person has sovereign rights to their own being.
 
There is no right to life in the Constitution
Click to expand...
Really? I do seem to recall a passage in the Declaration of Independence somewhere about mankind being endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these were LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . .

Hard to imagine that man has an inalienable right to life that is important enough to list as ‘inalienable’ yet that right is not supported by our Constitution. . .
 
What you seem to be asking is if the woman’s rights trumps those of her unborn child.

If we can all agree that life begins at conception, then that child should have the same rights as the mother, neither being more nor less that the other.

It seems that we have conflicting laws when it comes to this issue. A woman can walk off the street and get an abortion. Yet if anyone kills an unborn child that is WANTED, then that’s murder (ie Connor’s Law). Paradoxical isn’t it.
 
Neithan said:
Abortion is a grave sin (potentially mortal); but should it be illegal?

Here we have the case of two human beings, one of which is incapable of surviving without the body of another - should the State intervene and force the mother to abdicate rights over her own body in favour of the fetus’ right to life? Isn’t this a conflict of inalienable rights?

I’m not a biology or legal expert, but I’ve thought about this question a lot lately. Abortion is horrifying to me, but in a secular, democratic, pluralistic society the majority rules and most people do not adhere to Catholic morality. Certainly masturbation is gravely sinful (not to the same degree as Abortion), but do any of us think it should be a criminal offense? So where should the government draw the line in legislating morality for the public?

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
Should muder continue to be illegal? Same thing!
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Really? I do seem to recall a passage in the Declaration of Independence somewhere about mankind being endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these were LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . .

Hard to imagine that man has an inalienable right to life that is important enough to list as ‘inalienable’ yet that right is not supported by our Constitution. . .
Click to expand...
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are two different documents. True?
 
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are two different documents. True?
Click to expand...
True indeed. . .but the former came ‘first’; the latter did not ‘contradict’ anything in the former, either. The two documents are complementary (along with other government documents and others which went into establishing the nation), not contradictory.

If ‘separation of church and state’ can be considered a ‘part’ of our government policy, quoted as such, implemented as such, when it is NOT in the Constitution (it is a phrase from Mr. Jefferson’s private letters), how is that different from a phrase “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” which Mr.Jefferson used in a very important legal document being likewise considered as such?

IOW, the Constitution does not have to ‘spell out’ every right; certain RIGHTS are inalienable, certain rights are endemic, certain rights are ‘developed’, etc.
 
Neithan said:
Abortion is a grave sin (potentially mortal); but should it be illegal?

…but in a secular, democratic, pluralistic society the majority rules and most people do not adhere to Catholic morality.
Click to expand...
Actually, we (both USA and Canada) seem to be living in an oligarchy of 9 Supreme Court justices.
Starwynd said:
There is no right to life in the Constitution.

And the right to life in the Preamble is not a reference to abortion or being born. It means that a person has sovereign rights to their own being.
Click to expand...
Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms has such a guarantee…though it apparently doesn’t mean much…
Section 7: Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
 
Search “Social Justice” on this forum for a thread entitled, **“Pro-****choice folks, what are your reasons for supporting abortion?” **This thread was closed June 7, 2008, but has many passionate posts on this subject.

marietta
 
Tantum_ergo said:
True indeed. . .but the former came ‘first’; the latter did not ‘contradict’ anything in the former, either. The two documents are complementary (along with other government documents and others which went into establishing the nation), not contradictory.

If ‘separation of church and state’ can be considered a ‘part’ of our government policy, quoted as such, implemented as such, when it is NOT in the Constitution (it is a phrase from Mr. Jefferson’s private letters), how is that different from a phrase “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” which Mr.Jefferson used in a very important legal document being likewise considered as such?

IOW, the Constitution does not have to ‘spell out’ every right; certain RIGHTS are inalienable, certain rights are endemic, certain rights are ‘developed’, etc.
Click to expand...
First of all rights in the Constitution that were assigned to the government were very limited. All other rights are retained by the states or the people therein. The 10th amendment of the Constitution spells it out rather clearly. Basically is says that the government is granted only those rights which are outlined in the Constitution. Any other rights the government might request needs to be approved by the states and the people therein.

Abortion is absolutely evil. The argument of choice is an invalid one since the mothers choice was made on that day she had sex. An abortion gives her a further choice but denies any choice to an existing human. Conception begins life and to kill a fetus in any stage of development is the taking of life…murder.
Lynn-D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top