Should abortionists be punished?

[Kaninchen]

I have spoken to (Protestant) Christians who tell me that the perpetrators of the Holocaust were not breaking any legal laws at the time, and yet their crimes were so great that they were justifiably punished after the war. From this, they argue that those involved in abortion should similarly be punished if the tables come to be turned on them. How much support for this view would there be within Catholicism?

Actually, the Holocaust was ‘extra-legal’, ie outside the law/ignoring the law. The ‘only obeying orders’ defense existed in the context of the ‘Führer Principle’, where the will of the Führer was followed/deduced in a wide range of activities in accordance with the ideology of the NSDAP but outside the context of the German Legal System.

 

[TheMc]

This is my opinion. Yes, they should be, even though I know I am in the minority. There have been many cases where people have committed “war crimes” which were not a crime at the time and place they were committed. Some of these have even been executed for these crimes.

Interesting viewpoint… Never thought of it that way…

 

[Leegal]

That’s called ‘ex post facto’ (prosecuting for a crime committed before it was formally made illegal) and the US constitution prohibits it explicitly. Changing that aspect of the Consitution is pretty much impossible short of utter revolution.

I think you make a valid and good point about the danger of “ex post facto” laws.
But let us PLEASE remember, that abortion was absolutely ILLEGAL in this country
for 200 years of this country’s existence. It was only made legal when those perverts on the Supreme Court (led, ironically, by CATHOLIC (sic) Justice Brennan) legalized
the demonic sin in 1973 (although a few STATES had already legalized it, including
New York State, prior to 1973).

True. Abortion was legal in some states before 1973. The fact of the matter that Roe v Wade is in itself illegal and violates the Constitution.

If one actually reads the decision one would find that the decision was written to forumate the result. It’s obvious from how it was written that it was “forced” in the sense that they fell back on rhetoric, not Constitutional Law, to accomplish their goal.

However, in the secular sense, this law violates the 10th Amend. to the U.S. Constitution. Even for those who believe that abortion is legal, it is, IN FACT, not good law. Further, judiciaries are to interpret law, not make new law. This was an activist Court that falsely constructed Roe, not a strict constructionist Court who adheres to the Constitution and writings of the forefathers.

The first thing that should happen is that the USSC should take up a case and overturn this Unconstitutional law – of their own making.

However, that liklihood is nil. The USSC sees itself as a body as a whole, similar to the way the Church views itself - continuous not separate from it’s own history. Therefore, they are not likely to revisit a 40 year old law, though the present members were not on the bench at the time. They view themselves as a continuation of their predecessors with no distinction. Therefore, that they would overturn their own law is highly unlikely, even when individually they are not the authors of Roe.

 

[Leegal]

Interesting viewpoint… Never thought of it that way…

Nor should you. Nuremberg does not apply here.

This is a problem of our own making. Seeking the answer in historical trials of other countries (particularly that Nuremberg was conducted in participation with the Soviet Union who manipulated the process in violation of our own criminal laws on due process), has no basis.

The answer lies within our own country. Nuremberg has no correlation to the abortion question and whether or not one can be prosecuted “ex post facto.” Our law does NOT allow for “ex post facto” prosecutions. I will not ignore the Constitution for an “end.” You do not get a good end from a bad means.

Efforts should be put toward educating people about their bodies. Educating people on chastity and abstinence until marriage. Praying for those who participate in abortions that they receive the Grace of the Holy Spirit. We should not be concerned with how to punish them if we cannot overturn this law.

Besides, whatever happens to abortionists, and or those who participated in abortions, is within God’s jurisdiction to judge, after the fact. Since it should be clear that they cannot be prosecuted under our laws now or “ex post facto”, why should we presume to take on God’s role in trying to assume whether or not we can punish them “ex post facto”? The legal argument is there – we cannot.

Isn’t this putting the cart before the horse? We have not yet even gotten anywhere near overturning this law, and educating people on why this is wrong, and some are wondering if they can punish them? Leave it to God to decide the punishment since there is none here on earth that we can or should be thinking of imposing as a punishment. We have other work to do if abortion is to stop.

 

[pnewton]

Nor should you. Nuremberg does not apply here.

This is a problem of our own making. Seeking the answer in historical trials of other countries (particularly that Nuremberg was conducted in participation with the Soviet Union who manipulated the process in violation of our own criminal laws on due process), has no basis.

The answer lies within our own country. Nuremberg has no correlation to the abortion question and whether or not one can be prosecuted “ex post facto.” Our law does NOT allow for “ex post facto” prosecutions. I will not ignore the Constitution for an “end.” You do not get a good end from a bad means.

Violating the Constitution is not a moral bad. I am considering international precedent and applying it to the United States (God forbid that we ever be wrong). You however are applying a moral law to criminal law. One can violate the Constitution for a moral good.

Note that I answered the original question “should”. I did not answer the question of the legality of such a move, which is totally unconstitutional. As to the need to stop abortion first, that too was not the question.

 

[Nelka]

That’s called ‘ex post facto’ (prosecuting for a crime committed before it was formally made illegal) and the US constitution prohibits it explicitly. Changing that aspect of the Consitution is pretty much impossible short of utter revolution.

Given our history, I suspect the UK holds a similar principle somewhere.

It does in the UK too but when it wants to change it, it will.

Unfortunately abortion will never be illegal (in UK) again.

 

[SwissGuard25]

This is very hypothetical, but lets say a govt came to power in the US or UK that was against abortion. After it has banned abortion, would it be justified in prosecuting alll the abortionists who did abortion when abortion was legal?

Good Question,

But No Abortionists should not be punished. We mus, as Jesus taught, turn the other cheek. I pretty sure most of them were just brought up with that ideology.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**Good Question,

But No Abortionists should not be punished. We mus, as Jesus taught, turn the other cheek. I pretty sure most of them were just brought up with that ideology. **

What an appalling answer.
Turn the other cheek? I’ll bet you don’t apply that to much lesser sins, MUCH less serious sins, if they happen to violate CIVIL law !!!
We are talking about MURDER here. Mass Murder.
The fetus is a human being. You know it. I know it.
And THEY know it, internally, intrinsically, EVEN IF THEY WERE brought up
on a pro-Choice ideology. They know it, and are shoving it aside in their minds,
willfully and stubbornly, because all human beings know what another human being is,
unless they have I.Q.'s of under 20.
Remember, we are talking about STRICT JUSTICE here,
which I DON’T believe in, because STRICT JUSTICE is MERCILESS.
If God practiced STRICT JUSTICE, Jesus would never have paid for
mankinds sins/crimes/atrocities, etc, on the cross. God would have shown no mercy.
But according to STRICT JUSTICE, yes, abortionists should be punished
AS SHOULD THE WOMEN who HAVE abortions, unless they were raped or
forced to commit incest or forced into it by their boyfriend, husband, or parents (this kind of trauma severely mitigates the seriousness of their subjective act). Statistics show that most abortions are had by women who just don’t want to be bothered with having a kid.
Very few are because of rape or incest, though a growing number are because of parents forcing them to do it, or husbands or boyfriends forcing them to do it.

And by the way, I support the 40 Days for Life, Priests for Life, and other such means to end abortion. I DON’T believe in STRICT JUSTICE for ANYONE (except, possibly, repeat offender child rapists/molerstors, rapists, and hardened violent thugs such as unrepentant murderers and those who wipe out the life savings of the poor so they can steal their money and other extremely cruel sins, and even THEN I ask God to grant these people repentance if it is at all possible that they will respond to Grace).

Also, in support of the Pro-Life cause, let me say that it is sickening and appalling to see, as I saw SEVERAL times, PRIESTS giving Communion — SACRILEGIOUS COMMUNION – to unrepentant, militant abortion promotors like Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and a host of others who are, frankly, apostates who have no remorse for their apostasy and advocacy of baby killing and are DEFIANT, OPENLY DEFIANT, of the teachings of the apostles and the church. These PRIESTS, too, are committing a MORTAL SIN by giving these people communion, if they know what they stand for,
and in most cases, it is IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO KNOW WHAT THOSE POLITICIANS stand for.

 

[Leegal]

Violating the Constitution is not a moral bad. I am considering international precedent and applying it to the United States (God forbid that we ever be wrong). You however are applying a moral law to criminal law. One can violate the Constitution for a moral good.

Note that I answered the original question “should”. I did not answer the question of the legality of such a move, which is totally unconstitutional. As to the need to stop abortion first, that too was not the question.

No disrespect, but I disagree – in part. We have violated the Constitution with this Unconstitutional law and got a “bad” law. I am speaking from both a secular and religious standpoint. I do take into consideration the secular as well. So, there’s both a secular and a religious argument here as to why Roe is “bad” law.

Second, I would agree that I got “off topic” as to the need to stop abortion, but believe that the emphasis should be placed on finding ways to stop this practice, not how to deal with the participants in the event that we ever get this overturned and return to a society based upon life and not a society of death.

I had already addressed much earlier the problem of prosecuting people ex post facto because that violates the Constitution (Section 1, Art. 9) (and another poster also pointed this out too), but I will leave God to judge them. This is something I do believe would be unjust – for us to prosecute people ex post facto. Afterall, the question was about creating an ex post facto law, in the event that abortion is ever outlawed. I had to rely on secular law to answer why we could not do this in this country.

I cannot apply international precedent to the topic of prosecuting abortionists, in this country. IMHO, It would not make it any more correct to do so in the future by relying on an international precedent. As I said, you do not get a good result from a bad means.

Peace.

 

[Infiltrator]

Abortion is killing and killing is a sin.

Whether it is legal or not is irrelevant - it is something us Catholics cannot do.

However there is no one sin greater than another. Abortion is no worse than adultery or sodomy or baring false witness. It is all the same. The sin isn’t in the actual action - it is from knowing it is abhorrent to God but still doing it for any reason.

Let’s put it another way.

The Abortionist kills. They train for it, plan for it and when the time is right - they kill. They do so because the law allows them to do it. Because the government says they can, they think it is acceptable. God says “thou shalt not kill” and it is not negotiable. The abortionist will have to answer for their actions. They will have to repent for their sin before they can get into heaven and they do not truly understand that they have sinned…

The Soldier kills. They train for it, plan for it and when the time is right - they kill. They do so because the law allows them to do it. Because the government says they can, they think it is acceptable. God says “thou shalt not kill” and it is not negotiable. The soldier will have to answer for their actions. They will have to repent for their sin before they can get into heaven and they do not truly understand that they have sinned.

The Police officer kills. They train for it, plan for it and when the time is right - they kill. They do so because the law allows them to do it. Because the government says they can, they think it is acceptable. God says “thou shalt not kill” and it is not negotiable. The Police officer will have to answer for their actions. They will have to repent for their sin before they can get into heaven and they do not truly understand that they have sinned.

The gay man living with another man commits sodomy. Living with their partner they plan for it, fantasise about it and when the time is right - they do it. They do so because the law allows them to do it. Because the government says they can, they think it is acceptable. God says “sodomy is a sin” and it is not negotiable. The gay man will have to answer for his actions. They will have to repent for their sin before they can get into heaven and they do not truly understand that they have sinned.

How many police officers are on parish councils? How many soldiers take communion and then go back to work? How many abortionists go to church and keep it quiet? How many homosexuals are victimised by our church for it?

The point is this - we are all sinners and we are called to point out the sin, not the sinner. No one group of sinners should be treated differently from any other.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Actually, “thou shalt not kill” is non-negotiable, is erroneous statement.

As any Jewish scholar will tell you,
THOU SHALT NOT KILL is an incorrect translation.
It should read,
THOU SHALT NOT MURDER, which is taking an INNOCENT life,
an entirely different matter altogether.

All killing is NOT murder. It is murder that is non-negotiably prohibited in scripture,
not killing per se.

When a cop shoots a man who is trying to knife a woman to death,
that cop has NOT committed murder and has NOT sinned.

When the soldiers, unfortunately by killing other soldiers,
forcibly drove the Nazis from power, in most cases they did NOT commit a sin.
((unless they shot innocent civilians, etc)).

And killing a baby is far more sinful than killing an adult.
A baby has never committed an ACT of sin. Nearly all adults HAVE.

 

[Infiltrator]

Sorry, you are simply wrong. No life can be taken

When a cop shoots a man, who is trying to knife a woman to death,
That cop has committed murder and has sinned. Until he repents he will not be right with God.

Well that is the Catholic standpoint on it anyway.

Actually, “thou shalt not kill” is non-negotiable, is erroneous statement.

As any Jewish scholar will tell you,
THOU SHALT NOT KILL is an incorrect translation.
It should read,
THOU SHALT NOT MURDER, which is taking an INNOCENT life,
an entirely different matter altogether.

All killing is NOT murder. It is murder that is non-negotiably prohibited in scripture,
not killing per se.

When a cop shoots a man who is trying to knife a woman to death,
that cop has NOT committed murder and has NOT sinned.

When the soldiers, unfortunately by killing other soldiers,
forcibly drove the Nazis from power, in most cases they did NOT commit a sin.
((unless they shot innocent civilians, etc)).

And killing a baby is far more sinful than killing an adult.
A baby has never committed an ACT of sin. Nearly all adults HAVE.

 

[vera_dicere]

I forgot the fancy legal term, but in most countries, as in New Zealand, there is a clause in laws that protects people from retroactive prosecution for things done when said crime was legal.

However, anyone who does abortions after it becomes illegal, prosecute them to the cows come home.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**Sorry, you are simply wrong. No life can be taken

When a cop shoots a man, who is trying to knife a woman to death,
That cop has committed murder and has sinned. Until he repents he will not be right with God.

Well that is the Catholic standpoint on it anyway.**

I’m sorry. And not meaning to brag,
but I am absolutely RIGHT, and any ORTHODOX CATHOLIC theologian
will tell you so. All killing is NOT murder,
and a cop who shoots that man attempting to murder the woman is NOT sinning,
period, no ifs, ands, or buts.
The Hebrew word used in the Ten Commandments is correctly translated
MURDER, not generic KILL.
And knowledgable Jew will tell you that.
And the Catechism itself does not condemn all killing as murder.
Not even the Death Penalty, although it calls for it’s very rare use nowadays.

 

[Infiltrator]

Nope, you’re still wrong. Any orthodox catholic theologian that tells you that all killing is not murder is simply wrong and doing a disservice to the entire Catholic faith. no ifs ands or buts. No Catholic has the right to take another’s life. That is Gods right alone. It does not matter if you use the word killing or murder, it does not matter if you quote Hebrew. All that matters is that God has said we can’t do it.

and a cop who shoots that man attempting to murder the woman is sinning
period, no ifs, ands, or buts.

**Sorry, you are simply wrong. No life can be taken

I’m sorry. And not meaning to brag,
but I am absolutely RIGHT, and any ORTHODOX CATHOLIC theologian
will tell you so. All killing is NOT murder,
and a cop who shoots that man attempting to murder the woman is NOT sinning,
period, no ifs, ands, or buts.
The Hebrew word used in the Ten Commandments is correctly translated
MURDER, not generic KILL.
And knowledgable Jew will tell you that.
And the Catechism itself does not condemn all killing as murder.
Not even the Death Penalty, although it calls for it’s very rare use nowadays.**

 

[pnewton]

The Police officer kills. They train for it, plan for it and when the time is right - they kill. They do so because the law allows them to do it. Because the government says they can, they think it is acceptable. God says “thou shalt not kill” and it is not negotiable. The Police officer will have to answer for their actions. They will have to repent for their sin before they can get into heaven and they do not truly understand that they have sinned…

Let us look at what the Catholic Church says on this issue.

Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a **grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. **The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.shtml

The Catholic Church has never taught this sort of absolute pacifism. It is not a sin to kill in self-defense, or the defense of others, if it is necessary to prevent harm to the innocent. It is not murder. Denying this is a rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church in its role as teacher of faith and morals. Comparing the exercise of a policeman’s grave duty to protect others to abortionists is reprehensible.

Infiltrator?

 

[pnewton]

Second, I would agree that I got “off topic” as to the need to stop abortion, but believe that the emphasis should be placed on finding ways to stop this practice, not how to deal with the participants in the event that we ever get this overturned and return to a society based upon life and not a society of death…I cannot apply international precedent to the topic of prosecuting abortionists, in this country. IMHO, It would not make it any more correct to do so in the future by relying on an international precedent. As I said, you do not get a good result from a bad means.

Peace.

Thank you for your response. I understand that your arguments are rather prudent. If we depart the theoretical and into the practical, then there is a whole lot of possible opinions. The danger of such a precedent is real.

 

[Leegal]

**Sorry, you are simply wrong. No life can be taken

When a cop shoots a man, who is trying to knife a woman to death,
That cop has committed murder and has sinned. Until he repents he will not be right with God.

**

Respectfully disagree. The police officer has taken an oath and the Church view oaths of duty strongly. He is violating that oath he took at a swearing in – a secular oath that God would also hold him to fulfilling.

Second, I recall the Church’s teaching has always been you can take a life in defense of person, property or purity. I might argue that, and so does secular law, that property might get us into a gray area. But let’s leave that aside because we will descend into the importance of any piece of property.

But in the secular sense, if you can avoid the situation (do not enter your home if you suspect someone is in there), thereby not placing yourself in danger and the possibility that you will be harmed and you will be forced to kill someone), man’s law says you must do whatever you can to avoid putting yourself in danger and in the possibility of having to use self defense. If you have another option, you must use it such as not entering the home and alerting the intruder to your return. If that becomes impossible (someone has entered your home while you and your family are there), you have a legal and a moral right to protect yourself and your family from harm. There is a distinction.

As to the police officer who does not kill a perpetrator in order to protect the other citizen, he is derelict in his duty and IMO would be culpable in her death had he not done his duty and killed the man with the knife. He would sin if he did not act. He does not sin if he is using his weapon to fulfill the obligations of his oath to protect the woman.

Aside from a few bad cops who go rogue, police officers do not want to kill someone and struggle for long afterward when they have been forced to use their gun. It’s not a decision that they take lightly, and many struggle with what they had to do for a long time. In that case, a talk with a priest and a psychologist would be warranted (a psychologist would be required for him to return to duty). The priest would be for solace and comfort; I have no doubt that the priest would comfort the man explaining that he performed his duty, sworn to by oath.

Absolution would not be mandatory, unless the police officer could not reconcile the killing of a perpetrator in defense of another. It would never hurt to discuss it with a priest in any case because most police officers do not want situations to get to the point where they have to draw their gun to kill another.

 

[domandcarols]

This is my opinion. Yes, they should be, even though I know I am in the minority. There have been many cases where people have committed “war crimes” which were not a crime at the time and place they were committed. Some of these have even been executed for these crimes.

I agree with you.