V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Apparently some people have to be hit by a truck to see the obvious.Seems obvious, no?
- Status
F
fix
Guest
Which law is not ultimately based on morality?
N
Newbie2
Guest
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Only if the dead babies were Chinese and gave their consent beforehand.
Maybe a truck with anti-abortion images on it.
R
rlg94086
Guest
It’s possilbe…them Chinese babies is pretty smart.Only if the dead babies were Chinese and gave their consent beforehand.
C
consumedconvert
Guest
Totally disagree. States have no right to legalize murder, which is precisely what abortion is. Seriously: if the constitution made this is states-only issue (which I do not believe it does), then the constitution, on that point, should be changed or ignored. There is a point where morality trumps even that document.
C
consumedconvert
Guest
Yes, I believe either state or federal government should pay for the treatment of childhood disorders and diseases, even in unborn children, if the parents have no reasonable ability to pay.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The XIV Amendment, which ironically was where the “right to abortion” was found “emanating from the penumbra” specifically says what you said:
What due process does the aborted child get?
C
CapIV
Guest
While it is true that the US government cannot prohibit an act based on a simple moral standing or societal opinion, abortion is a different matter.
Since abortion deals with an innocent life, the government has a right to intervene to protect this life since all Americans under the Constitution are guaranteed equal right to life. Similarly, the government has a right to prohibit murder.
Abortion is falsely labeled as solely a religious issue, based on personal beliefs. But it really is not. It deals with the life of a human, which government of course has a right to protect its citizens.
The only situation in which abortion could possibly be argued for LEGALLY is if the physical health of the mother is in sufficient danger since the mother under the constitution is given the same right to life as the unborn child is. Morally is a different matter, but that is a discussion for another time.
Abortion should and must be criminalized.
Since abortion deals with an innocent life, the government has a right to intervene to protect this life since all Americans under the Constitution are guaranteed equal right to life. Similarly, the government has a right to prohibit murder.
Abortion is falsely labeled as solely a religious issue, based on personal beliefs. But it really is not. It deals with the life of a human, which government of course has a right to protect its citizens.
The only situation in which abortion could possibly be argued for LEGALLY is if the physical health of the mother is in sufficient danger since the mother under the constitution is given the same right to life as the unborn child is. Morally is a different matter, but that is a discussion for another time.
Abortion should and must be criminalized.
C
CapIV
Guest
Unfortunately, states do have a right to legalize murder under the constitution, such as the death penalty. I am of the belief that this ought to be amended in the case of abortion since it deals with innocent life. It doesn’t make any sense for the federal government to allow its states to practice the murder of children.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Something to think about…
I often hear the term “innocent life” applied to the unborn baby, which I will not argue against except to the extent that we share original sin.
Is life any less precious or sacred once it gets caught committing a wrong? Many pro-lifers I know favor the death penalty.
One very significant pro-lifer in our parish who was a state legislator and then worked for Kansas bishops before he died from leukemia last month was the first person I heard who was consistent on this. He considered “human life” sacred, not just “innocent” life. When I met him, I was pro-life on abortion but also pro-death penalty, and he gave me something to think about.
I put this in this thread just to find out if we are willing to make laws against abortion on the premise that “life is sacred” then should we also eliminate the death penalty? I’m not trying to hijack the thread here, just draw a parallel that may sort out who is trying to protect “life” and who is trying to protect only babies. That matters because the “human life is sacred” argument has to work for all human life, innocent or not.
Alan
P.S. edit > I noticed many of the obituary links at the link I posted have expired. Suffice it to say this man, in whose honor I dedicate this post, was very active in pro-life activities.
I often hear the term “innocent life” applied to the unborn baby, which I will not argue against except to the extent that we share original sin.
Is life any less precious or sacred once it gets caught committing a wrong? Many pro-lifers I know favor the death penalty.
One very significant pro-lifer in our parish who was a state legislator and then worked for Kansas bishops before he died from leukemia last month was the first person I heard who was consistent on this. He considered “human life” sacred, not just “innocent” life. When I met him, I was pro-life on abortion but also pro-death penalty, and he gave me something to think about.
I put this in this thread just to find out if we are willing to make laws against abortion on the premise that “life is sacred” then should we also eliminate the death penalty? I’m not trying to hijack the thread here, just draw a parallel that may sort out who is trying to protect “life” and who is trying to protect only babies. That matters because the “human life is sacred” argument has to work for all human life, innocent or not.
Alan
P.S. edit > I noticed many of the obituary links at the link I posted have expired. Suffice it to say this man, in whose honor I dedicate this post, was very active in pro-life activities.
C
CapIV
Guest
I am opposed to the death penalty.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Hi Alan,
You will find opinion very spllit on the forum regarding the death penalty. However, one thing most of us understand is that the Church allows states to make recourse to the death penalty, though she strongly discourages it. For me, I am largely opposed to the death penalty but not wholly opposed to the death penalty (i.e. only in very extreme cases).
As far as all life being equal, yes and no. We all have the same call to repentance and salvation; however, that doesn’t mean a serial killer being put to death is equivalent to abortion. The serial killer is being sentenced for very heinous crimes and receives the ultimate punishment. He has plenty of time (in the US at least) to repent of his sins before his execution. However, an unborn child is completely innocent.
There is not moral equivalence there.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The Church allows the death penalty to protect society – if there is no other option.
Now, there are people in prison, already serving life sentences, who willingly kill other inmates and corrections officers. Another life sentence is no deterrent to them.
Similarly, there are vicious criminals facing life sentences who are willing to kill police officers, witnesses, prosecutors, judges and jury members – or to kidnap and hold hostage their family members. Another life sentence is no deterrent to these people, either.
Now, there are people in prison, already serving life sentences, who willingly kill other inmates and corrections officers. Another life sentence is no deterrent to them.
Similarly, there are vicious criminals facing life sentences who are willing to kill police officers, witnesses, prosecutors, judges and jury members – or to kidnap and hold hostage their family members. Another life sentence is no deterrent to these people, either.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
That’s a good point that the church allows for death penalty, but in the spiritual realm we are called to love all, even our sinners and enemies. I should love (agape) a serial killer no more or less than an innocent unborn baby. To put one to death but not the other does require that we judge them.
The moral equivalence I see is that if “human life is sacred,” we
must spare the lives of both, unless we see one as a threat to another. That, however, is a fairly pro-choice argument – seeing one life as a threat to another.
I’m not saying it answers the question. We also haven’t covered killing in a just war and then we have self-preservation – the belief by the church that I am allowed to value my own life over someone else’s. I just want to connect the two forms of intentionally killing a human being and see how that plays into whether the government should allow them. Briefly, I wish to distinguish between these two:
*Human life is sacred.
*Innocent human life is sacred.
As I see it, one requires we judge and the other don’t. At what precise age does a human, born or unborn, lose its innocence? When found guilty by a jury?
Alan
The moral equivalence I see is that if “human life is sacred,” we
must spare the lives of both, unless we see one as a threat to another. That, however, is a fairly pro-choice argument – seeing one life as a threat to another.
I’m not saying it answers the question. We also haven’t covered killing in a just war and then we have self-preservation – the belief by the church that I am allowed to value my own life over someone else’s. I just want to connect the two forms of intentionally killing a human being and see how that plays into whether the government should allow them. Briefly, I wish to distinguish between these two:
*Human life is sacred.
*Innocent human life is sacred.
As I see it, one requires we judge and the other don’t. At what precise age does a human, born or unborn, lose its innocence? When found guilty by a jury?
Alan
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Actually, it is a pro-life argument – the right to self-defense is inherent in the right to life (and the Church recognizes that.) There is a point where we have both a right and a duty to collective self-defense.
If criminals are murdering police and corrections officers, killing, kidnapping and terrorizing prosecutors, judges and juries, then society as a whole is at risk.
When such criminals already have life sentences hanging over them, then another life sentence is meaningless.
And let me gently point out the flaw in the statement “unless we see one as a threat to another.” We do not charge, try and convict people on what we think they will do. We bring them to justice for what they have already done.
We don’t apply the death penalty because we think a criminal might kill a prosecutor, judge or jury member, we do it because he already killed them.
R
rlg94086
Guest
That makes absolutely zero sense. We don’t judge the unborn baby -there is no need to.
How is seeing one life, that of a serial murderer randomly torturing, mutilating and killing his victims, as a threat a “pro-choice” argument? It sounds like common sense to me. Do you see a man with a gun pointed at your head as a threat, or do you prefer not to judge him?
So, please cover it. Do you believe they are allowed? By your statements, your answer should be no…no killing whatsoever.
What a strange statement. You think the torturing, mutilating, serial murder or rapist lost their innocence when they were found guilty by a jury?
Firstly, there is the “age of reason” which is generally considered about 7 years old. Secondly, the government does distinguish between minors and adults. Occasionally, a minor will be tried as an adult, but factors such as age, maturity and the severity of the crime are taken into account.
H
He_Man
Guest
Why you save the rest of the people here time and just admit you are playing devil’s advocate at every turn because you don’t unilaterally oppose abortion? You aren’t truly seeking answers, but trying to prove your point, which is a wrong point to begin with.Of course the former… but what if I dislike the notion of socialized assistance for the disabled and poor? Private charities are superior. I also loathe socialized law enforcement that prevents murder and theft and socialized medicine that provides the poor with a high quality of care too.
Since it is obvious from your message history you aren’t going to change your opinion, however wrong it is, these threads really become a major waste of time.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Yes, my reference was to the pro-choice argument that abortions should be allowed because they are a threat to the mother’s life or health or whatever.
Sure it’s common sense. But even if I kill in self-defense I’m not allowed to kill because I wanted to kill, but because it was a consequence of my own protective movements.How is seeing one life, that of a serial murderer randomly torturing, mutilating and killing his victims, as a threat a “pro-choice” argument? It sounds like common sense to me. Do you see a man with a gun pointed at your head as a threat, or do you prefer not to judge him?
Exactly. That’s why I’m not claiming to have the answer yet or even the whole argument. That is, if we cherish “all human life” and not “innocent human life.”
As a society, and for the purpose of laws, we use conviction as a yardstick. A convicted felon loses many civil rights, for example.
For spiritual purposes, I mean to claim there is no specific age or outward indicator that I can use to accurately judge a person. As far as making laws, that’s another thing. In protection of a group of people against outside and inside enemies, we have to do things we don’t like to do, such as kill.
It still comes down to the semantics of which we cherish and protect at all costs:
*All Human Life.
*Innocent Human Life.
If we think the government has business protecting innocent human life, we call for anti-abortion laws. If we think it’s to protect all human life, then we would want to quit using the death penalty. Personally, it is fear that makes me still want to favor having a death penalty.
Alan
R
rlg94086
Guest
That would mean that you killed without desire to kill, therefore it is okay? Are you trying to make an insanity plea?
Okay. You weren’t clear in your last post. You asked “At what precise age does a human, born or unborn, lose its innocence? When found guilty by a jury?” By bringing age into it, you are asking a different question. Yes, in the case of someone found guilty by a jury of a heinous crime, they have “lost their innocence.” That’s what “proven guilty” means. Punishment is then meted out.
We don’t judge the person by their age, we judge them by their actions and intent. An unborn baby has made no actions (nor intended to) which demand punishment…certainly not death.
You are correct. It is semantics. I think you are getting hung up on the “all human life.” Taken strictly, that would mean no killing is allowed…at all, including self-defense, just war, etc. The Church does not teach this. However, you are free to believe and follow that maxim, if you like, in your personal life - complete pacifism.
EDIT ADD: BTW…you best rid yourself of fear if you are going to be a complete pacifist.
- Status