You'll again excuse me for not following your seemingly conflicting posts.

 

 

 

So, to be clear, the Catholic church is against the death penalty but you rationalize it away using abortion as a basis. Does the Church rationalize like you do? If so, do you still stand behind your post above saying that if you go against the teachings of the Church that you have no business attending the Church?

 

I don't care what your stance is. I am just trying to find consistency and where you truly stand.

 

Guess what, Clyde? I'm not a Catholic.

 

However, I do agree with most Catholic Church teachings and do on occasion attend a number of the local Catholic churches (We are blessed with a goodly number of parishs on each side of the Ohio River from which to choose).

 

You can call my distinction between abortion and capital punishment a "rationalization" if you so choose. Regardless, I feel confident that I am taking the right position. Otherwise, I wouldn't do so. I am only disappointed that I appear to be the only BGPer who is willing to take what I see as an obvious stand for the absolute protection of innocent- I said "innocent"- life. I would be surprised if I am the only one with such beliefs.

Guess what, Clyde? I'm not a Catholic.

 

However, I do agree with most Catholic Church teachings and do on occasion attend a number of the local Catholic churches (We are blessed with a goodly number of parishs on each side of the Ohio River from which to choose).

 

You can call my distinction between abortion and capital punishment a "rationalization" if you so choose. Regardless, I feel confident that I am taking the right position. Otherwise, I wouldn't do so. I am only disappointed that I appear to be the only BGPer who is willing to take what I see as an obvious stand for the absolute protection of innocent- I said "innocent"- life. I would be surprised if I am the only one with such beliefs.

 

Lets assume for a second that abortion were to be outlawed altogether. You and I both know that it will not stop women from having abortions.

 

What do you do with those that do?

Lets assume for a second that abortion were to be outlawed altogether. You and I both know that it will not stop women from having abortions.

 

What do you do with those that do?

 

Clyde, to answer that question, I would have to go through the real history of Roe v Wade and the law as it was before the decision and since the decision. My posts are far too long as it is now.

 

Suffice it to say that abortion was not illegal nationwide prior to Roe v Wade. It, like most issues, was decided by each state (ie: 10th Amendment).

 

Now, having said that and using your hypothesis, I will add that, in any state in which it would be a crime, the law should be enforced. Would there be illegal abortions? Of course, just as there are illegal burglaries, illegal kidnappings, and illegal anything else. Still, we should prosecute all crimes. Who in this case are the criminals? I believe all involved in the illegal act are culpable. That certainly includes the formerly pregnant woman (I refuse to call her a mother) and, if applicable, the doctor.

 

You may not like it but at least we would show some concern for the sanctity of life. Women have a freedom of choice up until the time that they conceive another human being. Thereafter, that freedom should not be available. Otherwise, our destiny is to become a population of products to be bought, sold, and indiscriminately destroyed at the whim of others and, of course, for economic gain. And how do we start this process? By dehumanizing our most vulnerable, of course.

 

Rationalization? I think not. Just look at the "progress" we have made in such a short time.

Clyde, to answer that question, I would have to go through the real history of Roe v Wade and the law as it was before the decision and since the decision. My posts are far too long as it is now.

 

Suffice it to say that abortion was not illegal nationwide prior to Roe v Wade. It, like most issues, was decided by each state (ie: 10th Amendment).

 

Now, having said that and using your hypothesis, I will add that, in any state in which it would be a crime, the law should be enforced. Would there be illegal abortions? Of course, just as there are illegal burglaries, illegal kidnappings, and illegal anything else. Still, we should prosecute all crimes. Who in this case are the criminals? I believe all involved in the illegal act are culpable. That certainly includes the formerly pregnant woman (I refuse to call her a mother) and, if applicable, the doctor.

 

.

 

What should their punishment be?

If we assume it comes under the jurisdiction of a state court, that would, of course, be decided by the state legislature of the applicable state. Since, with rare exceptions (ie: the life of the mother being, in truth, resting in the balance) I see the offense as premeditated murder of another human being, I would not treat the crime lightly. However, that is just my position. Nonetheless, it would be appalling to see it treated with a slap on the wrist. After all, it is the taking of another human life (whether fully developed or not) whether the pro-choice people want to admit it or not.

 

How do you see it?

If we assume it comes under the jurisdiction of a state court, that would, of course, be decided by the state legislature of the applicable state. Since, with rare exceptions (ie: the life of the mother being, in truth, resting in the balance) I see the offense as premeditated murder of another human being, I would not treat the crime lightly. However, that is just my position. Nonetheless, it would be appalling to see it treated with a slap on the wrist. After all, it is the taking of another human life (whether fully developed or not) whether the pro-choice people want to admit it or not.

 

How do you see it?

 

I'm no expert but premeditated murder would mean life in prison, right?

 

That's why you will never see it outlawed. Society will never allow a woman to go to prison for life for an abortion. Right or wrong, it will not happen.

Clyde, to answer that question, I would have to go through the real history of Roe v Wade and the law as it was before the decision and since the decision. My posts are far too long as it is now.

 

Suffice it to say that abortion was not illegal nationwide prior to Roe v Wade. It, like most issues, was decided by each state (ie: 10th Amendment).

 

Now, having said that and using your hypothesis, I will add that, in any state in which it would be a crime, the law should be enforced. Would there be illegal abortions? Of course, just as there are illegal burglaries, illegal kidnappings, and illegal anything else. Still, we should prosecute all crimes. Who in this case are the criminals? I believe all involved in the illegal act are culpable. That certainly includes the formerly pregnant woman (I refuse to call her a mother) and, if applicable, the doctor.

 

You may not like it but at least we would show some concern for the sanctity of life. Women have a freedom of choice up until the time that they conceive another human being. Thereafter, that freedom should not be available. Otherwise, our destiny is to become a population of products to be bought, sold, and indiscriminately destroyed at the whim of others and, of course, for economic gain. And how do we start this process? By dehumanizing our most vulnerable, of course.

 

Rationalization? I think not. Just look at the "progress" we have made in such a short time.

 

I greatly respect this post and how it is worded. :thumb:

I greatly respect this post and how it is worded. :thumb:

 

Thank you.:thumb:

I'm no expert but premeditated murder would mean life in prison, right?

 

That's why you will never see it outlawed. Society will never allow a woman to go to prison for life for an abortion. Right or wrong, it will not happen.

 

Not necessarily. Each state has its own criminal code. In Kentucky, if we used the present code, which would not be the case, the sentences would vary to a low of 1-5 years (if imprisoned at all).

 

If any state were allowed to have a law concerning criminalizing abortion, it would have to be a new statute formulated by the state legislature. Therefore, it would likely have its own definition, elements, and punishment range. I cannot remotely imagine it would be raised to a level of murder. Still, it would surely be a felony of some nature. And, to me, that would be sufficient because it would be making the statement that our society cannot allow the indiscriminate destruction of human life.

Not necessarily. Each state has its own criminal code. In Kentucky, if we used the present code, which would not be the case, the sentences would vary to a low of 1-5 years (if imprisoned at all).

 

If any state were allowed to have a law concerning criminalizing abortion, it would have to be a new statute formulated by the state legislature. Therefore, it would likely have its own definition, elements, and punishment range. I cannot remotely imagine it would be raised to a level of murder. Still, it would surely be a felony of some nature. And, to me, that would be sufficient because it would be making the statement that our society cannot allow the indiscriminate destruction of human life.

 

Do you fall into the camp that considers abortion to be murder even though you can't see it being raised to the level of murder?

 

If you come up with a punishment is seems like it would have to be somewhat relative in nature. We don't put speeders in prison with armed robbers. Where would this fall in the spectrum?

Do you fall into the camp that considers abortion to be murder even though you can't see it being raised to the level of murder?

 

If you come up with a punishment is seems like it would have to be somewhat relative in nature. We don't put speeders in prison with armed robbers. Where would this fall in the spectrum?

 

I see it as the unlawful taking of the life of another and that is the general definition for the group of offenses dealing therewith- murder, manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, and reckless homicide. These are Kentucky categories all of which are included under the unlawful taking of the life of another.

 

The facts surrounding the unlawful act determine the level of the offense charged. Under our law, the facts are determined (as best as possible) and the most applicable and proveable offense is used.

 

I would be comfortable with the same "scale" being used for abortion offenses as is used in our present unlawful taking of the life of another group of offenses.

 

Therefore, since murder is really rarely used in these matters, I would assume it would be the same with abortions. Other lesser crimes would apply.

 

I do see "auxillary" punishment in that I would expect willingly participating doctors to have the burden of rebutting the presumption that they should lose their licenses.

I see it as the unlawful taking of the life of another and that is the general definition for the group of offenses dealing therewith- murder, manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, and reckless homicide. These are Kentucky categories all of which are included under the unlawful taking of the life of another.

 

The facts surrounding the unlawful act determine the level of the offense charged. Under our law, the facts are determined (as best as possible) and the most applicable and proveable offense is used.

 

I would be comfortable with the same "scale" being used for abortion offenses as is used in our present unlawful taking of the life of another group of offenses.

 

Therefore, since murder is really rarely used in these matters, I would assume it would be the same with abortions. Other lesser crimes would apply.

 

I do see "auxillary" punishment in that I would expect willingly participating doctors to have the burden of rebutting the presumption that they should lose their licenses.

 

Thanks.

 

I still don't see the public going for the above. I think too many that are against abortion still do not equate it to murder or manslaughter. Right or wrong.