Get updates from Catholic and Enjoying It! delivered straight to your inbox
300,000 Ninjas Stealthily March Past Reporters During the 39th Annual March for Life
So, in a country where abortion would be equivalent to infanticide, will women who obtain illegal abortions (and there will be many) be charged with first degree murder? Does this mean life in prison? Does it mean that some of them will in fact be subject to the death penalty in trigger-happy states like Texas and Florida?
What were the previous laws?
What, you don’t remember when the prisons were chock full of the women who were having abortions?!?!
If women were subject to criminal prosecution your head would spin at how many would abruptly cease to have those unwanted pregnancies that are so mysteriously unavoidable now.
And if the sinful harlots don’t close their legs like we tell them, then they’ll at least go to prison! Once again it all comes down to feeling emasculated by autonomous female sexuality.
Armchair psychoanalysis fail.
Regurgitating NOW/NARAL talking points win.
Autonomous female sexuality means being responsible for the decisions you make. I think you are a very confused feminist. The power is within you, remember?
I’m pretty sure you can’t actually get pregnant from autonomous female sexuality.
Already having made a fool out of him/herself on several counts, RC now chooses to reveal that he/she has a complete lack of understanding about law. RC person is also years behind the argument on this canard.
Here’s something I wrote years ago at WWtW:
It really amazes me how often the “what’s your comprehensive legal formula” canard comes up in these discussions. Usually it’s an attempt to imply that pro-lifers are a bunch of sadists who want to persecute mothers with hard time and whatever cruel and unusual punishment they can imagine. Here it’s used as a supposed “argument” that law would be ineffectual.
But it completely ignores reality.
Reality 1: Difficulties at implementing law is always a problem, and should not prevent us from making evil things illegal. That applies to abortion, murder (the complexities of dealing with murder and all of the possible mitigating circumstances is beyond most peoples’ pay-grade), slavery, drugs, whatever. Making reasonable, effective, and compassionate decisions of law is a darn difficult thing to do no matter what the issue is.
Reality 2: Concern about effectiveness is always a problem and should not prevent us from making something illegal. Especially when the crime is the killing of innocent human beings.
Reality 3: Coming up with solutions that implement the law in reasonable and compassionate ways requires the cooperative effort of a lot of people. Most of the interlocutors here would probably be willing to examine various possibilities of enforcement . . . . Most of them would also probably be too humble to insist that their solutions were the complete and best answers. Everybody knows that there will be challenges to the prospect–deal with it.
Asking for the all the specifics isn’t an argument. It’s just a way to make the obvious problems that we always face seem somehow more pertinent to abortion than to any other law that has ever been made.
In the U.S., women generally were not prosecuted for seeking criminal abortions. It was the practitioner – the soi-disant doctor – who faced prosecution and loss of his license to practice medicine (although what annihilating the infant in the womb has to do with “medicine” is beyond me . . . we might as well call torture “brain surgery”, or vivisection “medical research.”)
One of many good things about making abortion illegal once again – among other things – is that it will make it more difficult to pressure reputable physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals to commit abortions upon women. And reputable medical centers and schools will no longer be under pressure to commit abortion upon women or to force students to train in the procedures.
Don’t give the torture proponents any ideas now, Marion!
Why weren’t they prosecuted? Wouldn’t you prosecute a woman if she killed a newborn infant for first degree murder?
You’re just dancing around the logical conclusion to making abortion illegal (women in prisons and bloody coat hangers in back alleys).
BTW, when abortion is illegal, I guess the police will have to investigate all miscarriages just to make sure they weren’t artificially induced, right?
Generally, penalties for transacting the sale of illegal goods and services are applied much more to the seller than to the buyer, that is, the one who profits monetarily.
Bootleggers more than drinkers, during Prohibition.
Prostitutes more than customers.
Drug dealers more than their customers.
Especially where buyers are seeking good or services impelled under some stress or duress. Such as addiction, in the case of illegal narcotics. Or a crisis pregnancy, in the case of abortion. Courts and legislators have especially in more recent years tended to want people to get the help they need rather than to punish them.
But this, according to you, is not drug use or prostitution. It is murder, and if that’s true, than a woman paying a doctor for an abortion is no different than a woman who pays a hit man to kill her husband.
Well, sure it’s different, but similar. It is easier to simply criminalize the doctors who perform abortions. It wouldn’t necessarily be a bad idea to prosecute the women who solicit abortions, though. Mercy dictates that we should try to help those who find themselves in such a desperate state that they’d kill their own child, just as murderers are sometimes sent to mental institutions rather than prison.
I’m not about punishing women, many of whom have found themselves in extraordinarily difficult circumstances with no one that they feel they can turn to.
Why hurt and punish them? What good would that do?
Won’t give the baby his or her life back.
I’m about educating and assisting men and women, and especially assisting women facing challenging circumstances during a pregnancy, to know that they don’t have to face this alone.
Anyway, RC only wants to point out that there is a discrepancy between how those who hire assassins are treated and how women who have abortions are proposed to be treated.
It’s a similar crime, but the main difference is that people have been trained for 40 years to think abortion is OK. For that reason alone, a different approach is needed. Beyond that, in many cases, it would be quite difficult to prove.
“Why weren’t they prosecuted? Wouldn’t you prosecute a woman if she killed a newborn infant for first degree murder?”
The Fifth Amendment bars self-incrimination. Women were treated as victims of abortion in order to secure their testimony against abortionists. The goal should be minimal justice, not perfect justice. (See the 2007 NRO symposium “One Untrue Thing”)
Also the danger of “back alley” abortions (and abortions by “trained and responsible” doctors) largely subsided with the advent of antibiotics. Even today, you won’t find decent doctors doing abortions. It takes a streak of unreality or cruelty to use advanced medical training to kill life at its most vulnerable point.
Seriously, do you respect an abortion doctor the same way you respect a doctor who only delivers babies and works to help those who are injured or sick in the womb?
In fact in murder cases the hit man gets a lesser sentence than the person who made a contract with the hit man. Clearly, if abortion is in fact infanticide, the woman is the one contracting with the “hit man”, and therefore should receive a greater sentence than the doctor, yes?
applying your argument to abortion is like saying we should convict suicide attempts with life in prison or capital punishment. In suicide the person doing the killing is also the victim and feels pressured by mental illness, depression, economic woes etc. The woman seeking abortion is also a victim as well as her baby – she is taken advantage of by abortionists and suffers severe guilt and depression due to the killing of her child and the violation of her own body. She deserves to be protected under the law and should be provided with medical and psychiatric help. But then I’m just a health care professional so what do I know.
We don’t say, I will kill that person; load our weapon, take aim, and shoot bullets into him.
We don’t do that.
If I do that, that is willful homicide.
I don’t get to decide, I will make my husband’s life end. I will buy poison, I will wait until he isn’t looking, I will put the poison into his coffee.
I will watch him sip; I will watch him struggle for breath, convulse, and froth at the mouth. I will watch him die.
I don’t get to do that.
I don’t get to kill.
No matter how much I may want to.
Robert J. Oppenheimer, one of the scientists who helped to develop the atomic bomb, after they tested it said, quoting an ancient poem from the Bhagavad Gita:
“Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”
I don’t get to become Death. Not for anyone
I don’t get to inject poisons, salt solutions into a woman’s body so as to become Death for her baby. I don’t get to wield blades and scissors to cut a baby to pieces, inside or outside the womb.
I don’t get to lift my hand to destroy.
I don’t get to will to make to cease to be.
It is not legitimate for me to become Death.
So you’re a pacifist then, Marion? Fully?
You do grasp the difference between “self-defense” and “murder”, right?
Sure I do. Too bad a lot of your Old Testament does not, (and endorses the killing of real, actual, breathing children if they stand in the way of Israelite conquest) but I guess that’s a topic for another post.
Since when did you let being off-topic stop you?
Reality Check, it really is kind of rude for you to continue to post like this. I think you know this.
Folks at Pandagon and Feministe and the like get angry when loopy christians come and shit in their soup. And rightly so. (Hell, Feministing got so upset with non-conforming comments that they basically killed their own vibrant combox community.)
Please reconsider your behavior and stop trolling.
Ah yes, the ol’ “God’s a killer, too!” canard. You see, as the Supreme Being, God *does* get to decide who lives and when.
This sin is as old as the fall of Adam and Eve. “Did God really say, ‘Thou shalt not kill?’ Forget about it. You can be like gods, too, at your nearest abortion mill.”
At any rate, nothing stood in the way of God paving the way for His incarnation, and I guarantee you nothing will stand in His way to pave the wave for His judgment. But don’t tarry; sides are being picked, as we speak…
Reality Check reads scripture like a Fundamentalist
SSo words like “smite”, “utterly destroy”, “spare them not”, and “slay both man and woman, infant and suckling” are…metaphorical? They’re ordered to kill the metaphorical women and infants?
I know bravely standing up to people who died 3000 years ago is a big priority for trolls, but really, could you stick with the 21st century and one topic? If you could just honestly engage with one person in an actual conversation instead of chucking out slogans, that would be great.
How about you go back and debate some of the present day issues you are avoiding – like what autonomous female sexuality really means in terms of accepting consequences for freely chosen actions.
I am a Catholic.
This means, Reality Check, that if I were present when someone willfully and intentionally targetted you, to cause your death or serious injury, and the only way – the last resort – that I could prevent them harming you was by use of lethal force, then I would be acting well to do so.
Not that to kill them would be to act well. But to do what it takes to stop them targeting you, and then carrying that out, that would be acting well.
Their death would be, so to speak, a side-effect of the act of saving your life.
I didn’t want their death; I would have preferred if the cops showed up, said, “Freeze! drop your weapon! Get down on the ground!” Then I wouldn’t have had to harm them to stop them harming you. I would be relieved and happy that I didn’t need to kill him to save you.
I would prefer not to harm anyone. God doesn’t want us to go around harming one another, at all, and desires that we help everyone and wish everyone well.
Reality Check is here because he or she is fascinated by God, but the only way he or she can approach God is by walking backwards.
THE GATE DREW WIDE
A pilgrimage begins with pains and errors,
A pilgrim starts with agonies and blisters,
Hips unjointed, tendons strained and stretched
Back and shoulders ache, a tired wretch
But suffering buys strength if he persists,
Scallop on his hat, cross-staff in fist,
Lost or strayed, the sun will show the way,
Farther can he walk with every day
And if the promised city does recede
The road, though long, can furnish every need,
A place for every bird and man to rest
One to his faith, the other to his nest
And thus the miracle: the length he strode
Until the end, though long or short the road
Meant nothing to the getting of the goal:
The gate drew wide to welcome in the soul
January 25, 2012
I like that poem, Pavel! How cool that you wrote it, inspired by Reality Check’s own journey, and shared it with us on the same day.
Pavel, this is a beautiful poem, and I read bits of my own conversion in it. Thank you!
Beautiful, Pavel. Thank you for that.
>I like that poem, Pavel! How cool that you wrote it, inspired by Reality Check’s own journey, and shared it with us on the same day.
Thank you, Marion. I think it’s really about my own journey first. : )
I don’t think it’s worth starting another debate since as soon as you are refuted on one point you jump to another unrelated topic in your childish athiest crusade. I’ll indulge you briefly though. With the coming of Christ a New Covenant was formed. He said lots of stuff about fulfilling the law and tearing down the temple and rebuilding it. That ended the more bloody, warring law of the wandering Israelites. Shockingly the Catholic Church opposes all violence except in self defense. This includes war, torture, the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research. Pretty crazy, huh?
While we’re off topic would you like to discuss your president’s position on assassinating US citizens using drone strikes without trial? How about his foreign wars, secret prisons, or the assassination of foreign civilians?
Even if you vehemently support abortion this kind of selective media blackout should be disturbing to anyone who thinks that the fundamental tenets of democracy in America should be taken seriously. I ask, if pro-aborts believe federally-mandated abortion is necessary for justice then why attempt to shield the March for Life from the view of the public? Social justice was never achieved by keeping the people ignorant.
I’m wondering if Newt “give the media hell” Gingrich has bothered to speak out on this media lapse? I don’t hang on his every word so haven’t bothered to look.
Haven’t all the candidates and the GOP in general been rather unimpressive or even silent on the religious freedom issues of late?
At what point does a lack of media coverage reflect badly on pro-life leadership? I want to know if the organizers had a communication strategy, or if it just consisted of e-mailing press releases to busy journalists.