PenitentWoman
Reputation: 1004
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 790
|
Is there any proof that sugarcoating saves any lives?
I would want to convince someone it was a human life they would be taking. Not equating abortion with murder, in a way, justifies the choice. If it isn't killing, then why would someone suddenly decide it isn't wrong?
I wonder if we will see anymore personhood amendments come to vote here in the US or if that approach was too complicated.
|
.........................
~For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen, is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for? But if we hope for that which we see not, we wait for it with patience. ~ Romans 8:24-25
|
| Posted Jul 22, 2012, 7:07 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Nishant
Reputation: 766
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,098
|
So would we take it up a notch and speak of civil sanctions for women who procure abortions and/or doctors who perform them? Should they receive the same legal penalties as those who commit homicide?
I think there are two issues here. The first, though abortion is undoubtedly murder, it may be possible to make allowance for the relative culpability of those involved. The second, in the name of waiting for an ideal solution, what can actually be practically enforced in the meanwhile should not be overlooked. I am all for diagnosing the root causes of the recourse to abortion in the present day and therefore ensuring this madness will not happen again, but all of this is theoretical if abortion is not first made illegal. I say this because insistence on treating those involved as criminals without any clemency whatsoever will surely delay the process of outlawing abortion.
I'm reasonably sure I've read that, when countries of Europe were being evangelized, some of the pagan customs were allowed to them for a period of time, and not immediately abolished. Pagan European tribes frequently practiced exposure of newborn children. And in antiquity, all manner of philosophers had defended the practice of killing children, whether inside or for a while outside their mother's womb, including Plato, Aristotle, Seneca and Cicero, before the advent of Christ while the earliest Christians and the Fathers staunchly opposed it.
The Church however has punished this crime with extreme severity, so far as ecclesiastical measures are concerned, some local councils even decreeing the ancient discipline that a woman who killed the child in her womb should be refused the Holy Eucharist ever again.
|
.........................
"There will be an Ecumenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church. Tranquility will not return until the Pope succeeds in anchoring the boat of Peter between the twin pillars of Eucharistic Devotion and Devotion to Our Lady. This will come about one year before the end of the century." ~ St. John Bosco, "Twin Pillars prophecy", A.D. 1862.
|
| Posted Jul 22, 2012, 7:55 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Telesphorus
Reputation: 8215
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 11,814
|
| Nishant2011 said: | | So would we take it up a notch and speak of civil sanctions for women who procure abortions and/or doctors who perform them? Should they receive the same legal penalties as those who commit homicide? |
What is necessary is to speak of the matter as being one of justice. Right now the pro-life movement has a kind of symbiotic relationship to legal abortion. We even have masses being said outside of clinics. Yet at the same time there is only talk about sympathy and forgiveness and talk of babies dying, there is no talk at all about crime and justice. This is a severe problem. When I hear pro-life women talk about "counseling" these women what I hear gives me the impression they are not talking about this crime from the standpoint of justice. And in doing so they are really minimizing the severity. They are treating it as a tragedy in which the woman is no longer really a conscious agent. And that becomes an excuse and a rationalization that enables abortion and presumption about abortion.
We have to get off the track of talking about how "poor helpless women" can't handle the pressure so they succumb to the temptation, and start talking about justice.
Prudence is necessary in talking about justice, but if pro-life advocates do not talk about it, who can take them seriously? That is to say, how can it really be called murder, how can those who protest it being legal really be serious about using the law to help stop it, if they are not interested in seeing the crime punished? If they are afraid to speak of it as a crime that demands punishment?
If protest against abortion is protest against it being sanctioned by the courts and not stopped by the police, then the issue is one of injustice, and if injustice is not spoken of, if exaction of justice by the laws is not invoked as being necessary, then there is a real problem in first principles.
As I said above, it leads to the pro-life movement having a symbiotic, attention-seeking relationship to the abortion providers.
|
.........................
"I realized the desire of Rome to impose their ideas and their way of seeing. Cardinal Ratzinger always told me "But Monsignor, there is only one Church, it is not necessary to make a parallel church."
Which is this Church for him? The Conciliar Church, this is clear."
-Archbishop Lefebvre
|
| Posted Jul 22, 2012, 8:09 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
|
|
