UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

"Chaos of draconian state laws" What chaos? Different states have different homicide laws. When there is a murder, you look to that's state laws. Is that the chaos of which you speak? That's not really chaos. That is just federalism, which you admittedly likely oppose. What "draconian laws"? Is it really draconian to tell people they cannot kill? No one thinks that. We all agree on that principle in the abstract. But, you want to allow some killings, or change the level of punishment. Perhaps you want to make it a defense to murder that a woman was raped? OK, make your argument. But that is the issue we are debating: When should some people be allowed to kill. There was never any chaos.

As to "women" can you define what you mean? Unless you can agree to a normal (non partisan) definition of women, I see no reason to debate this aspect of it. Regardless, I address the competing rights between mother and child, and how a right to life always takes precedence, in my post below.

And, by the way, murder does tend to get messy when you outlaw it, and people have to do it surreptitiously to avoid prosecution. I'm not sure how that helps your cause. Do you want to make all homicides safe?

You said: "IMO, and that of the majority of Americans...Note: 80-85% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal." Then what is the big deal? Overturning Roe v. Wade won't change anything. "...in some circumstances" Would you agree to a compromise? Maybe only in cases in which the woman was a victim of rape? I suspect not, so there is no reason to talk about special circumstances.

You said: "The complete and utter disregard for the women involved by supposed "Pro-Life" adherents is shameful" That is an asinine statement. Pro-lifers have private charities all over the nation set up to help women who get pregnant. Homes for them to live in. Facilities for children, etc. Iggle also responded to this obviously false statement. Pro-lifers have nothing but sympathy for the mothers in these cases. But, if you believe that, then I will ask: Do you have a comlete and utter disregard for the children involved?

You said, "The very "cohort" that starts the whole process to any 'Unwanted Pregnancy' that leads to abortion...i.e. Men...is totally ignored." What are you talking about? Feel free to make suggestions. No one is opposing making men responsible for their children. Indeed, there are many laws on the books which make them responsible, and no one is proposing repealing them, so this seems like a lie you are telling here to distract.

You said, "This is a complex issue" I responded to this below. It is not a complicated issue. But, it is a hard issue. Just because a morally clear choice is difficult to make does not make it a complicated choice...it just makes it difficult because hardship is involved. The morals are actually quite clear, which is why there is a lot of noise. People say things are complicated when they don't want to admit they are in the wrong, or that they do not have the moral strength to do what they know is right. As to helping women with unwanted pregnancies, make your big government proposals. Maybe the prolife funded homes for women aren't sufficient. I'm sure you could get something passed in your state, and even through Congress. If there is one thing Congress can do, it is spend money and grow government.

There, I responded to you. No promises that I will continue to do so.

I'll address each of your paragraphs...btw, I'm going to use references from Prof. Laurence Tribe's book "Abortion, The Clash of Absolutes" a few times...

>You must admit that an unwanted pregnancy in one state is no different that in another...yet, one state would criminalize abortion while another would allow it...to me, that's "Chaos"...here's an excerpt from Prof. Tribe's book, illustrating even more "Chaos"....

"Notwithstanding the criminalization of abortion and the wide-scale practice of illegal abortion, there were few indictments and disproportionately fewer convictions for abortion during this period. For example, in Minnesota between 1911 and 1930 there were only 100 indictments for abortion, and only 31 of these led to convictions. In Michigan between 1893 and 1932, 156 indictments for unlawful abortion were handed down, with only 40 resulting in conviction.

Most Americans were apparently content to live with this hypocrisy. The major "punishments" for abortion, punishments disproportionately borne by underprivileged women, remained the mutilations or deaths that often attended the illegal terminations of unwanted pregnancies."

btw, your continued harping on "Murder" but refusal to acknowledge "Assault" again shows your complete blindness to the plight of the women driven to the remedy of abortion...we both agree that abortion is not the preferred solution...but, the REALITY is unavoidably clear...women WILL seek dangerous illegal abortions anyway...AND, as I've shown, 80-85% of Americans will continue to agree that "Legal" abortions should be allowed...because of the understood lifetime burdens on women (e.g. in the cases I mentioned)...you need to deal with REALITY, while at the same time working to REDUCE the number of abortion decisions being made...it can be done...but not by overturning Roe v. Wade.

>Your second paragraph seems to me an acceptance of illegal abortions...again demonstrating a total lack of compassion or empathy with the woman's plight...no progress will be made until you change that rigid mindset...you are without question in the extreme minority of the American public's long-established view on this....here's another excerpt from the referenced book that hopefully illustrates this point...if not for you, then others who follow this thread...

"Some doctors, nurses, and hospital emergency workers who had seen the brutality imposed by illegal abortions sought now to liberalize abortion laws. Another profession often witness to the humiliation, pain, and death caused by criminal abortion laws was the clergy. In a world where women were afraid to admit not only to having had an abortion but, indeed, to having engaged in any sexual activity not intended to lead to pregnancy, it was often members of the clergy who saw and heard firsthand the stories of brutal back-alley abortions that many women kept secret even from their friends and families.

In May 1967 twenty-one members of the clergy made a stunning announcement, reported on page one of the New York Times, offering to refer women to doctors they knew to be performing safe and legitimate abortions. Their organization, the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion, soon spread across the country with thousands of clergy participating as "gentle lawbreakers," referring women to doctors in Puerto Rico, in Great Britain, and even within the United States. In Michigan alone, a hundred members of the clergy, including a few Catholic priests, gave such referrals."

Once again...REALITY...you need to open your eyes and ears to what is truly going on...and why women (along with concerned men) are literally screaming to be heard. Those cries will never stop, even if you see Roe v. Wade overturned...I'll say it again...you...and I...can achieve significant reductions in the number of abortions...but as long as there are Unwanted Pregnancies, they will not stop.

>You're overlooking the specter of a National Ban should the GOP regain power...but assuming sanity is maintained, there are still too many states that will impose a spectrum of draconian laws that make life unbearable for women...especially those suffering pregnancy from rape and incest...

Speaking of compromise...not all "rapes" are front page violent assaults...how would you classify the all-out demand of a husband for his "conjugal rights" when his wife can't possibly endure another pregnancy?...would that not be termed a 'rape'?...as an attorney, do you see any way that this country could develop a legal process that would be able to attain..."beyond a reasonable doubt"...what was a rape and what wasn't?...IMO we can only rely on the woman's word as to whether the unwanted pregnancy was consensual...imagine the thousands of courtroom scenes if we tried to adjudicate all such circumstances..."Chaos!" to the N-th degree.

>I've given you multiple explanations regarding the disregard for women's concerns...not the least of which is the article by the ND alum...while it is very important moving forward to "institutionalize" the programs you mention, they will not address ALL cases, for both medical and mental health reasons...but please 'hold that thought'...it is part of the solution I, and others, envision.

>I keep having to say this..."Read Renee Roden's Paper"...she eloquently explains the issue. I a much less sophisticated way, I commented that Unwanted Pregnancies would cease if men BEFORE having sex made sure that it was for either "Conception", or for the couple's mutual pleasure, using "Contraception"...something our Church has failed come to grips with...btw, I don't mind explaining that part on another thread...

Also, men are the "sine qua non" element in all of this...if they don't ensure that the sex act is entered into within the provisos noted above, then if anyone is to be indicted or convicted, the men need to be dealt with first...they had the chance to keep an "Unwanted Pregnancy" from happening...and they didn't...

Your only offerings in this vein are 'Post Delivery' of a baby....they don't deal with the avoidance of the whole affair to begin with.

>I'm fine with using "Hard" instead of "Complex", but the fact of the matter is that women will continue to opt for abortions so long as "Unwanted Pregnancies" occur, which leaves us with difficult choices on how to deal with the situation...consign women to dangerous illegal abortions, or offer a) better sexuality education throughout girls...and boys...lives, b) widespread education, promotion and availability of "Contraception", and c) ensured availability of Post-Delivery aid for women of all social and income backgrounds...such as you were mentioning.

-----------------

Once again, I sincerely appreciate you taking the significant time and effort to reply...and doing so in an honest and pretty much respectful manner...it's not easy, for either of us, but this issue affects the entire nation, so it's not a frivolous undertaking. We don't always need to go to such lengths, but it's good for me and others to hear your reasoning...hopefully, you and others will do the same for mine.

Have a good day, and I hope this is just one example of reasoned dialogue.

You said: "btw, your continued harping on "Murder" "

I am trying to use the term "homicide" because it is not judgemental, and merely refers to the fact that a human being dies due to some action by another human, whether it is a morally culpable action or not (could include murder, manslaughter, self-defense, whatever).

I searched my post. Looks like I used the word "murder" 3 times. 2 times I meant actual murder of adult human beings, in the normal sense of the word. One time, I think I mistakenly said murder when I meant homicide of an unborn human being. So, I'm not harping on "Murder."

Do you agree that a human being dies in an abortion? Put another way, do you agree that an abortion results in a homicide? I think it is important to get your opinion on this before I respond to the rest.

We justify homicides under the law for many reasons. If you can answer the above question, I will know if we are having a discussion regarding justifiable homicide, or if we are having an entirely different discussion.

...the book excerpts that I provided show that the moment of "Personhood", or "Soul Infusion" for the fetus is more "faith" than "science", and not everyone in this country is Catholic or Christian, or a believer in God...so, while if is right and proper for those who are Catholics, etc. to live their lives according to their faith, it is not right to impose that belief on others...e.g. "Personhood" at the moment of conception.

Furthermore, an unwanted pregnancy resulting from a violent rape, for example, makes the woman a victim in every sense of the word...as evidenced by unwavering opinions over the last 40+ years shows that over 80% of Americans believe (IMO) that the woman is entitled to 'limit' her injury by having an abortion, if she so wishes...and not increase it by living the rest of her life with the added burden of caring for a child she never wanted...and one that could very well be a reminder of that painful episode.

I've got to run...will definitely respond to you later...

(no message)

Doctrine: If the baby is alive, don't kill it. The fact that science has been better able to determine when it is alive hasn't changed the doctrine. I think you look to the wrong sources, so that you can weaken your faith so that you can maintain your political views. Set aside your political views for a second, and start looking at things fresh.

I actually can't relate at all to your watered down Christianity that is subordinate to your politics. Perhaps for the rest of the discussion, we should just assume that God does not exist. Even secular humanists are against killing. If there is no god, then human life is the greatest thing there is. We should preserve it at the expense of all other things.

My view is consistent with Libertarians for Life. From the Wikipedia page:
1) Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.
2) Abortion is homicide – the killing of one person by another.
3) There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4) A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5) No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.
6) The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

None of the arguments are based upon religious belief, and are intended to appeal equally to atheists and theists.

You mention rape. First, let's deal with the majority of abortions, which are purely elective. I posted this elsewhere, but you have not answered, so I will post it here: Probably the least justification for an abortive homicide would be if 2 people decide to have consensual, conjugal sex, to completion, without protection...just because they want to do it. They intentionally engage in acts that make it possible, and maybe even probable, that they create a human being. The question then becomes: Are they allowed to kill that human being? No rape, no incest, no down syndrome kid...they just decide they regret the occurrence of them becoming pregnant. If we are looking to culpability or responsibility of the parent to justify the homicide, then that case is probably the weakest case for justification. In that case, do you, Tyrone, think that abortion should be allowed? If you do, then we don't have to discuss special cases, because you believe it should be allowed in all cases.


Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarians_for_Life

it factors in virtually all judgements regarding the acceptability of any abortion.

In such a case we have a completely unwanted and uninvited "intruder"...that will undoubtedly develop into a new person...introduced to a woman's uterus by a truly "Irresponsible" man. The considered opinion of the overwhelmingly large majority of Americans is that the woman in this case is totally within her rights to "Reject" the intruder, if she so chooses...and if any criminality is to be assigned, it needs to be directed toward that "Irresponsible" man who should not have created this tragic situation in the first place.

The "Innocent Intruder" you refer to repeatedly is the responsibility of the "Irresponsible" man, and not the woman...she should be free to take whatever action she deems appropriate in order to retain as much of the freedom, physical and mental health, and economic status that she had prior to this "Unwanted and Undesired" event as she can....hopefully, in this and all other instances of "Unwanted Pregnancies" the option of carrying to term will be prioritized, and abetted by substantial amounts of empathy and assistance.

Speaking of those "other" Unwanted Pregnancies, there is IMO, a significant spectrum of encounters that border on what most people consider "Rape"...be it "Incest"..."Date Rape", or "Marital Abuse"...all of which, we have come to know as being hard to judicially finalize, if you get my drift, so in effect, we need to rely on the woman's word for justification of her choice on abortion. But, it is also correct that significant numbers that occur because of mutual 'Carelessness' ...unfortunately, as I've posted before, even before Roe v. Wade, when states (e.g. Michigan) were indicting women for abortion, very few of them resulted in conviction...so the process is deeply flawed...and, btw, it is a "fact of life' that wealthy persons will avoid any such issues, while those of lesser means will end up serving as sacrificial lambs to prove the "efficacy" of those laws and prosecutions...so, again IMO, trying to adjudicate the justification for a woman's choice in ALL situations is going to be fruitless and simply best left allowing the woman to make that choice...especially in a pluralistic society like ours.

Note that Roe v. Wade has limitations, and I agree with that concept...as to what they should be (i.e. "Improvement" of RvW) is TBD.

With all this said, there is another path...education of all, young and old, about the need, and means, to be "Responsible"...education and availability fpr Contraceptives...and institutionalized programs to address women's natal and post-natal needs that lead to greater willingness to carry pregnancies to term...

btw, after reading and thinking more about the 'a priori' responsibility of men in this issue, I'm very much in favor of very aggressive programs that make it abundantly clear to that cohort that they will be held "Responsible' for any unwanted pregnancies...what those measures end up being is TBD, but they need to be "Impactful" (perhaps even a DNA registry)...I'm convinced they will make a significant difference.

I doubt that you're going to like what I've said, but try to take a few moments and ponder the concept I presented of a raped woman's inherent right to "Reject" the intrusion of an unwanted new life on her life...and the notion that it is the responsibility of the "Irresponsible Man".

(no message)

abortions, I have grave doubts about the ability to discern the truth in the very little time made available in Roe v. Wade...I am also not so naive that I don't realize wealthy persons would have a very unfair advantage in escaping scrutiny...so, I'm left with the only 'fair' conclusion that it's up to the woman to decide...if you have a better way to discern so that abortions for mere convenience don't take place...while still ensuring that the egregious circumstances are not overlooked, or given short shrift...I'm all ears.

IMO the bedrock reason for supporting abortion is the "Rape/Incest" category,...the rationale is too compelling, so it must be dealt with first.

btw, I'm honestly intrigued by the article that shines a bright light on how men need to be looked at in this issue...many ways in which progress toward reduction in unwanted pregnancies by doing so...no doubt a difficult task, given the all-encompassing mysogeny at play right now....talk about 'goring an ox' ;-).

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

They see no complexity, no shades of gray. They admit no room for disagreement or dissent. It is not complicated.

They are 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong. It is not complicated.

But - and many of you say this with a straight face, once we win, we will be very measured and logical. No national bans, No attempts to legislate away other freedoms. IVF and IUDs are safe!

You totally underestimate our politics - and your own willingness to put up with zealotry in the name of your side.

Look at what the LA legislature is about to do, and realize that it is just the beginning.

Morality is rarely complicated. Is it a human life or not? When can I kill human life? These are not complicated issues.

Individuals, deciding whether to comply with the morality is very often hard. My daughter is pregnant, and if she has the kid, she might realize my and her dreams for her future, do I do the right thing?...or do we take a short cut involving a homicide...for some people, that is difficult, and I have tremendous empathy for those people. But, even that is not really complicated. It is just an issue of finding the moral strength to do the right thing. It is difficult. It is painful. But, it is not complicated.

None of the above is complicated. When people say it is, they are trying to obfuscate.

Politics can, of course, be very hard and very complicated, especially in a democracy, and the Court is returning this issue to the Democracy. So, I get the "complicated" point in that regard. But, don't worry. Many states won't even try to do stop abortion. The national ban is a pipe dream. But, yeah, we will now have to talk about abortion a lot more in elections.

(no message)

Zygotes over country, zygotes over everything.

Link: https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/04/opinions/supreme-court-abortion-conservatives-roe-stewart/index.html

(no message)

The opinion of Josh Blackman, constitutional law professor, is that congress has no power to make a national law on abortion based on this decision. I'm not a lawyer, so don't know if this is a valid take. But I hope it is correct.

Link: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zb3VuZGNsb3VkLmNvbS91c2Vycy9zb3VuZGNsb3VkOnVzZXJzOjI1Mjg4ODcyNS9zb3VuZHMucnNz/episode/dGFnOnNvdW5kY2xvdWQsMjAxMDp0cmFja3MvMTI2MjM2Mzc1NQ?ep=14

States have plenary powers. Congress has enumerated powers. If a power is not enumerated in the Constitution, then Congress can't pass a law regarding it. That's what the Framer provided to us in the Constitution.

Then came the New Deal (which SCOTUS was striking down right and left), and the FDR court packing scheme (which caused SCOTUS to change what it deemed to be constitutional), and suddenly, any law was allowed to be constitutional as long as it affected interstate commerce (because there is a Commerce power enumerated for Congress). And, the standard for affecting commerce came to be very, very loose.

In the past 20 years, SCOTUS has been tip-toeing into the concept that Congress can't do whatever it wants by merely mentioning "commerce" in the statute somewhere.

If we do get back to that, that would be great. The States would have more power to do what they want. Diversity of laws is not necessarily a bad thing, and on most issues (like commerce), the states usually adopt uniform codes (except Louisiana). But, that is kind of what makes me think Alito's draft is just a draft. If that concept wins the day, abortion will be one of the least of the issues affected. We'll see. (Note: I haven't read Alito's draft. I didn't see the point. I was going to wait until the real opinion is released.)

You are an unhinged loon, with no credibility on this board.

That’s all you need to know to understand the motivation of the pro-life movement.

To say that they have “a complete and utter disregard for the women” is a terrible lie. You should be ashamed of yourself.

of abortion in at least some cases...in short, it's because they realize that carrying a pregnancy to term under certain circumstances (e.g. rape, incest, health (both physical and mental) of the mother) is too much of a burden for the woman...

The removal of legal abortions does NOTHING to address that burden...it only forces women in such situations to seek harmful illegal abortions...which they will, as demonstrated by the Pre-Roe v. Wade situation...so, by overturning RvW, you and others are demonstrating complete and utter disregard for them...you offer them no choice.


Link: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

are what one makes them.

clearly, over 80% want the practice of abortion to remain legal...the only question is for "Which Cases?"...using this logic, safe, legal abortion clinics would be available all across the country.

Let's focus our efforts on ensuring they are rarely used, thanks to programs of better sexuality education...availability of contraceptives...and aid/encouragement for those who choose to complete the pregnancy...

(no message)

(no message)

He was explaining why pro-lifers think the way they do (and how you disingenuously insulted them), and you responded "but other people think different things." Um. Ok. But his point stands.

Regarding the body of your post: Where do you stand. Would you accept a ban for all cases in which the parent made a choice to engage in an act, the reasonably expected outcome of which would be the creation of a human being? Or, do you want abortion allowed for anyone who wants it?

more than 80% of Americans...is that there are circumstances where that "Murder" is "Justified"...that's the part you and others in your minority fail to acknowledge.

The reality that it is virtually impossible to discern which case is justified versus another in all situations, makes the only remedy "The Woman's Choice"...as one example, I'll present the case of a demanding husband insisting on his conjugal rights over the rights of his near suicidal wife should she have to endure another pregnancy...this situation occurs more than you know, as testified to by doctors, nurses...and clergy.

As I am using the terms, murder is a class of homicide. Murder entails malice aforethought, or something like that. There is also manslaughter, which is less than murder. And, there is homicide in self-defense. Why don't we just go with homicide for now? A human is killed. We can address the culpability of the actors later. Can we agree that an abortion is a homicide?

If we can agree on that, then we can talk about whether that homicide is justifiable in some way.

Probably the least justification for homicide would be if 2 people decide to have consensual, conjugal sex, to completion, without protection...just because they want to do it. They intentionally engage in acts that make it possible, and maybe even probable, that they create a human being. The question then becomes: Are they allowed to kill that human being? If we are looking to culpability or responsibility of the parent to justify the homicide, then that case is probably the weakest case for justification. In that case, do you think abortion should be allowed? If you do, then we don't have to discuss special cases, because you believe it should be allowed in all cases.

criminalization of it...with all the consequences that follow...I'm sure if you ran polls for an eternity, you'd get the same opinion...similarly, I'm sure that those same people understand what "Abortion" is...YET, more than 80% of them believe that abortion should be LEGAL in at least some cases...stop and think about that. Given this simple fact...and in a pluralistic democracy, it is flat out wrong for the wishes of an overwhelming majority to be denied by the government..)

Clearly, in hundreds of millions of people's minds, the two terms are NOT SYNONYMOUS...there is a difference...IMO, because there is often another innocent victim...the woman,...and they feel her pain and suffering...they are not willing to subject her to a lifetime of more pain...and as Roe v. Wade was judged, they agree that a certain amount of time is allowed for the woman to make her choice as to whether or not she should continue carrying the fetus to term.

This is the clear and obvious evidence you and others are disregarding...we can all work together to reduce the likelihood of Unwanted Pregnancies as well as providing more incentives for women to choose to give birth...

As Renee Roden eloquently put it, so long as there are Unwanted Pregnancies, there will be abortions...the decision is whether or not to make them safe...Overturning Roe v. Wade will be catastrophic for women...especially those without the means or time to seek legal abortions elsewhere.

To your newly raised point, as long as there are unwanted people, there will be murders. So, the question is, will we make those murders safe? The answer to that is usually no, we won't, except in the most horrible of societies. Abortion transfers an evil from a culpable actor (in most cases) to a 100% innocent victim (in all cases), the baby. Just legal systems abhor arbitrary victimization like that. Yes, the woman is to be considered a victim in some special cases, and regardless of whether she is 100% culpable or 1005 innocent, I still want to support her to choose life. Regardless, the baby is always 100% purely innocent, and it is an abomination to legally shift any harm from one person to a 100% innocent person. No moral system can justify that in any reasonable way. Such immorality is only supported through obfuscation, to hide the evil being done (much talk of "complexity"). The way to help the situation is to help the woman, not kill the baby.

But, again, please answer my question in the previous post about the non-special circumstance elective abortion. There is no reason to talk about special cases if we cannot talk about the mainstream cases.

another in all situations, makes the only remedy "The Woman's Choice"..." do you not understand?...I've answered your question...and furthermore, the majority of even Catholics understand what "Murder" is...and they support Roe v. Wade anyway...it is you who is failing to comprehend this issue.

In your world, you would consign one half of all future newborns to a life of fear that through no fault of their own, they would have to raise a completely unwanted child for the rest of their lives...no choice on their part whatsoever...and a government that would punish them for not doing so...that's a fact, Ned...and the majority of this nation is not going to let that stand.

(no message)

(no message)

Stop invoking the name of Jesus when trying your hardest to prove your point on abortion. Jeremiah 1:5 "I knew you before I formed you in your mother's womb".

We only know what Jesus said because the Catholic Church, the Church He established, picked the books of the bible a few hundred years later, discarding most of the "books" of the day, and codifying a select few of them into what is now called the Bible.

The words of Jesus in the Bible are known to you only because of the authority of the Catholic Church which established Scripture.

The Church is clear on this issue. So, why do you acknowledge the authority of the Church in one part (Scripture) but deny it elsewhere (Tradition and Doctrine)? The authority is the same for both. If the authority can be questioned for one, then it can be questioned for the other.

You are just engaging in theological tricks here to win a political point. Politics determine your theology, and it should be the other way around if you really are religious.

All that aside, Jesus's words were nothing if not protective of children.

this issue has been an evolving one...again, from Prof. Tribe's book "Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes"...

"But the traditional Catholic position on abortion - similar to that taken by Aristotle and by some rabbinic scholars in the Jewish tradition - was that a fetus was not a human being until the time of "animation." Under Catholic doctrine, male fetus became "animated" - that is, infused with a soul - at forty days after conception. A female fetus was believed to become animated at a gestational age of eighty days.

Although Catholicism traditionally forbade even early abortion, such abortion was condemned in essentially the same way that the church condemned, and continues to condemn, masturbation and contraception. It held that these acts interfered with the procreative purpose of sexual activity; but a fetus was not considered a person early in pregnancy, and early abortion wan not deemed homicide.

Only in the late nineteenth century, following the discovery of fertilization, did the debate about abortion within the church tip in favor of its now familiar position that human life begins at conception. I
This shift was given a strong push by the theological acceptance of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, not to be confused with the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception, Mary's pregnancy with Jesus. In 1701 Pope Clement XI declared the Immaculate Conception a feast of universal obligation. In 1854 Pius IX incorporated into Catholic dogma the teaching that Mary was without sin from the moment of her conception. These beliefs were not easily squared with the view that the fetus did not acquire a soul until later in pregnancy.

It was only in 1869 that Pius IX promulgated the papal enactment "Apostolicace sedis", which abandoned the limitation under which excommunication was to be imposed only for those abortions of "ensouled" fetuses. (This strict rule had first been in effect for two years in the late sixteenth century. The papal bull that contained the original declaration, "Effraenatam", was issued by Pope Sixtus V in 1588. But it did not gain acceptance with contemporary theologians and ti was repealed two years later by the new pope, Gregory XIV) Only at this point, well after the movement to criminalize abortion was under way in America, and only by implication, was the groundwork laid within the church for the theological position that all abortion is homicide."

So, all that being said, the Catholic Church's position has evolved since Jesus' time...and as Renee Roden has stated, the issue of "Personhood" is one of "Faith" and one that we as Catholics should strive to acknowledge...BUT...this is not the "United Catholic States of America", so we MUST NOT impose our beliefs on others who in all honesty do not share them. Frankly, it bothers me that all the SCOTUS Justices opposing Roe v. Wade are Catholics, and given the overwhelming number of Americans who believe abortion should be legal across the country for at least some cases, any overturning of Roe v. Wade could produce serious "blowback" against the Church for such a blatant display of insensitivity to other perspectives in a pluralistic, democratic society.

The Word speaks extensively about the sanctity of life. You are incorrect. It's a left wing "gotcha" question.

the centuries...check out earlier posts of mine in this thread...

Bottom line for the vast majority of Americans is that forcing a woman to bear a child against her will is a step too far...that will never change, and if Roe v. Wade has to be 'recreated' once again, it will be done...count on it.

You're listening to false teachers and spreading lies. You will be judged.

You seem to want to make this issue more complex than it actually is. Here is what the Church says.

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

cowardly to admit it...this unwillingness to face the truth (i.e. 'Unwanted Pregnancies'...the role of men...and the full effect on women) is what is keeping us from making real progress...but, as with most things, it can be resolved, if people are willing to come together in reasoned dialogue.

I know that is why I didn't read your post [edit: at first]. It is not the substance of the issue that people are shying away from. It is that no one wants to talk to you.

This is only a complicated issue for people who don't know (1) that aggression is wrong, and abortion is an aggression...and (2) that the right to life held by an innocent person trumps the right not to be inconvenienced by a person that has some responsibility for the situation in most cases.

(no message)

need to address "Patriarchy" in the U.S. (and elsewhere)...she's a graduate of Note Dame...and one who continues working to promote her Catholic faith (see link)

There are TWO persons involved in this issue...you, and others, are failing to respect one of them...totally...and until that person's burden (hint: the woman's) is fairly dealt with , we will NEVER reach an acceptable solution...and the cause of that will be on your shoulders.


Link: https://www.americamagazine.org/voices/renee-darline-roden

(no message)

(no message)

Does it help the discussion if I say you have a complete and utter disregard for the babies involved? If not, then why would you say I have a complete and utter disregard for the women involved. F you. I have nothing but sympathy for them. Do you donate to homes for pregnant women?

The Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops are cowards.

(no message)