Should abortionists be punished?

[Cloudwalker]

This is very hypothetical, but lets say a govt came to power in the US or UK that was against abortion. After it has banned abortion, would it be justified in prosecuting alll the abortionists who did abortion when abortion was legal?

[Anathama Sit]

Originally Posted by Cloudwalker

This is very hypothetical, but lets say a govt came to power in the US or UK that was against abortion. After it has banned abortion, would it be justified in prosecuting alll the abortionists who did abortion when abortion was legal?

Greetings Cloudwalker,

No that would not be just simply stated.

However all will be answerable to God for all of their actions. They will answer for it at some point in time, whether on the face of the earth or at the particular judgement.


God Bless.
Anathama Sit

[Jonatello]

no way.

the idea of prosecuting people for things that only became illegal AFTER they did them is wildly reckless with human beings and sets a catastrophic precedent for future laws that might change.

i think abortion is horrific, but the reality is many people who help provide them don't understand that and have become convinced they aren't killing babies.

NOT TO MENTION:

if this was even a possibility, you'd never ever ever have any chance of making it illegal lol.

good progress requires letting go of the desire for vengeance. those babies are already dead, they can't be saved by getting back at the doctors, but future ones can be if we act in love.

[manualman]

That's called 'ex post facto' (prosecuting for a crime committed before it was formally made illegal) and the US constitution prohibits it explicitly. Changing that aspect of the Consitution is pretty much impossible short of utter revolution.

Given our history, I suspect the UK holds a similar principle somewhere.

[Rascalking]

Originally Posted by Jonatello

no way.

the idea of prosecuting people for things that only became illegal AFTER they did them is wildly reckless with human beings and sets a catastrophic precedent for future laws that might change.

i think abortion is horrific, but the reality is many people who help provide them don't understand that and have become convinced they aren't killing babies.

NOT TO MENTION:

if this was even a possibility, you'd never ever ever have any chance of making it illegal lol.

good progress requires letting go of the desire for vengeance. those babies are already dead, they can't be saved by getting back at the doctors, but future ones can be if we act in love.

Took the words out of my mouth my friend.

[Vincent1984]

Originally Posted by Cloudwalker

This is very hypothetical, but lets say a govt came to power in the US or UK that was against abortion. After it has banned abortion, would it be justified in prosecuting alll the abortionists who did abortion when abortion was legal?

Strictly speaking, abortion is not legal in the UK in the same way as it is in the US. In the US, Roe vs. Wade 1973 established that abortion is more-or-less a legal right, with the state having the power to place certain restrictions upon it.

In the UK, abortion remains a criminal offence (Offences Against the Person Act 1861). However, the Abortion Act 1967 provides an inbuilt defence "when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith" that it is necessary for the physical or mental health of the mother. Of course, this provision is interpreted very broadly indeed. I am not aware of criminal proceedings being taken against doctors who abuse the guidelines; it would be widely seen as unacceptable by the political class.

I think there has been one case (in 2006) of a mother being convicted of 'child destruction' for abortion outside of the specific defences provided by the Abortion Act. Though in this case, she may have had the baby born deliberately prematurely and killed it secretly.

I agree with previous commentators that there is no legal possibility to prosecute for acts which were legal at the time. The theoretical possibility exists, however, that a future government could encourage legal action against people who act outside the letter of the law but who are currently unpunished for political reasons.

[Will B]

My opinion...

Abortion is murder.. So lets say on January 1, 2012 the US government rules that without any doubt "Live begins at conception and the unborn has all the rights and privileges of a person already born"

Therefore: Any abortion after January 1, 2012 would punish all parties involved in the abortion act the same punishment as any other murder.. >> The doctor who preformed the abortion would be the murderer, the assisting team would be the accomplices and the mother of the child would be guilty of murder for hire.

Each individual state would have to rule on just punisment for this crime, the same as they already do for other murders.

[BVM 1221]

Originally Posted by Cloudwalker

This is very hypothetical, but lets say a govt came to power in the US or UK that was against abortion. After it has banned abortion, would it be justified in prosecuting alll the abortionists who did abortion when abortion was legal?

That would be ex post facto. I am not sure about thye UK, but that would be unconstitutional in the USA.

I note that you mentioned prosecution of abortion providers? Not the women? It takes a woman's consent for the procedure, so are they not equally guilty, and should receive the same punishment as the medical team? And speaking of medical team, should we prosecute the entire team, or just the Doctor? If not, why not?

[TheMc]

Originally Posted by Cloudwalker

This is very hypothetical, but lets say a govt came to power in the US or UK that was against abortion. After it has banned abortion, would it be justified in prosecuting alll the abortionists who did abortion when abortion was legal?

From a legal standpoint, you can't punish someone for doing something that was legal when they did it. But if they continued after it was illegal, they could be punished for that.

[Jaypeeto4]

I'm looking at this from another angle, one not specifically tied
to the US Constitution and other man-made considerations

Abortion, like all murder, is, according to the Law of God,
MURDER, and the penalty prescribed for murder
is the public execution of the murderer.
There is no way, sorry poster above, but there is no way that
these men and women do not know that they are killing a developing human being.
They KNOW they are committing homicide. They KNOW it.
They might shove it out of their minds, but deep down, they know it.
So what I find ironic is that Catholics on these forums, some of them that is,
wax eloquent about turning in the poor welfare queen who stole a few hundred bucks
a month from the govt for a few years. She committed theft,
but according to the bible, her sin is FAR LESS SERIOUS than the sin of the murderer (and abortionists are mass murderers in fact).
Yet I see people saying "Turn her in! Report her!," etc., knowing that this woman
will likely be put into a violent women's prison where she will be daily hit on by predatory lesbians, beaten, attacked, raped with mop-handles and broomsticks and subjected to a demon-infested environment. What if she has repented of her sin? Should we risk subjecting a repentant Christian woman to that? Some would say, yes, she broke the law!! But abortion, murder, breaks an even HIGHER law than that of the state. It is murder, mass murder. Yet, when lifelong abortionists, like the founder of NARAL, repent and become Catholics, nobody yells or posts statements that "this man should get the electric chair for all his murders", no, they show great compassion to the man. They WELCOME him into the church with great fanfare, inviting him to public speakings, book-signings, etc, as if his repentance not only made him right with God, but made him into a hero. So while the welfare queen rots in a dangerous prison, even if a repentant Christian, reported by her zealous, righteous, law-abiding fellow Catholics,
those same Catholics who put her away for a MUCH LESSER sin, welcome the mass murderer with joy and compassion and zeal, into the church.
I am not sure how to feel about this real phenomenon or what to make of it.
I, too, am glad for Nathanson's repentance. I am glad he is a Catholic now, growing in grace. But would he be able to grow in grace if, like our repentant welfare queen who got reported and sent up, he were subjected to a brutal, blasphemous, sodomy-filled, racism-filled, gang violence filled prison? I seriously doubt it !!
Thanks to the separation of church and state,
we forget that nearly all sin is, in fact, "crime" even if not prosecuted by the state.
Adulterers, abortionists, etc, who deserve the death penalty hundreds of times over,
are welcomed with great compassion, and told not to be scrupulous, etc, that God has forgotten their sins, etc., while people who, biblically, are guilty of things far less serious, are sent up the river to rot. And Catholics turn them in. While welcoming repentant baby killers. (continued in next post))

[Jaypeeto4]

I really don't believe Christians have a responsibility to turn in repentant Christians for their past misdeeds. You may say, but the state requires it and we have the obigation to obey the state. Well, I don't take things that literally. Yes, we have to obey the state.
But betray Christians to the state, when we welcome with fanfare and compassion people whose sins, according to GOD's law in the bible, call for them to be publicly put to death?
SO the answer is YES, abortionists should be punished. SO SHOULD all people who do ANYTHING wrong. But today, the people who practice the worst things, the worst sins,
get the most compassion, while those who commit the lesser sins, are sent up the river, with the zealous help of "God fearing" Catholics who sometimes are, themselves, guilty of the more serious sins themselves, however repentant they may be.
Very difficult issues here.
For me, turning a person in, would depend on several factors. Two of which are:
1) How serious was her deed (did she rape, kill, shoot a cop, sell drugs to children?)
2) If it was a nonviolent deed and no helpless person got hurt,
then, IS SHE REPENTANT? Or is she continuing to break the laws?
3) Have my sins, which are not against STATE law, MAN's Law,
been sins that God's law, if enforced, would require my execution,
while her sin would only require her to pay a fine or pay back what she took?
4) If my sins were, biblically, far more serious than hers, though not punished by the state, do I really have the moral right before God to destroy her life?
5) We have to obey human laws that do not conflict with God's principles.
Do God's principles require that we "turn in" those who are repentant,
in a blood covenant relationship with Christ and us, while those to whom
we would turn them in, are not??? Most people today, though they acknowledge belief in the existence of God, don't give a rat's behind about God's laws, conversion, holiness, or anything else. Since a PRIEST himself CANNOT require a repentant person to turn herself in as a condition of absolution NOR as penance, are we REALLY "required" to turn in our REPENTANT Christian sisters and brothers???
I for one, if faced with such a situation, would not do so, unless I had reason to believe that she was a continuing offender, not at all repentant, and/or dangerous to other people (i.e., violent, a child rapist, a drug-dealer to children, someone who HELPS home invaders, a cop-killer, etc etc etc). But in general, no, I would not turn in a repentant Christian sister (or brother), and all things considered, I am absolutely convinced that required obedience to the state does NOT include turning in repentant Christians.
And while I love Jews and Muslims, I am concerned here with people with whom
I have a covenant relationship by virtue of Christ's blood and to whom I have a responsibility for the protection of THEIR souls.
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

[Leegal]

Originally Posted by Cloudwalker

This is very hypothetical, but lets say a govt came to power in the US or UK that was against abortion. After it has banned abortion, would it be justified in prosecuting alll the abortionists who did abortion when abortion was legal?

The secular answer is no. The Constitution of the U.S. prohibits prosecuting people for crimes that were committed when it was not a crime. It's prohibited in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. No "ex post facto" law shall be passed. You cannot be held accountable retroactively if a new law is passed making something a crime which had not been a crime in the past..

[Cloudwalker]

I have spoken to (Protestant) Christians who tell me that the perpetrators of the Holocaust were not breaking any legal laws at the time, and yet their crimes were so great that they were justifiably punished after the war. From this, they argue that those involved in abortion should similarly be punished if the tables come to be turned on them. How much support for this view would there be within Catholicism?

[NewsTheMan]

Don't punish them with sanctions or what not. Set up a commission where they apologize for crimes against humanity and are forgiven. Kinda like the Truth and Reconcilation Commission after apartheid. We can't just let this genocide go as if it were nothing and we suddenly changed our moral compass for some reason. There must be deep acknowledgedment that this was an evil of the highest order committed on genocidal levels against the most helpless person of all. Make sure it never happens again, ever. Make sure doctors take an oath that actually means something, because right now we have those who are supposed to protect life doing the exact opposite.

[fred conty]

For those who offer their services in this area, aren't we trying to do that very thing by
shutting them down?