Abortion and Nuremberg

Suppose that in the future a pro-life government were to come to power. What should happen in that situation to those responsible for the aborticaust (abortionists and their political enablers)?

To the poster who voted for option 8, why not?

Because ex post facto laws are in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Aside from that, I think punishing them would likely do nothing to bring them to repentance, while it would be likely to galvanize opposition against the new pro-life government.

So? Our constitution isn’t exactly the pinnacle of justice, and it is wrong in many areas.

Plus, even under our present constitution, options 6 and 10 would be allowed.

I don’t disagree, but that doesn’t change the fact that the government is bound by it. Furthermore, I agree with the Constitution’s prohibition against ex post facto laws.

I agree with Ryan Black. We would not be able to prosecute them because ex post facto laws violate the Constitution.

Also, I don’t think one could file a wrongful death suit against them because the baby they aborted is not longer alive to sue, and the mother gave her consent to have her baby killed.

The government is also bound by Roe v. Wade, if a permanently pro-life government were to come to power, the Comstitution would probably be significantly amended anyway. What do think of the Nuremberg trials?

So do laws banning abortion.

That is a matter of current interpretation, dating only back to 1973. Hopefully, this misapplication of the right to privacy, which isn’t even explicitly stated, will change. The constitutional ban on ex post facto laws is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.

Who cares? The interpretation is the interpretation, and I’d rather not sit around for the next few centuries waiting for the Constitution to be reinterpreted.

If you can’t change the interpretation, the document is a piece of trash.

As I said, what should be done is not dependent on the Constitution.

Exactly. If a document can’t even be clear about at least coming remotely close to obeying the natural law, then it’s no good.

The constitutional ban on ex post facto laws is there for a very good reason. The potential for abusive use of such laws is tremendous. Would you want to live in fear that what you legally do now could be retroactively made a crime by an unjust government? As for your position that those who have caused the holocaust that is abortion should be imprisoned for life, why stop with the physicians who performed them and the politicians who made abortion legal? Will you include all women who had abortions? What about those who encouraged them or pressured them to have abortions? What about those who paid for the abortion, either in full or in part?

There are too many to imprison all of them, that’s why I focused on those responsible for the most deaths (abortionists and their political enablers). What do you think of the Nuremberg trials?

very true.

but a “pro-life” government is likely to run roughshod over constitutional rights, so who knows how this might work out.

On the contrary, imprisonment could give them time to think about what they had done.

What difference do you see that would make the mass murder of Jews punishable ex post facto, but not the mass murder of unborn babies?

I’ll play along, sure. you mean punish abortion doctors, procurers, women who’ve had abortions, men who’ve assisted women who’ve had abortions, politicians who voted for abortion laws or funding therefor, anyone who failed to prevent abortions. anyone else?

I think you vastly overestimate the likelihood that imprisonment would have that effect, while overlooking the virtual certitude that such imprisonment would lead to hatred against the government, as well as hatred against the Catholic Church.

The U.S. Constitution holds no authority in Europe, although, in all honesty, your question deserves more off an answer than just that. Of course I’ve heard of the Nuremburg trials, but I don’t know about the particulars of the legal reasoning employed by the prosecution.

here you go.


there’s a lot of valid criticism, but the OP chose this model.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.