There’s a limited number of offenses that qualify as Latae sententiae.
Abortion is one them, rape is not.
Apparently you think this is some sort of justification for excommunicating a nine-year old rape victim but not her rapist. Do you seriously think this would matter for the rest of us who think there is no possible justification for treating a 9 year old rape victim so monstrously?
It doesn’t need justification. It’s Canon Law.
Do you, personally, think that this is all right-that this nine-year-old child is punished by her church more severely than her rapist?
Maybe you’re fine with treating little girls abominably due to “Canon law”, but you can’t possibly expect everyone else to mindlessly submit to monstrous teachings just because it supposedly comes from a higher power.
Yeah, rape and incest exemptions, although politically very popular, don’t make any rational sense to me. If abortion is the murder of a child, it’s still murder if the child was created by one of those acts.
ETA: And the effect would likely be to increase the number of false allegations of rape.
Rape and incest exceptions make a mockery of pro-life arguments.
You need 4 justices to agree to hear the case. If Trump is still in office for the next vacancy, he’ll appoint Amy Barrett.
The Alabamians should hope it does not reach the Supreme Court, I think they’d lose. If Trump doesn’t get another vacancy to fill, that would probably be the end of it for awhile. If Trump is still in office for the next vacancy, he’ll appoint Amy Barrett, and if she replaces Ginsburg, which is the most likely scenario, then you will just have an assembly line going.
Along the way what can happen is that some judge lays out a roadmap for the anti-abortionists for what would get through. If Alabama got to the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh could do that. The anti-abortionists go write a new bill and wait for Barrett to get on.
The current math is very bad for pro-choice. Roberts is really the finger in the dike.
I just bought this book: Amazon.com “Handbook for a Post-Roe America”; I recommend it for those with loved ones who may soon lose legal control over the whole of their bodies.
You know what I think makes a mockery of pro-life arguments? The fact that they’re even trying to litigate this. If pro-lifers really believed abortion was murder then we should expect to see massive, unprecedented civil unrest. We should be seeing constant rioting in the streets, fire bombings, abortionists being murdered, political assassinations, people loudly advocating the overthrow of the government, and all manner of other things. And not just isolated attacks once every few years, but sustained violence every single day.
Instead, pro-lifers seem content to fight this in the courts, even though they know that millions of people are fighting equally hard to keep abortion legal, even though they know they may never win.
It just doesn’t compute. Their actions simply aren’t consistent with people who think abortion is murder. They are, however, consistent with people who think fetuses, while important, are essentially “lesser” than the women who carry them. They’re lying to themselves and lying to us.
I’ve made this exact same point before – the ones who spend their free time protesting abortion clinics (and worse) … those are people living consistently with the proposition that “babies are being murdered en masse and it must be stopped”, despicable as these protests are IMO. Not “pro-life” people who don’t actually make any significant sacrifices. They’re living consistently with “I think killing fetuses is wrong, but not wrong enough for me to actually make any significant changes to my life”.
So do you two believe those who call drone strikes murder are also being disingenuous? :dubious:
Bingo. If legal abortion, as the Alabama law says, is three times worse than the Holocaust, Stalin’s and Mao’s purges, the Cambodian killing fields, and the Rwandan genocide combined - well, nobody thought that the proper response to these atrocities was political action within the systems of each country.
So if abortion is really murder, and they’re the ones who recognized that reality, then they’re the ones who are most morally culpable for the continuing holocaust, because they recognized the evil, and fought it, how? By electing pro-life legislators, in a process that allowed the holocaust to continue for nearly half a century, and counting.
If millions of people are being killed on an ongoing basis, it would be important enough to halt that, that it would be worth fighting and dying for.
Occasionally, of course, someone realizes that this IS the only rational way to interpret the antiabortion movement’s beliefs, and so they shoot an abortion doctor or firebomb a clinic, but even the antiabortion movement has, in the past, widely condemned those persons as extremists that don’t reflect the movement’s values.
So do they believe abortion is murder? Their words say yes, but their actions say no.
It’s the difference between mind and heart. Intellectually, many pro-lifers may consider abortion to be murder, but that’s like how PETA considers the killing of a chicken to be equivalent to murdering a human. It is fairly rare for PETA to get truly violent about chickens, pigs, sheep, cows, etc. being slaughtered for meat; PETA is mostly content with protest signs and Internet petitions.
There simply is not the gut feeling about a fetus in utero being equivalent to a 2-year old being euthanized. The visceral feeling is what gets people roused, and it’s not there.
That being said, you could say the same about almost any cause (for instance, AGW people who believe that climate change is going to ruin the planet are being much too tame about their approach - they should be 1000x as forceful and vigorous about their cause then they are now) - but that takes us off-topic.
Not a good analogy there because a lot depends on not being prepared or expecting that leaders will listen to science instead of listening the fearmongers, who are in reality the ones that tell you that changing to deal with the issue will take us back to the stone age when that is not what proponents of finding solutions for the climate change issue are about.
Problem has been that ever since Newt Gingritch the powerful in America made the bet that empowering ignorants will prevent the governmental control of the polluting industry, and so far, they have made a good (but irresponsible) bet. Unfortunately, that bet comes with extreme side effects, such as also helping elect a lot of ignoramuses about women’s rights and people that do not see a separation of church and state as important things.
So which is it? Is the Alabama law too radical or not radical enough?
So, in Canada, are laws “all or nothing”? There cannot be a law that enacts a strong public policy that is tempered with a bit of compassion?
Your argument makes no sense. It goes sort of as follows: An abortion ban with no rape or incest exception is intolerable as we cannot expect a raped 11 year old to give birth, therefore there must, at minimum, be a rape or incest exception. But a law with a rape or incest exception is logically inconsistent, therefore:
We must permit all abortions, on demand, at any stage of pregnancy.
Surely you see the problems with your (side’s or perhaps your) argument.
Too radical even for several anti-abortionists.
Huh? Restricting women from making decisions about their own body by threat of force is abominable.