Abortion In The Usa

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 July 2010 - 01:04 PM' timestamp='1279735442' post='2145985']
The article describes the Church's teaching on indirect abortions, which the case in AZ was thought to be by the nun who was excummicated.
The article then describes the difference between a direct abortion, which is never licit, and an indirect abortion which is.
The story caused much discusion around the net and in Catholic publications, because many people were upset that the media had published the story on how the Bishop had excummicated the nun for saving the life of the mother.
The article I linked gave the full story along with Church teaching, rather than what the secular media wrote about it.
[/quote]
Please show me precisely how the abortion spoken about in (the notorious) America magazine is not murder.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 July 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1279737494' post='2146013']
Please show me precisely how the abortion spoken about in (the notorious) America magazine is not murder.
[/quote]


Because it was not commited with malice or aforethought. Also, it was commited with the intent of saving the life of the mother,
where had they done nothing, the mother and fetus would've died. However, it is a direct abortion as defined by the Church.

At most it was manslaughter.


[i]The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.[/i]

Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed.

At [url="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Common+Law"][color="#1d4994"]Common Law[/color][/url], as well as under current statutes, the offense can be either voluntary or [url="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Involuntary+Manslaughter"][color="#1d4994"]Involuntary Manslaughter[/color][/url]. The main difference between the two is that voluntary manslaughter requires an intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm while involuntary manslaughter does not. Premeditation or deliberation, however, are elements of murder and not of manslaughter. Some states have abandoned the use of adjectives to describe different forms of the offense and, instead, simply divide the offense into varying degrees.

[url="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter"]http://legal-diction...om/manslaughter[/url]



Jim

Edited July 21, 2010 by JimR-OCDS

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 July 2010 - 02:06 PM' timestamp='1279739188' post='2146051']
Because it was not commited with malice or aforethought. Also, it was commited with the intent of saving the life of the mother,
where had they done nothing, the mother and fetus would've died. However, it is a direct abortion as defined by the Church.
At most it was manslaughter.
[i]The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.[/i]
Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed.
At [url="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Common+Law"][color="#1d4994"]Common Law[/color][/url], as well as under current statutes, the offense can be either voluntary or [url="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Involuntary+Manslaughter"][color="#1d4994"]Involuntary Manslaughter[/color][/url]. The main difference between the two is that voluntary manslaughter requires an intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm while involuntary manslaughter does not. Premeditation or deliberation, however, are elements of murder and not of manslaughter. Some states have abandoned the use of adjectives to describe different forms of the offense and, instead, simply divide the offense into varying degrees.
[url="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter"]http://legal-diction...om/manslaughter[/url]



Jim
[/quote]
Do you care to address the Catechism?

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

[b]You shall not kill[/b] the embryo by abortion and [b]shall not cause[/b] the newborn to perish.74
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.75

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,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78 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.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 July 2010 - 04:13 PM' timestamp='1279739628' post='2146060']
Do you care to address the Catechism?

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

[b]You shall not kill[/b] the embryo by abortion and [b]shall not cause[/b] the newborn to perish.74
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.75

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,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78 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.
[/quote]

and what did I write that contradicts this? They're not using the word "murder."

killing of a human being can either be manslaughter or murder. Both are immoral, but they are not legally the same.

Also, this is addressing "direct abortion," not indirect abortion.

Jim

Edited July 21, 2010 by JimR-OCDS

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 July 2010 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1279739862' post='2146062']
and what did I write that contradicts this?
This is addressing "direct abortion," not indirect abortion.
[/quote]
So how was the procedure described by America an "indirect abortion", which you have at this point still failed to clearly define and of which I am seriously skeptical.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 July 2010 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1279739945' post='2146063']
So how was the procedure described by America an "indirect abortion", which you have at this point still failed to clearly define and of which I am seriously skeptical.
[/quote]


It wasn't described by the author in America as an indirect abortion, but as a direct abortion.

Why don't you read the article, then you might know what it actually said.


The author also provides what an excommunication latae sententiae is.

Jim

Edited July 21, 2010 by JimR-OCDS

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 July 2010 - 02:22 PM' timestamp='1279740144' post='2146068']
It wasn't described by the author in America as an indirect abortion, but as a direct abortion.
Why don't you read the article, then you might know what it actually said.
The author also provides what an excommunication latae sententiae is.
[/quote]
I'm not going to read all your sources and then throw down the innards to try to divine your conclusions. It's your position, your information, so you summarize your own sources and draw the conclusions yourself. I'm not going to play both sides of the debate.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 July 2010 - 04:30 PM' timestamp='1279740612' post='2146074']
I'm not going to read all your sources and then throw down the innards to try to divine your conclusions. It's your position, your information, so you summarize your own sources and draw the conclusions yourself. I'm not going to play both sides of the debate.
[/quote]


That wasn't my intent on presenting the article. You stated that you didn't even know if the indirect abortion was even used by the Church, I presented the article because it shows that it is.

The story was a hot topic just a couple months ago and was in various Catholic Publications along with the terms
direct and indirect abortion.

You'll refuse to consider anything I post anyway, so its useless to continue this discusion.



Jim

Edited July 21, 2010 by JimR-OCDS

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 July 2010 - 02:33 PM' timestamp='1279740836' post='2146077']
That wasn't my intent on presenting the article. You stated that you didn't even know if the indirect abortion was even used by the Church, I presented
the article because it shows that it is.
[/quote]
You have yet to define "indirect abortion". I will accept that coerced abortions and accidental miscarriages could be called indirect abortions, although this is poor terminology.
Furthermore, the fact that America magazine uses the term indirect abortion doesn't mean the Church does. In fact, to me that's a red flag. I have yet to see a document with any sort of Magisterial authority use the term indirect abortion.

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 July 2010 - 02:33 PM' timestamp='1279740836' post='2146077']
It was also a hot topic just a couple months ago and was in various Catholic Publications.
[/quote]
Show me. Without links. I'm not reading your links.

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 July 2010 - 02:33 PM' timestamp='1279740836' post='2146077']
You'll refuse to consider anything I post anyway, so its useless to continue this discusion.
[/quote]
False. I refuse to consider docu-dumps. If you want to cite a source, post it here. Post short, concise passages and rely as much as is reasonably possible on your own words to describe the position you've taken.

Anything less is lazy.

[JimR-OCDS]

Here;

The abortion is termed indirect when the pregnant uterus itself is
excised because its condition is such that its removal is medically
necessary. If the uterus contains a living and nonviable fetus, the
fetus will of course inevitably die. There is no direct attack upon
the fetus, however, and its death is merely permitted as a secondary
effect of an act which needs to be performed and which, as we shall
see immediately, it is permissible to perform.
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT[/url]


Gesh


Jim

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 July 2010 - 02:22 PM' timestamp='1279740144' post='2146068']
It wasn't described by the author in America as an indirect abortion, but as a direct abortion.

Why don't you read the article, then you might know what it actually said.


The author also provides what an excommunication latae sententiae is.

Jim
[/quote]

I am fairly certain that Nihil Obstat is fully aware of what latæ sententiæ excommunication is, and I doubt he needs anyone, let alone a magazine such as [i]America[/i], to explain the matter to him.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='21 July 2010 - 04:43 PM' timestamp='1279741414' post='2146085']
I am fairly certain that Nihil Obstat is fully aware of what latæ sententiæ excommunication is, and I doubt he needs anyone, let alone a magazine such as [i]America[/i], to explain the matter to him.
[/quote]


He's not the only one reading this thread.

I provided the link for those who want to read about it, but to also show that "indirect abortion," is a term used in the Church.

The article has lost of information on the subject.

Sorry this has you upset.


Jim

Edited July 21, 2010 by JimR-OCDS

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='21 July 2010 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1279735277' post='2145980']
All need be done is for our government or any government to 'allow' blacks or any other group of people to be murdered and your logic would support that. So you cannot be against what the South did during the time of slavery or lynching since it was perfectly legal and supported by the society. Nor can you be against what the Nazi's did to the jews because your logic supports what they did.
[/quote]

Jim should I take your silence to the above statement as agreement to the above statement?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 July 2010 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1279741408' post='2146084']
Here;

The abortion is termed indirect when the pregnant uterus itself is
excised because its condition is such that its removal is medically
necessary. If the uterus contains a living and nonviable fetus, the
fetus will of course inevitably die. There is no direct attack upon
the fetus, however, and its death is merely permitted as a secondary
effect of an act which needs to be performed and which, as we shall
see immediately, it is permissible to perform.
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT[/url]
[/quote]
While EWTN is generally reputable, the situation described above is not an abortion.
By the way, in any case, we're talking about double effect which is entirely beside the point.
[quote]
The reason is that we may rightly apply the
four conditions of the principle of the twofold effect. The first
condition is fulfilled, for the operating surgeon's intention is to
save the life of the mother. He, of course, foresees the death of the
fetus, but he does not desire this evil effect. The second condition
is fulfilled, for the surgeon's act consists in ridding the woman of
a diseased part of her body which is jeopardizing her life.[/quote]
Calling this an "indirect abortion" is sloppy use of terminology and rather misleading, IMO.

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 July 2010 - 02:46 PM' timestamp='1279741579' post='2146087']
I provided the link for those who want to read about it, but to also show that "indirect abortion," is a term used in the Church.
[/quote]
I've still yet to see a document with Magisterial authority use the term indirect abortion.




So let's get back to the more pertinent question, Jim.

Do you believe that an abortion as defined by the Church can ever *not* be called murder, as you argued last October?
That would be "abortion willed either as an end or a means".

[JimR-OCDS]

Nihil Obstat'



[i]Do you believe that an abortion as defined by the Church can ever *not* be called murder, as you argued last October?
[/i]
A direct abortion as defined by the Church is murder, but really legally its more in line with manslaughter as defined in law where no malice or
aforethought is used.

However, as I have pointed out in October and in here, but which you prefer to dance around, not all abortions are direct abortions as defined
by the Church.


Jim