Retroactive Death Penalty for Abortion?

[The Horn]

Trying to do this if abortion becomes illegal in the near future would be absolutely impossible and only create a legal and human mess of monumental proportions.
Comparing abortion, a private mater for women, to slavery or the Nazi holocaust is as despicable as it is stupid .

 

[Traditio]

Retroactive punishment for crimes is unjust, by definition.

It basically happened at Nuremberg. Just saying.

 

[Clete]

I can understand why you believe that; I did once, too. However, after further study I came to a different conclusion. I'll share what I believe so you have another point of view to consider.

• First, any law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and void retroactively. See Marbury v. Madison.
  
• Second, there is a legal maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.
  
• Third, state fetal homicide laws recognize the fetus as a person, giving the unborn Constitutional protection against murder. Either the state's fetal homicide law is void or the state's law allowing for abortion is void; it's legally impossible for both to be valid laws under the U.S. Constitution, even under Roe v. Wade since the Court was of the opinion that if a fetus is a person a woman has no right to abortion.

Based on those points, I conclude that abortion only operates under color of law and is murder. The law is void now. Ignorance is no excuse. And as someone already pointed out on this thread, there is no statute of limitations on murder.

What's your opinion in light of those points?

I think it's lawyer mumbo-jumbo tantamount to an outright lie.

Not that I'm saying that you don't believe it. It is the original source of this nonsense that is guilty of the lie, not you.

The Supreme Court has the absolute right to say anything they want is "Constitutional" or not, whether it actually is or not. And their ruling is the law, no matter what the Constitution itself says. This is not my opinion, this is the way the Constitution itself is configured. When it comes to saying what is and what is not Constitutional, the Supreme Court has the final say - period.

The only recourse would be to impeach justices or perhaps to add additional justices to the court but even that would not automatically reverse any ruling. There would have to be another case brought before the court that they agreed to review and to rule on.

The Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is not just legal but that it is a Constitutional right!

That, of course, doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean that it isn't actually murder but it does mean that this government cannot justly impose any punishment (never mind the death penalty) upon someone who has or provides an abortion in this country.

Sorry, but that's just the way it is. I don't like it any more than you do but my dislike of one unjust law is no proper motive for the support of another unjust law. It is not for me to make the laws of this country and it is not for me to take the law into my own hands. God has delegated authority to the governing official to govern. If he does so justly then God will bless both the official and the nation which he governs. If not then God will be displeased and the nation will suffer for it. But we are to practice justice, not figure out fancy legal arguments to support whatever we want to see happen. That sort of thinking is what got us into the mess we're in to begin with.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So Nazis shouldn't have been held accountable for their war crimes?



But Clete, those laws were brought into effect after many of the Nazi war crimes had already been committed (and I believe that would make them "retroactive").

On 20 April 1942, representatives from the nine countries occupied by Germany met in London to draft the "Inter-Allied Resolution on German War Crimes". At the meetings in Tehran (1943), Yalta (1945) and Potsdam (1945), the three major wartime powers, the United Kingdom, United States, and the Soviet Union, agreed on the format of punishment for those responsible for war crimes during World War II.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials

Holocaust Timeline
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/timeline.html

(But then maybe Clete is more impressed with an international court than a court of a sovereign nation?).

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
You do realize that there is no statute of limitations on murder, therefore there is nothing "retroactive" about trying murderers.



Be nice Clete or I'll say the name "Ayn Rand" and watch you start salivating.



I'm not talking about scared young girls or women who found themselves in a situation and used the easiest way out of it to solve "the problem". I'm talking about cold blooded baby murderers at places like NARAL and Planned Parenthood (whose founder Margaret Sanger had ties to Nazi Germany).



You're talking like an anarchist Clete. At first you talked about the justification of a international court, and now you've done a turnaround saying that 'God will be the final judge'. If people commit heinous crimes while living on this earth and are allowed to go about their lives without being tried, and if convicted, punished, then those people are literally getting away with murder.

Blah, blah, blah!

The Nazi's brought an unjust war to the shores of nearly every nation in the civilized world. They deserved to be executed the moment their orders resulted in a single death. You wouldn't even need international law. The first American that died as a result of a Nazi order placed those responsible for the murder under the jurisdiction of American law.

I will not debate this further. It brings down the IQ of everyone on the whole website.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Blah, blah, blah! The Nazi's brought an unjust war to the shores of nearly every nation in the civilized world. They deserved to be executed the moment their orders resulted in a single death. You wouldn't even need international law. The first American that died as a result of a Nazi order placed those responsible for the murder under the jurisdiction of American law.

And the baby butchers of NARAL and Planned Parenthood brought a war to human beings that couldn't fight back let alone SCREAM for help.

I will not debate this further. It brings down the IQ of everyone on the whole website.

The only thing that I've admired in you Clete is that you know your limitations.

Just to show I have no hard feelings: I believe there's an Atlas Shrugs movie showing somewhere...

 

[Traditio]

Who wants it?

Not me!

For abortion doctors? Without qualification.

And, may I add, they should be executed with the same degree of prejudice and brutality whereby they have murdered the unborn. My recommendation to the State is that such people be drawn and quartered.

Perhaps the Bull of Phalaris.

For women who have procured abortions, or their family and "friends" who have encouraged and assisted them in so doing? Possibly. Immaturity, ignorance, etc. could be grave mitigating factors with respect to their guilt.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

For women who have procured abortions, or their family and "friends" who have encouraged and assisted them in so doing? Possibly.

How would these women defend themselves in a court of law (or are you just going to do public executions lynch mob style) perhaps years after the fact?

Most women who have had abortions (and many men who were the fathers), have extreme emotional problems throughout their lives because of what they've done. It's barbaric to say that they should be punished even further for something that society not only has allowed, but encouraged.

Again: Abortion 'doctors" (NARAL and Planned Parenthood) is an entirely separate issue.

 

[Traditio]

How would these women defend themselves in a court of law (or are you just going to do public executions lynch mob style) perhaps years after the fact?

Prove immaturity, ignorance, etc. at the time that the crime was committed.

Most women who have had abortions (and many men who were the fathers), have extreme emotional problems throughout their lives because of what they've done. It's barbaric to say that they should be punished even further for something that society not only has allowed, but encouraged.

Their extreme emotional problems actually works against them: it demonstrates knowledge of the gravity of their crime.

They deserve to die.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

For abortion doctors? Without qualification.

For women who have procured abortions, or their family and "friends" who have encouraged and assisted them in so doing? Possibly. Immaturity, ignorance, etc. could be grave mitigating factors with respect to their guilt.

I don't think we can get by without enacting mercy and reconciliation wherever possible in the place of harsh consequences. To be fair, there are probably over a hundred million in the US alone who have committed death penalty offenses related to abortion and qualify for capital punishments. But it would be foolish to kill them and leave society to crumble, children to starve, etc. Jesus has already showed a better way.

 

[kiwimacahau]

Retroactive punishment for crimes is unjust, by definition.

But whether it is considered a crime or not in your jurisdiction, it is considered a sin by God. He'll deal with it justly, whether we do or not.

Please show me where in the Bible God addresses abortion.

 

[Traditio]

I don't think we can get by without enacting mercy and reconciliation wherever possible in the place of harsh consequences.

As I've said before: I'll leave mercy, reconciliation, etc. to the theologians. The business of the State is justice, and the people in question, in justice, deserve to die.

It's that simple.

To be fair, there are probably over a hundred million in the US alone who have committed death penalty offenses related to abortion and qualify for capital punishments.

1. I doubt that the number is that great.

2. Granted that it is, I am sure that accommodations can be made even for this number.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
How would these women defend themselves in a court of law (or are you just going to do public executions lynch mob style) perhaps years after the fact?

Prove immaturity, ignorance, etc. at the time that the crime was committed.

Quote: Originally posted by aCutlureWarrior
Most women who have had abortions (and many men who were the fathers), have extreme emotional problems throughout their lives because of what they've done. It's barbaric to say that they should be punished even further for something that society not only has allowed, but encouraged.

Their extreme emotional problems actually works against them: it demonstrates knowledge of the gravity of their crime.

They deserve to die.

Singing "Memories, of the way they were..."

 

[Nick M]

Please show me where in the Bible God addresses abortion.

Exodus 20

You shall not murder.



Yes, this is a set up and a leading statement. But it is still true.

 

[kiwimacahau]

Exodus 20

You shall not murder.



Yes, this is a set up and a leading statement. But it is still true.

Strange then that the Jews never saw that scripture as applying to zygotes / foetuses.

 

[Crucible]

Please show me where in the Bible God addresses abortion.

Exodus 20

You shall not murder.

:doh:

This is why I don't debate this subject much.

 

[Lon]

Strange then that the Jews never saw that scripture as applying to zygotes / foetuses.

Some didn't, some did. It is historical prejudice, however, to not recognize there were/are different interpretations of the texts, among them. You oddly, only ever report the liberal take.
Exo 21:22 "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Some see "comes out" as simply that such that if the baby is fine, or premature but lives, no problem. However, if the mother or child are harmed:
Exo 21:23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life,
Exo 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exo 21:25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

You are perhaps the most liberal and most liberally opposite God and the divine, of any incredibly liberal priest I have ever heard or met. You twist on every scripture against love, life, the Church-the Body, and God. Abortion doesn't make Christian or godly sense. It is against being fruitful and multiplying. It is against family. It is against life. It is against what God has joined together that we should not put asunder, etc. etc. etc. You might as well be the church and congregation of Satan. If you ever read Anton LeVey's book, you are straight down the line on self-interest as his satanic bible. If you haven't read it, you may be surprised that you are following it line for line in your actions and sentiments, as if it were a manual. You might like it. You should probably read it. Paul needed to be opposed and blinded to come to his senses. This might do it for you. You are making Anton proud. Not accusation-->observation. You follow, by observation, the directions/commands of the satanic bible:devil:

 

[Traditio]

Strange then that the Jews never saw that scripture as applying to zygotes / foetuses.

"And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: [42] And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. [43] And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? [44] For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:41-44).

 

[kiwimacahau]

Some didn't, some did. It is historical prejudice, however, to not recognize there were/are different interpretations of the texts, among them. You oddly, only ever report the liberal take.
Exo 21:22 "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Some see "comes out" as simply that such that if the baby is fine, or premature but lives, no problem. However, if the mother or child are harmed:
Exo 21:23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life,
Exo 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exo 21:25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

You are perhaps the most liberal and most liberally opposite God and the divine, of any incredibly liberal priest I have ever heard or met. You twist on every scripture against love, life, the Church-the Body, and God. Abortion doesn't make Christian or godly sense. It is against being fruitful and multiplying. It is against family. It is against life. It is against what God has joined together that we should not put asunder, etc. etc. etc. You might as well be the church and congregation of Satan. If you ever read Anton LeVey's book, you are straight down the line on self-interest as his satanic bible. If you haven't read it, you may be surprised that you are following it line for line in your actions and sentiments, as if it were a manual. You might like it. You should probably read it. Paul needed to be opposed and blinded to come to his senses. This might do it for you. You are making Anton proud. Not accusation-->observation. You follow, by observation, the directions/commands of the satanic bible:devil:

Most Rabbis consider that passage relates ONLY to harm to the woman not to the foetus at all.

 

[patrick jane]

Most Rabbis consider that passage relates ONLY to harm to the woman not to the foetus at all.

Exodus 21:22 KJV - is obviously speaking of a fetus.

 

[kiwimacahau]

"And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: [42] And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. [43] And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? [44] For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:41-44).

Quoting the NT in response to my comment on the Jewish interpretation of an OT scripture is not as useful as perhaps you seem to think, old boy.