Supreme Court and Abortion: Difference between revisions
(New page: Peter Kreeft in “[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0045.html The Apple Argument Against Abortion]” Crisis, December 2000, writes: :[In Roe v Wade, the Court’s rea...) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:[In Roe v Wade, the Court’s reasoning was ground on a claim of skepticism about when human life begins.] "Since we don’t know when human life begins, the argument went, we cannot impose restrictions. (Why it is more restrictive to give life than take it, I cannot figure out.) So here is my refutation of Roe on its own premises, it’s skeptical premises..." | :[In Roe v Wade, the Court’s reasoning was ground on a claim of skepticism about when human life begins.] "Since we don’t know when human life begins, the argument went, we cannot impose restrictions. (Why it is more restrictive to give life than take it, I cannot figure out.) So here is my refutation of Roe on its own premises, it’s skeptical premises..." | ||
It is recommended that these 4 possibilities should be presented in the next Supreme Court case. It should then be argued | It is recommended that these 4 possibilities should be presented in the next Supreme Court case. | ||
It should then also be argued that post-abortion psychological complications must inevitably arise from the fact that the ''Court's argument from skeptism leaves women exposed to the angst of uncertainty or even positive belief that they are guilty of killing innocent human lives, their own children, in fact.'' Unless the Court was in a God-like position to reassure women that abortion '''never''' involves the killing of a human life but only has the illusion of doing so, the psychological risks associated with abortion will always remain because the fear of having of having been responsible for killing one's own children is always going to risk causing psychological distress. | |||
Revision as of 10:57, 29 December 2009
Peter Kreeft in “The Apple Argument Against Abortion” Crisis, December 2000, writes:
- [In Roe v Wade, the Court’s reasoning was ground on a claim of skepticism about when human life begins.] "Since we don’t know when human life begins, the argument went, we cannot impose restrictions. (Why it is more restrictive to give life than take it, I cannot figure out.) So here is my refutation of Roe on its own premises, it’s skeptical premises..."
It is recommended that these 4 possibilities should be presented in the next Supreme Court case.
It should then also be argued that post-abortion psychological complications must inevitably arise from the fact that the Court's argument from skeptism leaves women exposed to the angst of uncertainty or even positive belief that they are guilty of killing innocent human lives, their own children, in fact. Unless the Court was in a God-like position to reassure women that abortion never involves the killing of a human life but only has the illusion of doing so, the psychological risks associated with abortion will always remain because the fear of having of having been responsible for killing one's own children is always going to risk causing psychological distress.