Questions they won't answer!!

Yesday I posted on the abortion issue, as I have many times before. Some bloggers refuse to even discuss this issue on the grounds it is too devisive. I said yesterday the issue was not as divisive as many thought. Most people just do not try to think it through; they just rely on slogans---women's right to control their bodies vs. there is no right to kill children. Both are dreadful oversimplifications.

But today and in my next posts I want to post on 'where is this debate going?' Does the abortion issue have any solution?

The Supreme Court decision, Roe Vs Wade, is, to most, the center of controversy. We all have a good idea of the general scope of that ruling. The 'pro-life' groups want this ruling overturned. So what would such overturning mean?

Reversing Roe V. Wade would simply return the issue of abortion 'rights' to the states. It would not make abortion illegal in any sense in any state. And what would the various states do? It seems most probable that many states would increase restrictions on abortions, and indeed some might totally outlaw the practice. I think the latter---complete abolition of abortion is highly
unlikely. Most states, I think it is clear, would leave open some abortion loopholes, for example, life of the mother, rape, incest, possibly others.

Other states would take a far more permissive view and allow abortions in line with the current Roe V. Wade guidelines.

So assume there would be a split among the states, would not a person desiring an abortion simply go to another state if her state had strong restrictions. We saw this in prohibition. Some states were "dry." Others were "wet." So people just crossed state lines to get their liquor. I am quite sure the same would apply with abortions. If you had the money and wanted an abortion would you not just go to a state where abortions were allowed? But what about those not able to afford to leave the state. Two choices would emerge it seems quite clear. One is that 'pro-choice'
defenders would set up programs to help pay the expenses of those wanting an abortion but needing to leave the state. The second choice would be to return to the practice of getting an abortion from an unlicensed source--the so called "back alley" abortion.

Now, another issue arises. Assuming the women lived in a state that "prohibited" abortions. What would be the penalty if the women proceeded with the abortion anyway. The Catholic Church position I believe is that the women would not be subject to legal penalties. After 45 years in this debate I have never received an answer as to why the women would not face penalties. Yes, the doctor performing the procedure would be subject to penalty. This does seem to be a glaring contradiction. Some Catholics, to be sure, argued the women should be legally penalized as well. This group is at least consistent.

And what would the penalties be. If abortion is murder of a person sould not the penalty for both doctor and women be commensurate with other murder penalties?

Now, I know if any such questions are put to those pro-life people they will uaually say "Well this is a boring subject; we have been through this a thousand times." This, of course, is just a way to avoid hard answers, hard choices.

Chaput and the other Catholic bishops simply refuse to answer these questions. Indeed they will not even entertain such questions and I think all people seeking real answers and not just pushing an underlying agenda know why.

Finally, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT: Just reverse what I have posted above and ask the 'pro-choice' advocates what is their position on having an abortion, an hour before birth. I am quite certain they will not answer either.

So again, I say. Both 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' advocates are advancing agendas, that touch the abortion issue, to be sure, but go much deeper. Jack