Abortion and Nuremberg

[Fairwinds]

Those women commited murder. But if the pro-life government is just then it’s laws and how people are to be judged against them are not as black and white as you’re making it out to be.

Aside from remembering compassion and weighing all the factors in each person’s case, there is the matter of impracticality. An awful lot of women would be going to jail. Can the economy afford that? No. We can’t afford to house and feed them, we can’t afford to have that many job vacancies, the prisons are not large enough, everybody would know someone who went to prison and that would wreak havoc on public moral, and public opinion of the government as well. They’d never be voted back in again. It’s basically impossible.

they committed murder, as you admit. lessening the punishment because the victim was a baby or because of other, non justice-related issues seems to me manifestly wrong.

if we want Nuremberg-style justice we must accept the consequences.

 

[jmcrae]

Those women commited murder. But if the pro-life government is just then it’s laws and how people are to be judged against them are not as black and white as you’re making it out to be.

Aside from remembering compassion and weighing all the factors in each person’s case, there is the matter of impracticality. An awful lot of women would be going to jail. Can the economy afford that? No. We can’t afford to house and feed them, we can’t afford to have that many job vacancies, the prisons are not large enough, everybody would know someone who went to prison and that would wreak havoc on public moral, and public opinion of the government as well. They’d never be voted back in again. It’s basically impossible.

Ending slavery had a worse effect on the economy than this ever could, since nearly every citizen was a slave owner, and to set them free meant having to pay them a living wage for their work - completely impossible - and yet, it was done. Not without massive upheaval, but when it comes to doing the right thing, you do whatever it takes, regardless of the cost.

There may be fewer women who have aborted their children than we imagine - certainly, there are fewer women who have had abortions than men who have had DUIs. The fact that a lot of men get DUIs doesn’t prevent the police from taking away their cars and suspending their licenses.

 

[devoutchristian]

Ending slavery had a worse effect on the economy than this ever could, since nearly every citizen was a slave owner, and to set them free meant having to pay them a living wage for their work - completely impossible - and yet, it was done. Not without massive upheaval, but when it comes to doing the right thing, you do whatever it takes, regardless of the cost.

There may be fewer women who have aborted their children than we imagine - certainly, there are fewer women who have had abortions than men who have had DUIs. The fact that a lot of men get DUIs doesn’t prevent the police from taking away their cars and suspending their licenses.

Certainly abortion should be prohibited no matter the cost. But ex post facto prosecution could morally be excluded due to logistical problems.

 

[LilyPearls]

Fairwinds doesn’t actually believes this; the poster is using that language to show a supposed absurdity in previous poster’s logic.

Noted. Thank you.

they committed murder, as you admit. lessening the punishment because the victim was a baby or because of other, non justice-related issues seems to me manifestly wrong.

Then I’m glad you are not a judge. I think the circumstances of whatever particular crime have everything to do with what punishment should be given.

 

[LilyPearls]

Ending slavery had a worse effect on the economy than this ever could, since nearly every citizen was a slave owner, and to set them free meant having to pay them a living wage for their work - completely impossible - and yet, it was done. Not without massive upheaval, but when it comes to doing the right thing, you do whatever it takes, regardless of the cost.

There may be fewer women who have aborted their children than we imagine - certainly, there are fewer women who have had abortions than men who have had DUIs. The fact that a lot of men get DUIs doesn’t prevent the police from taking away their cars and suspending their licenses.

Well, if we’re including young women who have their friends push them down stairs or drink very heavily to rid themselves of their pregnancy without having to go to a clinic, then yes many women do have abortions. I’m not saying abortion should continue to be legal because ending it would hurt the economy, I’m saying it should be made illegal but women should not be thrown in prison for having an abortion.

Another reason they should not be thrown in prison is that, when they had an abortion, it was legal. Today it is illegal to spank your kid. Does that mean all our grandparents should be thrown into prison because surely all of them spanked their kids? No.

 

[jmcrae]

Then I’m glad you are not a judge. I think the circumstances of whatever particular crime have everything to do with what punishment should be given.

What “circumstances” justify killing an innocent? The excuses that people give for having abortions are just as flimsy as the excuses given for the Holocaust (to purify the human race), or forcibly kidnapping and enslaving people from Africa (to produce cheap cotton at a profit, and to do the necessary household labour that no one pays wages for).

 

[jmcrae]

Well, if we’re including young women who have their friends push them down stairs or drink very heavily to rid themselves of their pregnancy without having to go to a clinic, then yes many women do have abortions. I’m not saying abortion should continue to be legal because ending it would hurt the economy, I’m saying it should be made illegal but women should not be thrown in prison for having an abortion.

Another reason they should not be thrown in prison is that, when they had an abortion, it was legal. Today it is illegal to spank your kid. Does that mean all our grandparents should be thrown into prison because surely all of them spanked their kids? No.

There is a huge gap between swatting a kid’s bum because he lipped you off, and ripping him limb from limb because your mother might cut off your allowance if she finds out you’re pregnant.

 

[LilyPearls]

What “circumstances” justify killing an innocent? The excuses that people give for having abortions are just as flimsy as the excuses given for the Holocaust (to purify the human race), or forcibly kidnapping and enslaving people from Africa (to produce cheap cotton at a profit, and to do the necessary household labour that no one pays wages for).

Nothing justifies killing innocent people.

 

[Fairwinds]

…
Then I’m glad you are not a judge. I think the circumstances of whatever particular crime have everything to do with what punishment should be given.

there are crimes and there are aggravating or mitigating factors that enlarge or reduce the punishment after guilt has been determined. they’re all guilty of murder if they participated in an abortion, how soon they make parole (after 15 or 20 years) depends on those other factors.

 

[LilyPearls]

What “circumstances” justify killing an innocent? The excuses that people give for having abortions are just as flimsy as the excuses given for the Holocaust (to purify the human race), or forcibly kidnapping and enslaving people from Africa (to produce cheap cotton at a profit, and to do the necessary household labour that no one pays wages for).

Nothing justifies killing the innocent. That is not what I said.

There is a huge gap between swatting a kid’s bum because he lipped you off, and ripping him limb from limb because your mother might cut off your allowance if she finds out you’re pregnant.

The example about spanking was about a better way to apply the law. It doesn’t matter that they are completely different crimes of completely different severity. You can’t make something illegal and then go and imprison everyone who did it when it was legal.

Your comment about what happens to a pre-teen/teenager if she gets pregnant is way out of line. A lot more happens than her losing her allowance. She loses her entire life. Her present, her future, sometimes her family. That doesn’t make it okay to murder, but the lack of compassion here is really making me angry. It’s time for me to leave this thread alone.

 

[Fairwinds]

…You can’t make something illegal and then go and imprison everyone who did it when it was legal. …

sure we can. the OP is about doing just that. look at the thread title. Nuremberg. this is a reference to the post-WW2 tribunals that imposed victor’s justice on nazi war criminals. this is what we plan on doing here.

 

[devoutchristian]

I’m saying it should be made illegal but women should not be thrown in prison for having an abortion.

Are you saying that women who had abortions while legal should be immune from prosecution, or are you saying that women should still be immune for abortions commited after the recriminalization of abortion?

 

[devoutchristian]

sure we can. the OP is about doing just that. look at the thread title. Nuremberg. this is a reference to the post-WW2 tribunals that imposed victor’s justice on nazi war criminals. this is what we plan on doing here.

It would be impractical to imprison all of the women involved, that is why only abortionists and their political enablers should be prosecuted.

 

[LilyPearls]

sure we can. the OP is about doing just that. look at the thread title. Nuremberg. this is a reference to the post-WW2 tribunals that imposed victor’s justice on nazi war criminals. this is what we plan on doing here.

I’m familiar with the Nuremberg trials. Did the allies gather and try every holocaust supporter? No. And what were those accused in Nuremberg tried against? Public international law. War crimes. Not some justice system they set up in Germany after the war ended. They were tried for crimes that were illegal when they were committing them.

 

[LilyPearls]

Are you saying that women who had abortions while legal should be immune from prosecution, or are you saying that women should still be immune for abortions commited after the recriminalization of abortion?

How can you give someone immunity if they didn’t commit a crime? They should definitely be sent to prison if they have an abortion when doing so is illegal. They should not be sent to prison for doing something they had every legal right to do.

 

[devoutchristian]

I’m familiar with the Nuremberg trials. Did the allies gather and try every holocaust supporter? No. And what were those accused in Nuremberg tried against? Public international law. War crimes. Not some justice system they set up in Germany after the war ended. They were tried for crimes that were illegal when they were committing them.

Actually some were charged with crimes against humanity that were not at the time in violation of international law, for instance, until after WWII, international law did not prohibit the carrying out of atrocities against a country’s own civilian population or against the civilian population of a defeated country.

 

[devoutchristian]

How can you give someone immunity if they didn’t commit a crime? They should definitely be sent to prison if they have an abortion when doing so is illegal. They should not be sent to prison for doing something they had every legal right to do.

I agree that women who have abortions when legal should be granted immunity. I say “immunity” since there is a principle in international law that some crimes are so horrendous that they may be prosecuted even if they are legal at the time commited.

 

[Portofino]

I’m familiar with the Nuremberg trials. Did the allies gather and try every holocaust supporter? No. And what were those accused in Nuremberg tried against? Public international law. War crimes. Not some justice system they set up in Germany after the war ended. They were tried for crimes that were illegal when they were committing them.

:tiphat: Yes. If it’s Nuremberg-like trials that are wanted, they need to get support from the international community, and pursue the matter within the context of international law.

The other difference with Nuremberg is that these were crimes committed during wartime, by a nation that the democratic powers of the world had already declared war against and, by implication, declared to be illegitimate. So I think your previous point is also correct, that the German government, post 1939, was not considered legitimate in the eyes of the international community, who had already declared war against it, with the clear intention of overthrowing it by military means.

 

[devoutchristian]

:tiphat: Yes. If it’s Nuremberg-like trials that are wanted, they need to get support from the international community, and pursue the matter within the context of international law.

“Crimes against humanity” was a new charge at Nuremberg, with no basis in prior international law.

 

[LilyPearls]

Actually some were charged with crimes against humanity that were not at the time in violation of international law, for instance, until after WWII, international law did not prohibit the carrying out of atrocities against a country’s own civilian population or against the civilian population of a defeated country.

Fair enough, but I feel that if it was illegal for the Nazis to commit atrocities against people in foreign countries, it’s not too much of a stretch for the allies to say that it is also a crime to do those same evil things to your own people. You’re only extending who is being protected, not the nature of the crime.