If abortion is murder, should those responsible be tried for murder? And if found guilty, should they be imprisoned like other murderers?

[vern_humphrey]

I doubt that it would make much sense to treat her as a murderer. One of the reasons we put murderers away is to keep them from killing someone else. I don’t really think that I need to worry that a woman who has had an abortion will come and murder me next.

There are women who have multiple abortions – that makes them serial killers.

Think about it. If women who had abortions were punished as murderers, then would women who had miscarriages be jailed for “neglient homicide?”

Ah, the old, “X% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions” argument, eh?

In point of fact, women who take drugs during pregnancy, or who do other things that endanger the unborn child have been charged with crimes – and convicted, too.

 

[JimG]

So, judging by many of the responses on this thread, after Roe is reversed, women who have abortions should be charged with murder (along with abortionists and any accomplices, of which there may be many—parents, grandparents, boyfriends, husbands, etc.)

Now, during the past several generations, there have been women who obtained abortions, some before Roe, many after Roe. None were criminally prosecuted as murderers, either before or after Roe. So, post-Roe, we would end up with a situation where one contingent of women is jailed (executed?) as murderers, for the exact same act for which their mothers, sisters, aunts, and cousins remain free to go about their lives.

I’m doubtful that the law or the nation could easily accept that state of affairs.

Nevertheless, for all who wish to pursue (even while abortion is still legal) talk of severe criminal penalties for women, fine. It just makes the ultimate goal—overturning Roe, a good deal less probable. I thought eliminating abortion was the idea, not punishing women.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Now, during the past several generations, there have been women who obtained abortions, some before Roe, many after Roe. None were criminally prosecuted as murderers, either before or after Roe. So, post-Roe, we would end up with a situation where one contingent of women is jailed (executed?) as murderers, for the exact same act for which their mothers, sisters, aunts, and cousins remain free to go about their lives.

I’m doubtful that the law or the nation could easily accept that state of affairs.

Now, during the past several generations, there have been women and women who owned slaves, some before the 13th Amendment, many after the 13th Amendment. Few were criminally prosecuted, either before or after the 13th Amendment. So, post-13th Amendment, we would end up with a situation where one contingent of people are jailed (executed?) as slave-owners, for the exact same act for which their mothers, sisters, aunts, and cousins remain free to go about their lives.

I’m doubtful that the law or the nation could easily accept that state of affairs.

 

[mapleoak]

So, judging by many of the responses on this thread, after Roe is reversed, women who have abortions should be charged with murder (along with abortionists and any accomplices, of which there may be many—parents, grandparents, boyfriends, husbands, etc.)

Now, during the past several generations, there have been women who obtained abortions, some before Roe, many after Roe. None were criminally prosecuted as murderers, either before or after Roe. So, post-Roe, we would end up with a situation where one contingent of women is jailed (executed?) as murderers, for the exact same act for which their mothers, sisters, aunts, and cousins remain free to go about their lives.

I’m doubtful that the law or the nation could easily accept that state of affairs.

Nevertheless, for all who wish to pursue (even while abortion is still legal) talk of severe criminal penalties for women, fine. It just makes the ultimate goal—overturning Roe, a good deal less probable. I thought eliminating abortion was the idea, not punishing women.

There is a street down the road from me that didn’t use to have a stop sign. Now it has one. Now someone could get a ticket for driving past it without stopping even though mom, sister, etc., used to drive through without stopping.

 

[JimG]

I understand the analogies. The same could be said of raising the speed limit from 55 to 70. When that happened, the fines for speeding remained the same, even while the speed limit changed. It sounds to me like most people here want to institute penalties far greater than were in effect before Roe v Wade.

This is the new pro-choice tack. You’ll find them trying it out all over: “How much time should she serve?” It’s not intended to work for the pro-life side, but against it. They’ll be happy that we picked it up.

 

[Filius99993]

I understand the analogies. The same could be said of raising the speed limit from 55 to 70. When that happened, the fines for speeding remained the same, even while the speed limit changed. It sounds to me like most people here want to institute penalties far greater than were in effect before Roe v Wade.

This is the new pro-choice tack. You’ll find them trying it out all over: “How much time should she serve?” It’s not intended to work for the pro-life side, but against it. They’ll be happy that we picked it up.

Pro-lifers should say, “However long it takes for her to realize that killing people is wrong.” Or something along those lines.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Pro-lifers should say, “However long it takes for her to realize that killing people is wrong.” Or something along those lines.

Or, “How is the pre-meditated killing of the most innocent and helpless amongst us less of a crime than killing a man in a bar fight?”

 

[Filius99993]

Or, “How is the pre-meditated killing of the most innocent and helpless amongst us less of a crime than killing a man in a bar fight?”

That works too… How about: “Women have equal rights, therefore have equal responsibilities.” ?

 

[JimG]

Currently a woman who has had an abortion can repent of it, go to confession, reconcile with her Church, and obtain counseling and support from a multitude of pro-life groups. Should she be in jail? If Roe is reversed and she faces jail time, I can’t see her seeking the support of Rachel’s Vineyard or any other pro-life group; it would be tantamount to an admission of guilt and put her in legal jeopardy. She might even be reluctant to go to confession.

Of course, a priest could not reveal what was confessed, even by a murderer. Perhaps he could suggest that she turn herself in to the authorities, as a matter of justice. Should he do so? Would your answer change if it were your sister, or your daughter?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Currently a woman who has had an abortion can repent of it, go to confession, reconcile with her Church, and obtain counseling and support from a multitude of pro-life groups. Should she be in jail? If Roe is reversed and she faces jail time, I can’t see her seeking the support of Rachel’s Vineyard or any other pro-life group; it would be tantamount to an admission of guilt and put her in legal jeopardy. She might even be reluctant to go to confession.

Of course, a priest could not reveal what was confessed, even by a murderer. Perhaps he could suggest that she turn herself in to the authorities, as a matter of justice. Should he do so? Would your answer change if it were your sister, or your daughter?

If we have laws against murder and rape and murderers and rapists face jail time, I can’t see them seeking the support of any pro-life group; it would be tantamount to an admission of guilt and put them in legal jeopardy. They might even be reluctant to go to confession.

 

[JimG]

If we have laws against murder and rape and murderers and rapists face jail time, I can’t see them seeking the support of any pro-life group; it would be tantamount to an admission of guilt and put them in legal jeopardy. They might even be reluctant to go to confession.

You’re very good at those analogies; I guess the answer is then that we shall treat women no differently than Son of Sam or or the Unibomber. So when the next USSC nominee faces the Senate for confirmation (assuming he’s not already of the pro-choice variety) , is that how he should answer the question of how much time she should serve?

 

[vern_humphrey]

You’re very good at those analogies; I guess the answer is then that we shall treat women no differently than Son of Sam or or the Unibomber. So when the next USSC nominee faces the Senate for confirmation (assuming he’s not already of the pro-choice variety) , is that how he should answer the question of how much time she should serve?

I gather you think you have a point there, but it eludes me.

Could you possibly explain what you mean?

 

[markomalley]

I gather you think you have a point there, but it eludes me.

Could you possibly explain what you mean?

Face it, there will always be some, even those who are on the anti-abortion side (vice the pro-life side), who will always see a baby (prior to its emerging out the birth canal) as only 1/3 of a life.

The analogy, btw, in my mind, should be of a woman who breaks the neck of her colicky baby and dumps the dead body in the dumpster behind the Mickey Dee’s. Would *she *seek the support of a “Project Rachel” type of group? And what should the “Project Rachel” type of group do in that type of circumstance (provided, of course, that she hadn’t already turned herself in to the police)?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Face it, there will always be some, even those who are on the anti-abortion side (vice the pro-life side), who will always see a baby (prior to its emerging out the birth canal) as only 1/3 of a life.

And that’s the whole point – that the baby isn’t really a human being.

Those who ask us to treat the killer of an unborn baby differently from the killer of the same baby a month after it is born are begging the question – they want us to accept their point in order to make their point.

The analogy, btw, in my mind, should be of a woman who breaks the neck of her colicky baby and dumps the dead body in the dumpster behind the Mickey Dee’s. Would *she *seek the support of a “Project Rachel” type of group? And what should the “Project Rachel” type of group do in that type of circumstance (provided, of course, that she hadn’t already turned herself in to the police)?

It’s like asking if a murderer-rapist would feel guilt and turn himself in. Very unlikely.

 

[JimG]

And that’s the whole point – that the baby isn’t really a human being.

Those who ask us to treat the killer of an unborn baby differently from the killer of the same baby a month after it is born are begging the question – they want us to accept their point in order to make their point.

Not at all. I’m fully pro-life. Every abortion takes the life of a human being. I’m asking whether the women gets the same punishment as the abortionist, the same punishment as the woman who throws her child against a wall, the same punishment as the BTK killer, the same punishment as the chainsaw murderer. I’m getting the impression that the answer is “YES–Murder is murder!” And for those of you who want to take that position, that’s OK. But I can envision the transcript of this entire thread being submitted by NARAL as an addendum to their amicus curiae brief when Roe comes up for reversal, as a warning not to overturn it.

It’s like asking if a murderer-rapist would feel guilt and turn himself in. Very unlikely.

Yet Project Rachel does have clients. They are there because they do feel guilty. Apparently they’ll have to turn themselves in too and face the jail time. When it comes to casting the first stone, we’ll have to lay in a good supply.

 

[markomalley]

Not at all. I’m fully pro-life. Every abortion takes the life of a human being. I’m asking whether the women gets the same punishment as the abortionist, the same punishment as the woman who throws her child against a wall, the same punishment as the BTK killer, the same punishment as the chainsaw murderer. I’m getting the impression that the answer is “YES–Murder is murder!” And for those of you who want to take that position, that’s OK. But I can envision the transcript of this entire thread being submitted by NARAL as an addendum to their amicus curiae brief when Roe comes up for reversal, as a warning not to overturn it.

If it is a life, it is a life and deserves the same protection that owed to a life at 6 weeks, 6 months, 6 years, or 60 years.

If it doesn’t deserve the same level of protection as any other life (to include the same penalties for those involved with the taking of that life), then why are we having this discussion at all?

In other words, if it isn’t really a life, with all the incumbent implications thereto, then why, in fact, are we opposed to abortion in the first place?

 

[JimG]

If it is a life, it is a life and deserves the same protection that owed to a life at 6 weeks, 6 months, 6 years, or 60 years.

If it doesn’t deserve the same level of protection as any other life (to include the same penalties for those involved with the taking of that life), then why are we having this discussion at all?

In other words, if it isn’t really a life, with all the incumbent implications thereto, then why, in fact, are we opposed to abortion in the first place?

Of course it’s a life. It’s a human life. It’s a human being. That’s a biological fact. So how much jail time would you give to a 16 year old girl who aborted after being pressured by her boyfriend and her parents? How much time? That’s the question the pro-choicers will be asking. Apparently you are not willing to turn the clock back just to pre-Roe days. Because then, she would have gotten no time.

 

[markomalley]

Of course it’s a life. It’s a human life. It’s a human being. That’s a biological fact. So how much jail time would you give to a 16 year old girl who aborted after being pressured by her boyfriend and her parents? How much time? That’s the question the pro-choicers will be asking. Apparently you are not willing to turn the clock back just to pre-Roe days. Because then, she would have gotten no time.

I would ask the pro-choicers to define for me how much time they would give to a 16 year old girl who strangled her colicky 6-week old baby and stuffed the remains in a trash can? (After being pressured to do so by her boyfriend and her parents, of course)

In the example you spoke about, the boyfriend would be viewed by society as a bit of a cad (well, he shouldn’t have gotten her in that position in the first place, anyway), but the parents would be seen by society as looking out for the best interests of their daughter, right?

In the example I cited, they would all be viewed as monsters. And in a criminal proceeding, they would be viewed as co-conspirators in a murder. (The girl actually might be able to cop a plea of temporary insanity due to the intense psychological pressure being placed on her…causing her to snap)

The two examples are viewed by society (and by a lot of anti-abortion types (vice pro-life types)) as being utterly different examples.

There was a case a couple of years ago where a teenaged boy brought on, with the girl’s consent, an abortion in his pregnant girlfriend by hitting her repeatedly with a baseball bat over the period of a couple of weeks. Click here for a link to a news story about it.

The boy was charged with a felony: assault to cause the termination of the pregnancy. The girl was not charged with anything, even though she was a willing participant (Had the baby been viable, the boy would have been charged with manslaughter – but, again, under Roe v Wade, the girl would not have been charged). The attorney’s defense of the boy centered on the fact that the boy did nothing wrong, as abortion is totally legal in this country.

Suppose the boy would have taken a baseball bat to the baby 6 weeks after its birth, smashing its skull into mush, again, with the full cooperation of his girlfriend, the mother. What do you imagine would have been the charges then?

By the way, here are a couple of good quotes from that article:
Arthur Caplan, professor of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, believes the girl should be charged with planning, plotting or conspiring to murder.
*
*
“But it’s tough to do, because the law takes a different view of developing potential life than it does of actual life,” Caplan said. "If the boy was charged with murder she probably would be facing charges, too.
*
*
“But being involved in causing a miscarriage is not as severe as murder,” Caplan said. “Ethically, you could argue that this seems wrong, but the law draws a sharp distinction between killing your child and a fetus that’s not yet viable. That may strike some pro-life people and conservatives as wrong, but that’s the way the law is now.”
*
*
Sherstad said the case illustrates how "the sanctity of life is not valued in our culture. It’s sad that human life can be discarded this way. There’s no value on the life of an unborn child, which makes it easier for something like this to happen."
*
*
Lori Lamerand, vice president of the Planned Parenthood Mid-Michigan Alliance, said pregnant teens have safer options available than terminating a pregnancy without a doctor.
*
*
“It’s always tragic when people resort to such drastic measures, when there are appropriate, safe medical measures are available,” Lamerand said.
We will never have a true culture of life in this society as long as the law considers a pre-natal fetus differently than a post-natal fetus.

 

[markomalley]

One other point, too.

I am speaking in my posts, above, of how society should view the situation through the legal system. I am not referring to the Church’s reaction. The Church has the ministry of reconciliation, to heal the wounds caused by sin. The Church should reach out, through various apostolates, to those who are the “other victims” of sin…to include the sin of murder…in order to minister God’s healing mercy to those who are victims and to those who a perpetrators of that sin.

But for a person to receive forgiveness, they need to first fully acknowledge what they did. Not to rationalize…but to accept responsibility for their actions and to repent of those actions. The sin of abortion is the sin of murder, but worse. While an adult victim of murder may have some role that drove the perpetrator over the edge (e.g., an adulterous husband murdered by his wife), a pre-born infant, by nature, did nothing nor could have done anything to the drive the perpetrator over the edge (with the exception of mere existence).

So please don’t take me wrong: I am not advocating a Pharisitical position on this, where we are caught up in our own self-righteousness and condemn those involved in abortion to the seventh circle of h3ll. I’m not. They need God’s mercy and ours.

 

[JimG]

So please don’t take me wrong: I am not advocating a Pharisitical position on this, where we are caught up in our own self-righteousness and condemn those involved in abortion to the seventh circle of h3ll. I’m not. They need God’s mercy and ours.

Exactly. But what I am seeing frequently now is that people are proposing penalties for women far more severe than would have been imposed before Roe v Wade. It seems to me that such proposals make the overturn of Roe less likely, not more likely. The end result is more abortion, not less.