J
Julianna
Guest
markomalley
It’s takes two to tango, mark.
If abortion is murder, should those responsible be tried for murder? And if found guilty, should they be imprisoned like other murderers?
- Status
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
As opposed to NARAL additing this thread as an addendum to their amicus curiae brief when Roe comes up for reversal to prove that “even people who claim to be pro-life admit abortion is “special,” not the same as murder, and should not be criminalized?”
And we could say the same about other murderers. Do we abolish laws against murder on those grounds? How about laws against rape and kidnapping?
J
JimG
Guest
Understand, I’m not talking about abolishing any laws, except Roe. I’m talking about the proposed punishments for women under a post-Roe regime.
Do you really think that proposing punishments for women far in excess of what was in place pre-Roe will actually help to turn the tide against abortion?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I think failing to call abortion what it is – the pre-meditated murder of the most innocent and helpless of all – is the biggest stumbling block against turning the tide.
If even pro-lifers think the unborn child is somehow worth less than the same infant after it is born, the pro-abortionists can count us in** their** camp.
Do you think if people were killing Blacks, and we admitted, “Well, no, a person who kills a Black should’t be charged and tried as if he killed a White man” that would be right?
J
JimG
Guest
There are some pro-life groups who take precisely this approach. Abortion is murder and the law should recognize no exceptions. Such groups have opposed laws limiting or restricting abortion, on the ground that to accept any abortion is a violation of pro-life principles. They opposed such things as the law banning partial birth abortion, and laws prohibiting late term abortion, or laws restricting abortion in various ways, because such laws allowed some abortions to continue. The argument was, why ban partial birth abortions and let the vast majority of abortions proceed? That means that we implicitly recognize the acceptability of some abortions, again a violation of pro-life principles. They do have the virtue of consistency, if not, in my view, of pragmatism.
Other pro-life groups take the position that it is better to prevent at least some abortions, even if we do not have the ability to prevent all abortion. If a total “no exceptions” law, is not obtainable, why not at least restrict some abortions? I belong to that camp. Is it better to hold out for a total ban, or to work incrementally? If one can’t persuade the legislature to ban all abortion, it’s better to prevent some abortions, even at the cost of letting some continue.
It’s a prudential judgment: all or nothing; or work for what you can get.
It seems to me that the same principles apply to proposing punishments for women. If anyone believes that it is profitable to take what amounts to a no exceptions approach, by all means, work for it politically. Say to your legislators: “Here is why abortion is wrong, and here is how we will punish women when Roe is overturned.” It’s a package deal. We want no more leniency for women than for any other murderer, because abortion is murder.
If you believe that agenda will further the pro-life cause, and bring us closer to the day when Roe is overturned, by all means, work for it.
Personally I believe that it would be counterproductive.
The pro-life movement has made great strides in recent years, through legislation, through education, through outreach. I’m not convinced it will make even greater strides by emphasizing punishment of women.
Other pro-life groups take the position that it is better to prevent at least some abortions, even if we do not have the ability to prevent all abortion. If a total “no exceptions” law, is not obtainable, why not at least restrict some abortions? I belong to that camp. Is it better to hold out for a total ban, or to work incrementally? If one can’t persuade the legislature to ban all abortion, it’s better to prevent some abortions, even at the cost of letting some continue.
It’s a prudential judgment: all or nothing; or work for what you can get.
It seems to me that the same principles apply to proposing punishments for women. If anyone believes that it is profitable to take what amounts to a no exceptions approach, by all means, work for it politically. Say to your legislators: “Here is why abortion is wrong, and here is how we will punish women when Roe is overturned.” It’s a package deal. We want no more leniency for women than for any other murderer, because abortion is murder.
If you believe that agenda will further the pro-life cause, and bring us closer to the day when Roe is overturned, by all means, work for it.
Personally I believe that it would be counterproductive.
The pro-life movement has made great strides in recent years, through legislation, through education, through outreach. I’m not convinced it will make even greater strides by emphasizing punishment of women.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
And who on this thread has advanced such an all-or-nothing argument?
If you are going to debate this issue, you might be better off debating the positions your opponents have actually advanced, and not going off on a tangent arguing against something no one has advanced.
J
JimG
Guest
The thread title, is “If abortion is murder, should those responsible be tried for murder? And if found guilty, should they be imprisoned like other murderers?”
That goes to the issue of punishment, and that’s what I addressed. I compare the hard line on punishment to the hard line on no-exception abortion prohibition. I think both positions are equally lacking in practicality; and that advocating hardline punishment for women in particular, will not advance the pro-life cause.
Those who think it does advance the pro-life cause are free to recommend strong punishments for women. If this is the case that pro-life advocates wish to pursue at this stage of the game, by all means, they should go on talk shows and Sunday morning interviews, and write editorials and letters advocating this. I don’t think it helps, but it’s a legitimate position.
M
markomalley
Guest
The OP said this:
In answer to the OP, my first answer said (emphasis added for this post):
(I think that the remainder of my posts on this thread have re-iterated and expanded on the above theme)
Let me ask you, then, as maybe I am not clear on your position on this issue:
Is your position:
(a) From a moral position (not simply what happens if Roe v Wade is overturned, but what should be in an ideal pro-life world), should there be some lesser punishment for those involved in abortion than for those involved in the murder of post-natal life?
or is your position:
(b) You really agree with what those of us who advocate this, but you think we should keep it quiet, because the pro-death forces will use that position to label us as extremists?
I would appreciate an answer on the above (or if neither position is correct, could you expand on what your position is), as I am honestly confused by your posts and I don’t want to assume something.
Thank you.
V
valient_Lucy
Guest
I’m aware of that, but at the same time, I don’t see how we can’t charge the mother as an accessory to murder. If a woman brought a born child to a person in order that the child could be murdered, wouldn’t they be charged with some kind of crime?
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, she would be charged with a crime. It seems to be the consensus here that if Roe v Wade is overturned, she should be tried with the exact same crime. Now, it is likely, in my opinion, that if Roe were overturned, she might be charged with a crime, but it would be the crime of abortion, not the crime of murder. And it is quite possible that only the abortionist would be charged.
Now before I am inundated again with cries of outrage that abortion is murder, I agree. Objectively, abortion takes the life of a human being, just as any other murder does. But the law, even pre-Roe, treated the two crimes differently. Even without thinking through all of the ramifications, and there are many, of treating every abortion as a murder case under the law, I’m pretty sure that the results would be a mess, in the administration of the criminal justice system, and in the political environment.
Were Roe v Wade to be overturned, and abortion subject to criminal statues, and if the same murder statues applied to abortion as to all other homicides, I fear that the legal mess resulting might even lead to re-legalization of abortion.
Yes, abortion is the taking of a human life. Affirming that fact does not require me to argue in favor of severe punishment of women who have abortions, any more than I would have been required to argue that the women taken in adultery should have been stoned simply because it was the law.
But I don’t think I’m convincing anybody here. My point is that turning our attention now to the advocacy of severe punishments for abortion does nothing to help get Roe reversed. If and when Roe is reversed, that is the time for legislatures to debate penalties. And no, I’m not just holding out for reversal until I come down on them hard; there are a great many more personal factors that get involved in an abortion case than in the usual lot of murder cases, such that I would not recommend treating them as equivalent. But that’s just me.
M
markomalley
Guest
You’ve criticized a bunch of folks on this thread. But you haven’t answered one question, though: what would you propose?
D
Delphinus85
Guest
A miscarriage is not out of negligent behaviour.
Let’s put it this way. If a woman hired a thug to beat her 1 year old to death because she couldn’t take care of it anymore, don’t you think she should be put away just as much as the thug who beat her baby to death? I should think so.
J
JimG
Guest
I didn’t intend to criticize anybody; I’m sorry if that was the impression I gave. I was only arguing against particular ideas of punishment proposed before Roe v Wade is even reversed. What I propose is that Roe v Wade be reversed, and the situation returned to it’s pre-1973 status. I don’t propose punishments in excess of what was in effect at that time. It seems to me that reversing Roe is a sufficient goal for now.
Once that occurs, people can decide, through their elected legislatures, what sanctions to put on abortionists, women, and accomplices.
Now, that’s a pretty modest goal. Others would push for a human life amendment to the constitution, to settle the matter once for all. I don’t think that’s likely, but I wouldn’t argue against it.
M
mapleoak
Guest
The goal is the end of abortion. The reversal of Roe v Wade is only one step on the ladder. The goal is not accomplished until the unborn are guaranteed the full respect due their humanity with all the protections of the law.
Without proper and due consequences according to their nature, laws are meaningless. Therefore the goal in the interests of the unborn is far from reached until abortion is recognized as murder and this crime prosecuted accordingly.
M
markomalley
Guest
And until the culture recognizes and acknowledges the dignity of the human person, from the moment of fertilization to the moment of natural death, then we cannot expect the laws to honor that dignity. +JPII recognized this when excoriating the ‘culture of death.’
We need to work to change the culture…the specific laws will follow. (Frankly, I think that a separate abortion law is really sort of meaningless anyway. Homicide laws should cover this as just another mechanism of death)
M
mapleoak
Guest
Exactly. And having the law reflect the humanity of the unborn is another ‘stepping stone’. But until the culture recognizes this, it won’t be over, if it can ever be said to be over.
D
Delphinus85
Guest
I agree with you. And I disagree that we should just get things back to “pre-Roe”. I think that the only way we CAN get this atrocity illegal one more is to push the government to recognize these children AS people, and have killing ANY person defined as murder and treated as such. It’s not just about stopping the muder of these children, but trying to get people to stop classifying people so they can do what they want with them, and respect ALL human life.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
From the Republican Party Platform for 2004:
P
pnewton
Guest
How can this even be a question? If abortion is made illegal, as it should, of course prison time has to be on the table as a possibility. In the case of abortionists who perform many abortionists, they should be treated like the mass murderer they are. For a woman who precurs an abortion, the circumstances should lead a jury to decide whether prison or probation is appropriate, like any other crime.
S
Scottgun
Guest
The mother would more likely than not recieve the lightest penalty.
Any pressuring boyfriends or parents would get a harder sentence
The actual abortionist would receive the harshest penalty of all much like an paid assassin will get hammered much harder than someone who kills in the heat of passion.
Any pressuring boyfriends or parents would get a harder sentence
The actual abortionist would receive the harshest penalty of all much like an paid assassin will get hammered much harder than someone who kills in the heat of passion.
- Status