Legal problems that may arise if abortion is considered murder?

[Uriah_Betrayed]

I didn’t say that the issue was absolute, I said that in your objection you’re demanding that the Church must be absolutist, which is absurd.

What I am saying, and is the Church’s position, is that morality consists of three factors: absolute and objective principles, relative and objective situations, and subjective motives. All three must be right, not just one. And its the last two that you continue to ignore.
The defect of EP is tragic, but neither was it willed by any party. No Catholic doctor is going around saying to themselves, “Oh boy!, how many EP babies do I get to kill today?!”

The defect determined its fate, not the doctor nor the mother. That motive is all important, and is the very thing you continue to ignore, along with the situation. They are a physical evil directly caused by no one.

My father died three years ago from complications from cancer. I was there in the ICU when they shut the machine off that kept him alive. Did my step mother committ murder? Absolutely not! Its absurd to argue that she did. Neither she, nor I, nor the doctor willed his death. His death was the result of that his body shut down.

All this time you have by your rhetoric characterized the Church’s positon and the choice of having surgery to correct EP as something flippant and crude, assuming that the Church( which IS made up of people with conscience) sees it as some light matter that looks at the embryo no different as Peter Singer would. That you would go to such lengths makes me pity you more than anything. That’s probably the only reason I continue to respond…

That tends to happen when you only lightly attempt to inform and instead choose to go the easy “No you’re just wrong” post. That being said, this post makes me understand the stance the Church has, of course your Holier than Thou “pity” certainly doesn’t make me care about bothering being a “faithful Catholic” any time soon…

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

That tends to happen when you only lightly attempt to inform and instead choose to go the easy “No you’re just wrong” post.

“Lightly attempt to inform…” You’re being rather disengenuous.

That being said, this post makes me understand the stance the Church has, of course your Holier than Thou “pity” certainly doesn’t make me care about bothering being a “faithful Catholic” any time soon…

If your bitterness stems from my honesty that says more about you than the Church or myself. I gave you honest criticism of your position and was charitable while remaining firm. I resorted to no ad-hominems and my premises were sound and my conclusions therefore correct.

Uriah the only absolutes in this world are God, Love and Truth. When you forget-whether accidentally or purposely, any one of those three you do violence to the other two. I understand your desire to want to Love and be understanding, I really do, but it is foolish to allow softhearted-ness to also become soft-headedness.

Jesus was soft-hearted. But at the same time He was totally hard-headed, because He is absolutely Truth and Love. That is the position of the Church; that is my position.

That being said, I will pray for you.
God Bless.

 

[jmcrae]

Ok so instead of just going “No you’re wrong” how about defending the Church’s stance on this issue? You keep saying that this issue isn’t absolute, so can I take that too mean that Human life is only sacred in relativist terms? I don’t see why not, you’re choosing to accept that an EP is a defect and thus not deserving to continue to develop. Whether you want to say kill or not the end result is the termination of that life.

No; the child dies by an unavoidable accident that takes place during surgery to save the mother’s life. The surgeon does not go in there and stab the baby to death; he removes the faulty tissue, and the baby dies accidentally during that procedure.

An unavoidable accident is not the same thing as murder.

 

[lynnvinc]

What happened before 1973 when abortion was illegal?

Even tho abortion was illegal, it was very easy to get one. In the first decade of the 1900s, a woman would just go to the doctor’s office and have it done.

When my grandmother got pregnant the first time around 1907, my grandfather (who didn’t want children) said “we’ll fix that,” and took her to the drs office, after which she was no longer pregnant. She told me she was a stupid little thing then and didn’t understand what was happening, and was sad to lose the child.

The next time she got pregnant, my grandfather said “we’ll fix that.” But this time she said she had wised up and said, “No, I want this child.” And so my father was born.

As a young woman in the 60s many young women around me had contact info for abortionists, and my impression was that some or a lot of these were medical students paying their way thru college. I think it cost about $500 for an abortion. My roommate’s friend had one, and she nearly bleed to death.

A lot of girls who got pregnant out of wedlock were either sent to their relative’s to deliver, or to a home for pregnant girls. I remember being on the bus, listening to a conversation behind me between 2 women who worked at such a home, telling how disgusting the girls were. It was a terrible shame to be pregnant out of wedlock, and I think abortion was a way for a girl to hide that she had not been virtuous (or had been raped, which was also blamed on the girl for being out somewhere she should not have been).

I fought against the Roe v. Wade decision, and campaigned for Ellen McCormack during the 1976 campaign.

I’m not sure what making abortion illegal might look like today – maybe it would be better enforced. We’d probably have to build more women’s prisons, and better ensure that women don’t get raped in prison.

 

[wynnejj]

Even tho abortion was illegal, it was very easy to get one. In the first decade of the 1900s, a woman would just go to the doctor’s office and have it done.

When my grandmother got pregnant the first time around 1907, my grandfather (who didn’t want children) said “we’ll fix that,” and took her to the drs office, after which she was no longer pregnant. She told me she was a stupid little thing then and didn’t understand what was happening, and was sad to lose the child.

The next time she got pregnant, my grandfather said “we’ll fix that.” But this time she said she had wised up and said, “No, I want this child.” And so my father was born.

As a young woman in the 60s many young women around me had contact info for abortionists, and my impression was that some or a lot of these were medical students paying their way thru college. I think it cost about $500 for an abortion. My roommate’s friend had one, and she nearly bleed to death.

A lot of girls who got pregnant out of wedlock were either sent to their relative’s to deliver, or to a home for pregnant girls. I remember being on the bus, listening to a conversation behind me between 2 women who worked at such a home, telling how disgusting the girls were. It was a terrible shame to be pregnant out of wedlock, and I think abortion was a way for a girl to hide that she had not been virtuous (or had been raped, which was also blamed on the girl for being out somewhere she should not have been).

I fought against the Roe v. Wade decision, and campaigned for Ellen McCormack during the 1976 campaign.

I’m not sure what making abortion illegal might look like today – maybe it would be better enforced. We’d probably have to build more women’s prisons, and better ensure that women don’t get raped in prison.

Your depiction points out several things. Many women kept their babies because it was illegal by going to their relatives to have the baby or a home for pregnant women. That’s a plus for adoption, I’d say. You say that in the 60s (after contraception was acceptable by many mainstream Christian religions) that many of your friends had contact info for abortionists and often they were medical students who risked felony charges (49 states had laws where abortion was a felony up to 1967) and women risked botched procedures where they could bleed to death. Bet there weren’t widespread abortions, certainly nothing close to a million a year. Sounds like a plus for deterrence of casual sex. I remember a radio program where an elderly lady who had got pregnant in graduate school, had to seek an abortion in Cuba because doctors were not willing to perform the procedure for her. Not sure how readily available / procurable an abortion was in this instance. Probably not thrilled at the idea of medical students plying their trade after hours.

This discussion is about taking abortion beyond being simply illegal for the abortionists. But just that should probably bring back those relatives and pregnant woman homes. Going beyond the abortionist to those who procure abortions such as “we can fix that” dads who ought to be accountable for the children that they produce, should deter leading mothers into coerced/forced abortions to something less than wholesale slaughter levels. (Needn’t worry too much about rape in women’s prisons … unless they become co-ed.)

The fact is that the acceptance of contraceptive practices by Christian society without a concomitant reinforcement (without salutary neglect) of fornication & adultery laws makes the need for strict supply-side anti-abortion laws with severe penalties key towards damage control. But it doesn’t negate the need for fornication & adultery laws if contraceptive co-habitation is still the societal norm.

 

[lynnvinc]

Your depiction points out several things. Many women kept their babies because it was illegal by going to their relatives to have the baby or a home for pregnant women. That’s a plus for adoption, I’d say. You say that in the 60s (after contraception was acceptable by many mainstream Christian religions) that many of your friends had contact info for abortionists and often they were medical students who risked felony charges (49 states had laws where abortion was a felony up to 1967) and women risked botched procedures where they could bleed to death. Bet there weren’t widespread abortions, certainly nothing close to a million a year. Sounds like a plus for deterrence of casual sex. I remember a radio program where an elderly lady who had got pregnant in graduate school, had to seek an abortion in Cuba because doctors were not willing to perform the procedure for her. Not sure how readily available / procurable an abortion was in this instance. Probably not thrilled at the idea of medical students plying their trade after hours.

This discussion is about taking abortion beyond being simply illegal for the abortionists. But just that should probably bring back those relatives and pregnant woman homes. Going beyond the abortionist to those who procure abortions such as “we can fix that” dads who ought to be accountable for the children that they produce, should deter leading mothers into coerced/forced abortions to something less than wholesale slaughter levels. (Needn’t worry too much about rape in women’s prisons … unless they become co-ed.)

The fact is that the acceptance of contraceptive practices by Christian society without a concomitant reinforcement (without salutary neglect) of fornication & adultery laws makes the need for strict supply-side anti-abortion laws with severe penalties key towards damage control. But it doesn’t negate the need for fornication & adultery laws if contraceptive co-habitation is still the societal norm.

I’m not really a punitive type of person. I don’t think our prisons work well, and often make people worse. I don’t really like to see people going there, unless they are a threat to society. I also don’t like seeing women bleeding to death from botched abortions, which I also think was fairly common.

I’d sort of like to see a middle way (I’ve thought about this for years, but I’m sure it will never happen): We have legal behavior, illegal behavior, and “unapproved behavior.” On that last list could be abortion, alcoholism, persistent over-eating (that would make me in violation), smoking, prostitution, clients of prostitution, bullying. In other words anything that is harmful to oneself and/or society, or a bad example of human interaction to society. There would be no imprisonments or severe punishments, but maybe a light sentence of community service, and beneficial services for those people. For the over-eating people (after medical check up to see about the causes), we’d get some regimen that makes us exercise, and also some diet club to encourage us to stay off the chuck wagon

People could be connected to gov services already in existence. For example, if a woman had an abortion, then a councelors would look into the cause, and if it were poverty, the woman could be helped to come out of poverty and encouraged to keep her baby next time she gets pregnant; or given advice about how to make the father pay his share of child-rearing, etc.

One of the good things about the pre-1972 situation was that abortion, tho common, was underground. People didn’t talk about it much, and I don’t think it got to children’s ears. At least I didn’t hear about it until I was a teen.

I understand that sometimes abortion may be necessary to save a woman’s life or prevent severe health problems (they used to have a board in the pre-1972 era to determine whether a woman could have a legal abortion, and that could be re-instituted).

But one of my concerns with abortion today is that it is common and people talk about it openly, and speak in terms of women’s rights, reproductive rights, etc., as if there was not another person involved, as if it is okay to trash people, esp young people. I think the subconscious message we get is that people have no value, but are thing to be disposed of if they annoy us. It is actually criminogenic, a part of our selfish, individualistic culture.

BXVI speaks of “human ecology,” and how are to value all people, conception to natural death, and interact humanely with each other in Christian agape love, and only then there can be healing in society. I think abortion is part of our devaluing of humans in general, and it contributes greatly to that devaluation.

It should either go underground again (bec it is illegal), or some other way like “unapproved behavior” (where the message would be that people are valuable, and harming them (including oneself) is bad).

 

[wynnejj]

I’m not really a punitive type of person. I don’t think our prisons work well, and often make people worse. I don’t really like to see people going there, unless they are a threat to society. I also don’t like seeing women bleeding to death from botched abortions, which I also think was fairly common.

I’d sort of like to see a middle way (I’ve thought about this for years, but I’m sure it will never happen): We have legal behavior, illegal behavior, and “unapproved behavior.” On that last list could be abortion, alcoholism, persistent over-eating (that would make me in violation), smoking, prostitution, clients of prostitution, bullying. In other words anything that is harmful to oneself and/or society, or a bad example of human interaction to society. There would be no imprisonments or severe punishments, but maybe a light sentence of community service, and beneficial services for those people. For the over-eating people (after medical check up to see about the causes), we’d get some regimen that makes us exercise, and also some diet club to encourage us to stay off the chuck wagon

People could be connected to gov services already in existence. For example, if a woman had an abortion, then a councelors would look into the cause, and if it were poverty, the woman could be helped to come out of poverty and encouraged to keep her baby next time she gets pregnant; or given advice about how to make the father pay his share of child-rearing, etc.

One of the good things about the pre-1972 situation was that abortion, tho common, was underground. People didn’t talk about it much, and I don’t think it got to children’s ears. At least I didn’t hear about it until I was a teen.

I understand that sometimes abortion may be necessary to save a woman’s life or prevent severe health problems (they used to have a board in the pre-1972 era to determine whether a woman could have a legal abortion, and that could be re-instituted).

But one of my concerns with abortion today is that it is common and people talk about it openly, and speak in terms of women’s rights, reproductive rights, etc., as if there was not another person involved, as if it is okay to trash people, esp young people. I think the subconscious message we get is that people have no value, but are thing to be disposed of if they annoy us. It is actually criminogenic, a part of our selfish, individualistic culture.

BXVI speaks of “human ecology,” and how are to value all people, conception to natural death, and interact humanely with each other in Christian agape love, and only then there can be healing in society. I think abortion is part of our devaluing of humans in general, and it contributes greatly to that devaluation.

It should either go underground again (bec it is illegal), or some other way like “unapproved behavior” (where the message would be that people are valuable, and harming them (including oneself) is bad).

Often when people try to grapple with the various arguments for abortion with restrictions, they “think” that abortion was common and women bleeding to death was common. The suggestion is that abortion, treated as a felony in 49 states prior to 1967, was quite high. So compared to over a million abortions per year today representing minimally 1/5 of all pregnancies, what do you “think” the number of abortions per year would have been prior to Roe v. Wade?

Would you say it was on the order of 1/10th or 1/20th of all pregnancies were aborted? I once read that the best estimate of abortions prior to Roe v. Wade would be about 100,000 tops (1/50th of all pregnacies?). The suggestion was that abortions grew 10-fold minimally. With a 10-fold increase of abortions per year, do you think that there aren’t many botched abortions where women die in comparable numbers due to complications of abortion? Does that justify a 10-fold increase in abortion?

There’s the comment about prisons should only be to contain threats to society. People like your grandfather would have “fixed” your family right out of existence without any laws. The fact that he successfully was able to “fix” a whole branch of your family out of existence the first time is not a failure of abortion law, but a failure of law enforcement in cracking down on abortion doctors. If abortion law at the time subjected abortion doctors to a murder charge, do you think dads could find a doctor easily to “fix” the problem? I don’t think there would be too many doctors who would risk a murder charge, let alone a malpractice suit.

But the argument that I find interesting is the concept of “unapproved behavior”. It seems to me that society throughout the ages used religion as the vehicle to identify and steer people away from “unapproved behavior”. We know that abortion is prevalent due to contraceptive practices. Yet, the Christian world is generally good with contraceptive practices and lenient on their views of pre-marital co-habitation. It would indeed be nice if Christianity would be clear in their disapproval of sexual misbehavior … (I’ve thought about this for years, but I’m sure it will never happen)!

 

[minkymurph]

Manslaughter, not murder. Two different legal concepts.

Apologies if I’m saying anything that has been said before - haven’t got time at the moment to read all the posts.

This is a pretty complex as a legal issue. I appreciate laws vary in different countries, so hope you will bear with me if laws are different.

Firstly, the death of an unborn child in the part of the world can constitute manslaughter, but may not, it depends on the circumstances. If a pregnant mother dies as a result of an attack, the attacker can be charged with murder. If they child dies, they can be charged with manslaughter, but not murder. My question was, it is against the law to terminate a pregnancy beyond 24 weeks. Therefore, if the woman who was attacked was more than 24 weeks pregnant, and the attacker could reasonably foresee a possibility the unborn child could die, should it not be possible to charge the attacker with murder in relation to the unborn child?

My guess is the politicians don’t want to go down that root as would open the door to pro-life arguments, and that’s why they are two different legal concepts. That’s the political argument.

Charging women who have abortions with murder would be a difficult one. What would the purpose of legislation to charge women with murder if they have an abortion? To punish the woman who has the abortion, or to prevent the abortion? If the aim is prevent the abortion in the first place, convicting a woman who has had an abortion is a like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

It could be argued such legislation may act as a deterrent and reduce the number of abortions. However, it would not stop women who have the means travelling to other countries where it is legal - as happens here. It may also require passing legislation preventing pregnant women travelling to other countries were abortion is legal - which was proposed here and caused a great deal of controversy.

I am pro-life but I would have to draw breath at a charge of murder. The reasons being I would prefer women chose not to have an abortion because they want they child, don’t think an unplanned pregnancy is the end of the world, rather than because they may be incarcerated. While it may be a deterrent for some women, I don’t think it would acheive the objective in a limited sense. I would be of the opinon a responsible approach to sexual relations and having children, as opposed to, ‘do what you want, just use a condom,’ approach would be more effective. We live in a culture were no one believes in taking personal respsonsibility, and if something happens to us we don’t like or want, we should make it go away rather than deal with it.

 

[lynnvinc]

Often when people try to grapple with the various arguments for abortion with restrictions, they “think” that abortion was common and women bleeding to death was common. The suggestion is that abortion, treated as a felony in 49 states prior to 1967, was quite high. So compared to over a million abortions per year today representing minimally 1/5 of all pregnancies, what do you “think” the number of abortions per year would have been prior to Roe v. Wade?

Would you say it was on the order of 1/10th or 1/20th of all pregnancies were aborted? I once read that the best estimate of abortions prior to Roe v. Wade would be about 100,000 tops (1/50th of all pregnacies?). The suggestion was that abortions grew 10-fold minimally. With a 10-fold increase of abortions per year, do you think that there aren’t many botched abortions where women die in comparable numbers due to complications of abortion? Does that justify a 10-fold increase in abortion?

There’s the comment about prisons should only be to contain threats to society. People like your grandfather would have “fixed” your family right out of existence without any laws. The fact that he successfully was able to “fix” a whole branch of your family out of existence the first time is not a failure of abortion law, but a failure of law enforcement in cracking down on abortion doctors. If abortion law at the time subjected abortion doctors to a murder charge, do you think dads could find a doctor easily to “fix” the problem? I don’t think there would be too many doctors who would risk a murder charge, let alone a malpractice suit.

But the argument that I find interesting is the concept of “unapproved behavior”. It seems to me that society throughout the ages used religion as the vehicle to identify and steer people away from “unapproved behavior”. We know that abortion is prevalent due to contraceptive practices. Yet, the Christian world is generally good with contraceptive practices and lenient on their views of pre-marital co-habitation. It would indeed be nice if Christianity would be clear in their disapproval of sexual misbehavior … (I’ve thought about this for years, but I’m sure it will never happen)!

I have no idea what the abortion rate was back then. It was all very hush-hush. I’d hear about it thru the grapevine. People didn’t want to talk about it for fear of reprisal, so they only told very trusted friends…who then might tell only to their trusted friends that they know someone who had an abortion. Some women went to Mexico for abortions (which I think were also illegal there, but even less regulated).

RE the situation today, maybe special prisons could be made just for women who’ve had abortions, allowing only women guards. I hear about male guards raping female prisoners every now and then, and I know about other bad conditions (like they don’t get soap, unless they can pay for it, etc). If there is to be a punishment for abortion, it should not exceed what is legally mandated, and it should be humane with basic amenities, like soap, provided.

I’m also for “restorative justice” not only for abortion, but for other crimes, as well – something that would really help the offender to reform, not just punish him or her.

As it stands now – the system as is – I wouldn’t want women who have had abortions to go to prison, before there are some reforms (also ideally for all criminals).

It seems to me, though, that outlawing abortion is pretty much a moot point. Back then women were well trained to go along with the man, along with the system, and take their place as second-class citizens without as much a sense of self, rights and self-importance as they have today. The “rights genie” is now out of the bottle, and I’m thinking women today won’t accept being put in prison for abortion. We’d probably just have a repeat except with more vehemence (and anti-Christian/anti-Catholic feelings) of the late 60s/early 70s women’s movement to make abortion legal again.

If it were to be made illegal, I’m thinking 6 months in prison would be about right (the amount of time a young man used to be jailed for statutory rape), but some of you may say 20 years or life. I’m just not a very punitive type of person.

However, it does seem wrong that women can go to jail for 3 months for passing bad checks, but not even a day for having an abortion…

I regret telling that personal thing about my grandparents – it was a terrible thing that I’ve felt exceedingly bad about ever since my grandmother told me. I was always very much against abortion from the beginning and have always worked against it, but it became more personal and painful then. Don’t you think I’ve grieved over the loss of my aunt or uncle, and even my father and grandmother? How can you make a flippant statement about my losing my relatives, as if I didn’t care at all?

I’m so glad I’ve not told other stories that have made me even more and more against abortion. I wouldn’t want to be stung by people here again. My heart is exceedingly wounded. (Me and my big mouth.)

 

[wynnejj]

I regret telling that personal thing about my grandparents – it was a terrible thing that I’ve felt exceedingly bad about ever since my grandmother told me. I was always very much against abortion from the beginning and have always worked against it, but it became more personal and painful then. Don’t you think I’ve grieved over the loss of my aunt or uncle, and even my father and grandmother? How can you make a flippant statement about my losing my relatives, as if I didn’t care at all?

Your story is not uncommon. The story in my family is that my grandfather, an alcoholic, told my grandmother to get an abortion, she said “No”, he punched her (he was drunk) and she lost the baby.

But the real reason why I made my point in the way that I did was intentional in response to this attitude which indicates that you do not accept wholly that abortion is murder.

We have legal behavior, illegal behavior, and “unapproved behavior.” On that last list could be abortion, alcoholism, persistent over-eating (that would make me in violation), smoking, prostitution, clients of prostitution, bullying. In other words anything that is harmful to oneself and/or society, or a bad example of human interaction to society.

Abortion is “Unapproved Behavior”? Those who voluntarily & deliberately procure an abortion (discounting temporary insanity), and those who force / coerce abortion and, those who provide abortion services are all complicit in the crime of murder.

This supreme understatement - “abortion is unapproved behavior” - seems to be actually the prevailing view in Christian society unfortunately.

This kind of rhetoric needs a whole lot of “tough love”.

 

[AlTheCollegeGal]

In regards to smoking, drinking, or other frowned upon activities while pregnant, I believe that the answer lies within the intent. By this I mean, does the mother intend to kill her child via drinking in excessive amounts? Or, did this particular woman have no antipathy towards her unborn child when consuming these harmful substances? This is a fine distinction, and one that would have to transfer into legality when considering the ramifications of making abortion akin to murder in the court system. If the woman was not attempting to maim/kill her child when making this abominably stupid decision (or, in the case that she was coerced into drinking harmful substances), then I do not believe that she would receive such a severe sentence. Of course, this is also dependent upon the status of the child afterwards; is the child born with any severe abnormalities or birth defects? If so, the sentence would be more harsh than the child born with no visible/testable problems. This is a sticky issue, but I do believe that abortion is a grave immorality, an intrinsic evil which has brought a blight upon society. I believe that abortion must end, and that killing a child thus is akin to murder.

 

[lynnvinc]

Your story is not uncommon. The story in my family is that my grandfather, an alcoholic, told my grandmother to get an abortion, she said “No”, he punched her (he was drunk) and she lost the baby.

But the real reason why I made my point in the way that I did was intentional in response to this attitude which indicates that you do not accept wholly that abortion is murder.

Abortion is “Unapproved Behavior”? Those who voluntarily & deliberately procure an abortion (discounting temporary insanity), and those who force / coerce abortion and, those who provide abortion services are all complicit in the crime of murder.

This supreme understatement - “abortion is unapproved behavior” - seems to be actually the prevailing view in Christian society unfortunately.

This kind of rhetoric needs a whole lot of “tough love”.

I do accept it is murder. But I just don’t think people will enact severe laws against it, considering how women are today. So I’m trying to think of something that might stand a chance of getting passed, but even then (as I said) I don’t think they would even pass a mild law against abortion (one that is more supportive of than punitive toward the woman who had the abortion and helps her in various ways not to abort in the future).

I think when it comes to it, lots of people are against abortion, but when push comes to shove they may shy away from laws that would imprison women for long periods of time, subjecting them to the inhuman treatment in our prisons.

 

[wynnejj]

I do accept it is murder. But I just don’t think people will enact severe laws against it, considering how women are today. So I’m trying to think of something that might stand a chance of getting passed, but even then (as I said) I don’t think they would even pass a mild law against abortion (one that is more supportive of than punitive toward the woman who had the abortion and helps her in various ways not to abort in the future).

I think when it comes to it, lots of people are against abortion, but when push comes to shove they may shy away from laws that would imprison women for long periods of time, subjecting them to the inhuman treatment in our prisons.

Actually this whole scenario is causing me to rethink my stance. As you can probably tell, I’m not inclined to cut any slack for those that pressure a woman into an abortion. The legal aspects of prosecuting such actions, though, could be quite problematic. Let’s say that a woman voluntarily gets an illegal abortion, and says that she was pressured … but wasn’t. Maybe a high percentage of cases, this is actually true … but quite a few cases are false allegations out of some kind of animosity for the father. Without a public display, such as escorting the woman to the illegal abortion location, there may be no way to tell whether the woman was pressured or not. There are indeed some legal aspects that make it difficult to obtain justice … other than the abortion provider. I think this does cut to the heart of the opening post.

I guess what I would say is that abortion clinics must be shutdown, from then on abortion providers should be convicted of murder, and unwed mothers should be able to sue for child support from the biological father subject to DNA proof of fatherhood.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Actually this whole scenario is causing me to rethink my stance. As you can probably tell, I’m not inclined to cut any slack for those that pressure a woman into an abortion. The legal aspects of prosecuting such actions, though, could be quite problematic. Let’s say that a woman voluntarily gets an illegal abortion, and says that she was pressured … but wasn’t. Maybe a high percentage of cases, this is actually true … but quite a few cases are false allegations out of some kind of animosity for the father. Without a public display, such as escorting the woman to the illegal abortion location, there may be no way to tell whether the woman was pressured or not. There are indeed some legal aspects that make it difficult to obtain justice … other than the abortion provider. I think this does cut to the heart of the opening post.

I guess what I would say is that abortion clinics must be shutdown, from then on abortion providers should be convicted of murder, and unwed mothers should be able to sue for child support from the biological father subject to DNA proof of fatherhood.

Earlier in the thread I mentioned how the circumstances could mitigate how complicit the mother may or may not be as far as guilt goes in procuring an abortion. And that the judge could be given discretion as to what the proper punishement for her may be depending on those circumstances ranging from possible prison time to merely probation or no time at all(sometimes our consciences cane be a greater punishment than any amount of time in prison).

But I also asserted the severity that doctors who perform abortions need to be held to. That any doctor who either does them or manipulates mothers into procuring them need to be given the stiffest penalties, maybe even life. They KNOW what they’re doing and yet ignore what they know for money. It’s no different than if they were contract killers, so they should be treated as such.

 

[wynnejj]

Earlier in the thread I mentioned how the circumstances could mitigate how complicit the mother may or may not be as far as guilt goes in procuring an abortion. And that the judge could be given discretion as to what the proper punishement for her may be depending on those circumstances ranging from possible prison time to merely probation or no time at all(sometimes our consciences cane be a greater punishment than any amount of time in prison).

But I also asserted the severity that doctors who perform abortions need to be held to. That any doctor who either does them or manipulates mothers into procuring them need to be given the stiffest penalties, maybe even life. They KNOW what they’re doing and yet ignore what they know for money. It’s no different than if they were contract killers, so they should be treated as such.

You are right. There was never any question for me about the abortion provider. True, some may actually feel that they are doing a good thing for woman. But objectively, abortion is murder. Therefore, any act of murder should exact the penalty for murder, regardless of personal viewpoints.

Going after the pregnant woman who seeks an abortion is truly a tough call. Some are truly callous, others are truly stressed out. I think lynnvinc’s suggestion of a sentence that treats it as something more than passing a bad check, but not too tough, is a good idea.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

You are right. There was never any question for me about the abortion provider. True, some may actually feel that they are doing a good thing for woman. But objectively, abortion is murder. Therefore, any act of murder should exact the penalty for murder, regardless of personal viewpoints.

Going after the pregnant woman who seeks an abortion is truly a tough call. Some are truly callous, others are truly stressed out. I think lynnvinc’s suggestion of a sentence that treats it as something more than passing a bad check, but not too tough, is a good idea.

The way I see it, a woman who is so callous to have multiple abortions within a certain amount of years, I have no problem putting that woman in prison for a 15 year sentence(manslaughter) with the possibility of parole.

But a woman who was coerced into an abortion and it was her first? I have no problem letting her off the hook.

A woman who knowing procured an abortion, it was here first, and is not remorseful about it? I would say 10 year suspended sentence. And if she procures another one within two years, she serves the full 10. I think that’s fair.

There’s lots a ways that this issue could be adjudicated fairly.

 

[lynnvinc]

I think an underlying problem that tends to make laws against abortion difficult (even mild laws with penalities like community service) is our Enlightenment-based concept of the “individual” and a “rights-based” code of ethics (v. a “duty-based” code of ethics). Autonomous, free, independent individuals came first (so thought Enlightenment philosophers – without considering these individuals came from mothers & others) then only gave up so much of their rights when forming society (which came 2nd) as to protect themselves and their interests. The idea of duties was a weak shadow of rights, only to serve rights of self and others.

Also, since rights are not in a vacuum but usually in a context of competing rights, it is the people in this rights-based system who are most able to press for their rights that get their rights respected, over those who are unable, or don’t have strong, powerful spokespersons for them. Self becomes salient; others less important, peripheral, or even non-existent in one’s mind.

An “individual” is sort of like “a man’s home is his castle,” not to be violated or controlled by others – inviolate…or to be respected and maintained as inviolate.

However, even in the few centuries after the Enlightenment, while these ideas were becoming more and more entrenched, only (white) men were considered “individuals,” and women were more like appendages – like an extra arm to serve the man, part of the “man’s castle” – and slaves were considered subhuman or nonhuman. In this context the rights of women were downplayed, and the prior ages during which a “duty-based” code of ethics mainly applied to them (and domestic animals, etc).

It took some centuries for Enlightenment ideas to become so entrenched that even women (and non-white men) started considering themselves (and got others to consider them) as individuals worthy of freedom and rights, as inviolate individuals – autonomous from society, only giving up some freedoms from control so as to protect their personal interests.

As the centuries since the 1700s have progressed, there has been more and more emphasis on individual and rights, and less & less on society and duties.

In some other traditional cultures (I’m thinking India, which I’ve studied) the idea was more on the “dividual” (a person is connected to and “composed” of outside substances from other people and object), and their person is not inviolate. In this context abortion could more easily be considered a wrong-doing, because a person was not a free, independent agent focused on self-fulfillment, but a part of (and enmeshed in) society, and the baby within the womb was also a part of society, and society was there to maintain itself, which meant by extension maintaing the person/parts and person/parts-within-person/parts (in some societies, when a baby is born it is considered to be one year old at birth). Society had every right to strongly intervene in a person’s conduct, esp that which pertained to his/her relationships with other persons. People had duties, with rights only as a secondary consideration and not something apart from duties.

Now I think early Christianity and Catholicism even today to some extent struck a good balance between these opposite types of society – respecting individual rights to an extent, but also equally focusing on duties and our enmeshment in society.

…I think I’m just convincing myself that the push against abortion may not be so much a going back to the more duty-based code of ethics, but a further carrying out of the Enlightenment project of rights (in this case considering the unborn as individuals with rights – rather than a a part of society to whom we owe duties, as in traditional societies).

The problem then is the clash between the woman’s right to abort something within her inviolate individual body v. the unborn person’s rights to life, etc. In order to protect the latter, then women’s rights will of necessity have to be much more greatly curtailed. That’s where the fight comes in, but if the Enlightenment project is indeed progressing to all areas (people are even now talking about intergenerational rights, rights of future generations to come, and animal rights, and nature’s rights, “wild law,” etc), then it seems that anti-abortion laws could come about, at least those that are the most sensitive and accommodating to the rights of women.

Perhaps we just need to keep pressing this logic of rights (applied to yet-to-be-born-individuals), but it will still be an uphill struggle, since women feel they have gotten their rights after hard-fought battles, and will not be in a mood to give up any rights at all. People always want more rights, not less. (We even consider corporations to be persons, with all the rights (I have a sign on my door that reads, "I’ll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one).)

I personally prefer a balance between a rights & duties based society as envisioned in early Crhistianity and in Catholicism today (I’m old fashioned), and I think that would be the ideal & also give a better basis for anti-abortion laws. However, in today’s world today “rights” is king – our whole Enlightenment-based legal system in the U.S. is based on them – and “duties” are only dim shadows of some hated past era.

 

[wynnejj]

In some other traditional cultures (I’m thinking India, which I’ve studied) the idea was more on the “dividual” (a person is connected to and “composed” of outside substances from other people and object), and their person is not inviolate.

Mother & pre-born are “individual” in the eyes of God.

The word “individual” basically comes from the idea of “not able to divide”.

It is the principle that Solomon proposed when he suggested cutting a child in half.

The judgement was awarded to the women who relinquished her woman’s rights in deference to the rights of the “individual”?

 

[minkymurph]

The way I see it, a woman who is so callous to have multiple abortions within a certain amount of years, I have no problem putting that woman in prison for a 15 year sentence(manslaughter) with the possibility of parole.

But a woman who was coerced into an abortion and it was her first? I have no problem letting her off the hook.

A woman who knowing procured an abortion, it was here first, and is not remorseful about it? I would say 10 year suspended sentence. And if she procures another one within two years, she serves the full 10. I think that’s fair.

There’s lots a ways that this issue could be adjudicated fairly.

The problem I see with this, is the 15 year sentence. In order to adjudicate fairly, when should a case of manslaughter receive a 15 year sentence and when should it not? Should all crimes of manslaughter carry the same sentence? A judge may choose to suspend a sentence?

There was a case in Britain were a man and woman received a 3 year and 18 month suspended sentence for manslaughter respectively. Is it fair one person may receive a three year sentence or a suspended sentence for manslaughter, and another 15 years?

 

[lynnvinc]

Mother & pre-born are “individual” in the eyes of God.

The word “individual” basically comes from the idea of “not able to divide”.

It is the principle that Solomon proposed when he suggested cutting a child in half.

The judgement was awarded to the women who relinquished her woman’s rights in deference to the rights of the “individual”?

Traditional civilizations and the Church have always recognized the importance of other people (society) in forming the person – there is a lot of (material, biological, ideational, spiritual) (name removed by moderator)uts into the person, starting with God, and the person’s father and mother. And we need a viable environment to survive…God’s creation which he provided for that. We ingest food (and poison), etc. And the person has inherent responsilities and duties to others – he is not an island unto himself.

The Enlightenment idea was of self-sufficient, autonomous (from others) individual person – a world unto himself – a pre-societal person (they forgot we have mothers & fathers, etc, or downplayed that connection). Their idea of the individual was not the Church’s idea, and in fact they were opposed not only to monarchy/autocracy, but also to the Catholic Church. It is that Enlightenment idea that is the root of our rugged individualism here in America – we’ve carried it to an extreme.

So that is what I was referring to. Not that one could cut a person in two and he’d still be alive

And now women are tapping into that rugged individual with plenty of rights but no duties, so that makes the abortion issue more difficult. It’s easier for powerful people to get their rights, but very difficult for the powerless (unborn) to get theirs, or making people sensitive to others’ rights when they don’t have a strong sense of other people, due to their rugged individualism.