NARAL’s scary sham ad and other desperate fear tactics
Pro-aborts are both afraid of and pleased by the large bloc of pure pro-life congressional candidates who have no rape/incest exception – 63 at last count.
Pro-aborts are afraid because they know pro-life stalwarts like these won’t weaken, won’t compromise, if elected.
Pro-aborts are pleased because they know a number of Americans have trouble with the rape/incest exception, even if they lean pro-life. It is a heart-catching wedge issue.
But apparently pro-aborts don’t trust the rape/incest exception to be enough, so they have to kick it up a notch to a fabricated, untenable conclusion: that pro-lifers with no exceptions want to see aborting mothers jailed.
Hence, this new ad by NARAL New York against solidly pro-life GOP gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino, who is running against Catholic Democrat pro-abort Andrew Cuomo…
NARAL began running this ad September 29 afternoons in the NYC/Albany/Buffalo areas, to reach “the critical demographic of women aged 18-64,” according to its press release. NARAL didn’t list a dollar amount it was spending, so it must not be much. If NARAL’s history is a guide, it was expecting to get most of its ad’s bang from press coverage. In its release NARAL stated:
“… If these are Carl Paladino’s positions on abortion, then he certainly doesn’t support Roe v. Wade and would be perfectly satisfied if abortion were made illegal,” said Mary Alice Carr, VP for Communications.
The ad shows women getting their mug shots taken to emphasize the implications of Carl Paladino’s dangerous position on abortion: if abortion is made a crime, then women will be treated like criminals.
Of course NARAL knows, like we know, its ad and aforementioned statement are patently false. As Americans United for Life attorney Clarke Forsythe explained:
This claim rests on not 1 but 2 falsehoods:
First, the almost uniform state policy before Roe was that abortion laws targeted abortionists, not women…. In fact… state courts expressly called the woman a second “victim”….
Second, the myth that women will be jailed relies on the myth that “overturning” Roe will result in the immediate re-criminalization of abortion. If Roe was overturned today, abortion would be legal in at least 42-43 states tomorrow, and likely all 50 states, for the simple reason that nearly all of the state abortion prohibitions have been either repealed or are blocked by state versions of Roe adopted by state courts.
Common sense would dictate that we look back to pre-Roe days when abortion was illegal, to see how illegally aborting mothers were treated. According to Forsythe:
… There are only 2 cases in which a woman was charged in any State with participating in her own abortion: from PA in 1911 and from TX in 1922.
There is no documented case since 1922 in which a woman was even charged in an abortion in the United States.
That’s 88 years.
How effective will pro-abort scare tactics like this be in the 2010 elections? There is evidence that even pro-abort voters are jumping ship for Republican candidates even if pro-life. Liberals and MSM constantly claim social issues don’t matter, and they may not this year – to the pro-abort voter anyway, which is fine.
Further evidence indicates (here and here) conservative social issues are being carried along by Tea Party energy, even if that energy is mostly geared toward fiscal issues.
So for this particular election, it doesn’t appear pro-abort scare tactics will have any or much of an impact.
But what pro-life bloggers and commenters can do is take the platform pro-aborts have handed us and combat this message by educating readers on these important topics of rape/incest and what post-Roe America will look like legally while they’re getting attention.
[Painting: “Rape of Tamar,” c 1640]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
How is someone who, according to my understanding of what antichoicers think, hires a “hitman” to “murder” their “child” supposed to be a victim?
Thank you for proving again that you don’t think abortion is the same as real murder.
Also, what if a woman performs her own abortion? Then wouldn’t she be in the position the doctor is usually in, and thus the one charged?
If a woman takes the non-surgical abortion, does that mean she’s the one who will be charged?
Kushie, it IS real murder. However it is also an entire industry. It isn’t the women–who are in vulnerable positions, and lied to continuously about this so-called “right”–it is the doctors, the politicians, the activists who are perpetuating a destructive myth. Pregnant women aren’t criminals, obviously. Pregnant women who are told they have no REAL choice but to abort (since that is what “choice” is all about) should not be jailed.
I think capital punishment is also murder. Yet, many people do not. I don’t believe criminalizing women in vulnerable positions will help ANYONE. But anyone who claims abortion isn’t the vicious murder of a child is lying to themselves.
Hi KushielsMoon.
“How is someone who, according to my understanding of what antichoicers think, hires a “hitman” to “murder” their “child” supposed to be a victim?”
The hitman analogy is just that; an analogy. It conveys the idea that you pay someone to kill someone else. That is where the analogy stops, however. You are attempting to draw more out of the analogy than is there. It is easy to be cold and not involved when you hire a hitman to shoot someone from a thirty story building. You can even be in another country, and get a text message saying “Done” and that’s that. However, there is no analogous situation in abortion. yes, you are paying someone to kill someone else, but that someone else, rather than being thousands of miles away, is right there, living inside you and must be destroyed while inside you as you lay there watching and feeling it all happen. So you have very much taken the analogy too far I would say.
“Thank you for proving again that you don’t think abortion is the same as real murder.”
Suppose I, as well as all other pro-lifers, don’t really believe that abortion is murder. How does it follow that abortion really isn’t murder?
“Also, what if a woman performs her own abortion? Then wouldn’t she be in the position the doctor is usually in, and thus the one charged?”
Yes.
“If a woman takes the non-surgical abortion, does that mean she’s the one who will be charged?”
Yes. The real question is, if we as a society deem that an action should be made illegal, what is wrong with saying that if you partake in that action, then there will be consequences?
Often when someone breaks a law, there is the charge made, the conviction recorded, and then later the sentencing. It is at the sentencing point that judges can show compassion for women. If the judicial branch can condone the killing of innocent children, surely they could be compassionate to the women who are bullied, coerced, or otherwise railroaded into an abortion. I for one do not want to see jails full of post-abortive grieving women. Most pro-lifers feel the same way.
I hope these scare tactics have the opposite effect. I hope they rile up the issue for people, make them think, and bring them off the fence and over to our side of the backyard.
And Kushiels, your tac is curious. Do you suppose that we are going to roll over and embrace child-murder because you find a chink in our armor? Because we won’t. I’m in this for the long haul. Are you?
I really hate to have to say this, but this is one of the few areas in which opponents of unborn human rights are making more sense than supporters.
The argument that mothers (and presumably fathers) who kill or attempt to kill their unborn children should receive NO PUNISHMENT is absolutely preposterous. This is a major problem I have currently with our movement. The only way parents should be able to get away with killing their unborn children is if: 1) killing unborn children is NOT a crime (it is) or 2) it is, but they are somehow not responsible for their actions (they are). How then do we conclude that they are to receive no punishment for committing or attempting to commit a violent and lethal crime?
This represents another example of the unborn human “rights” movement not representing the unborn, but representing itself. We are essentially taking the position that we want to take rather than the one required by logic.
Everybody in our movement would prosecute parents for killing or attempting to kill an infant, a toddler, a little kid, a teenager, a 100 year old. Why should the unborn once again be treated with disrespect and lack of regard for their humanity? Do they or do they not deserve the same legal protection that all other human beings receive?
I have given this a great deal of thought over the years and I have come to the conclusion that you CANNOT protect the unborn effectively without prosecuting aggressively both sides of the criminal transaction.
Think of the implications and contradictions of this position. What opponents of prosecuting mothers are actually saying is that it should be LEGAL (!!!) for mothers to be able to kill their unborn children without the assistance of a criminal abortionist. This is beyond ridiculous and is of course anti-life, not pro-life. It gets worse. They would allow mothers legally to seek out the assistance of “professional” criminal abortionists, to contract with said professional killers, to pay them for their “services” and to assist them physically in the commission of the crime in which they are both involved, the crime of prenatal homicide. The ONLY thing which would be legally prohibited would be for the criminal abortionist to assist the mother in killing her child. Everything else would be completely “legal”.
How on earth can any thinking person call this “legal protection for the unborn”? This represents a tragedy and a farce. This “approach” to stopping the crime of prenatal homicide will cost hundreds of thousands of innocent children their lives so that guilty parents can get completely away with their crimes. If you are going to try to stop any crime you must prosecute and punish all those involved in the commission of said crime. There is no other way.
Clark Forsythe’s arguments are not credible. He correctly cites the unfortunate 19th and 20th century history in which mothers got away with killing their children but it does not follow that the tragically flawed strategies of the past should be followed in the future.
The best way to respond to abortionist pressure groups like NARAL is to make them defend the premise that there should be no penalties to enforce laws. Their position is clearly deceitful and dishonest and is designed purely for the sake of demagoguery and fearmongering, but they are doing us a favor by pointing out our needless irrationality in this area and helping us to support strong and effective actual full legal protection for unborn children.
How is someone who, according to my understanding of what antichoicers think…
(KushielsMoon, October 1st, 2010 at 11:42 am, bolding mine)
Maybe you should stop putting words into our mouths. I think that’s your first problem, right there.
I agree with you, Bobby. In fact, it angers me when people talk about the poor, vulnerable pregnant women who are nothing but the “victims” of controlling boyfriends and the abortion industry. It insults the intellegence of women in general. Over the years I’ve known several girls and women who’ve had abortions, unfortunately, and none of them could have been described this way. Yes, I know that there are many women whose abortion experience was like that, but many go in to abortion clinics confident that they’ve made the right decision for themselves. Women are not frail and weak and in need of PROTECTION from abortionists. They need to be EDUCATED about the scientific facts regarding fetal development and pregnancy.
They need to know that their situation is not unique, and that women survive unintended pregnancies and their children can flourish. They need to know that there will be support for them, even in the future when their child is older. It’s easy to give a mom some diapers and used baby clothes and pat yourself on the back for your generosity, but these women may need your help later on. When their baby grows up and needs school clothes. When he or she wants to join sports teams with expensive fees, when they become teenagers and want to take driver’s ed and go to college. I think many women think that abortion is the right choice because they look at a future as a single mom and don’t want to bring a child into a “poor” household. Every expectant parent wants to provide their child with the best life they can. We need to show them that the future is not so bleak, and that other options are available as well!
Sorry for the rant. Some of you might know that I got pregnant at 19 and chose to continue my pregnancy despite pressure from the father and my own parents to get an abortion. It was been a difficult journey, I won’t lie, but rewarding as well. I managed to finish college and get a Master’s degree as well. I was briefly married, not to my daughter’s father, but it did not work out. My lovely daughter just asked me last night for $400 for a class ring, and I’ve been trying to figure out a way to make it happen for her so I’m a little touchy today. I’ll get off my soapbox now.
Ninek:
The idea is not so much to have “jails full of post abortive grieving women” (although this will be necessary).
The whole idea is to prevent prenatal homicide by deterring hundreds of thousands of mothers a year from attempting to kill their unborn children through a real and credible threat of criminal prosecution and apprehending those who are not deterred by threat of prosecution and attempt to commit the crime anyway.
The whole point is to PREVENT the killing of human beings and the only way to do this to the fullest extent humanly possible is to have aggressive and vigorous prosecution of everyone involved in the attempted commission of this crime.
Women are in need of protection from those that benefit monetarily from abortion. The abortion industry preys on women in crisis by only offering the choice of abortion. Women should be protected from abortionists as their only purpose is to kill their child!!
Women deserve better than abortion.
But why are women so vulnerable and stupid when they walk into a pregnancy resource center??
If they ask if abortions are performed there and the answer is no do women not have the strength to turn around and walk out??
Joe,
By offering help and support and ultrasounds to pregnant women in crisis we will deter those that may be abortion vulnerable. Those that think their only choice is abortion need a hand that is held out to them in love, not aggressive and vigorous prosecution.
Also,
64% of abortions are coerced/forced. What of them, Joe? I know several women who were forced against their wills to abort their children.
When abortion is illegal again that will be a huge factor. A great majority of women will not seek out an abortion if it is illegal.
Exceptionally articulated, Joe. I agree. If the fear of consequences prevents one murder, one less murder, yes? I think it’s about time to reinstate consequences into our culture…..they seem to have gone missing.
Carla, I understand that you had an abortion because you felt forced. But your comment above, about women needing protection from abortionists, makes it sound like these people are sneaking into the homes of pregnant women while they are sleeping and performing abortions.
Plenty of women walk into abortion clinics and have their unborn babies killed by their own free will. Some do so without even telling the father. Some do it against the father’s wishes. Some do it so that they can finish school or advance their career or hide the fact that they are sexually active from their parents.
Again, I honestly believe that women do not need protection from abortionists, they need education. They need to be presented with the facts. They are killing a human being.
In the rare instance in which a mother was literally forced to kill her child against her will, she would be held blameless. If she were “coerced” or “pressured”, she would still be responsible for her actions, because it is extremely difficult to actually force someone to kill an unborn child. If she gave in and agreed to commit the crime, she would still be responsible as would those who pressured her into doing it.
To properly protect children, ALL those involved in the commission of the crime of prenatal homicide must be prosecuted and punished. This is what we do for ALL other crimes. Why should the unborn once again be relegated to second class citizenship?
The abortionists at NARAL are being their vicious and deceitful best when they engage in this type of fearmongering. This gives us a golden opportunity to refute their fallacies and to point out the weakness and emptiness of their “arguments”.
Isn’t the abortionist doing the actual killing? It is his job to dilate a cervix and kill a child.
I wasn’t forced. I was coerced. I didn’t want an abortion. I was told it was just a bunch of cells, that it was my best choice, that it is simple, easy and painless and I could get on with my life. Lies. All lies. In my fear I believed it all. I was also alone.
This thread makes me ill. Really. Lets round up the women and throw them in jail.
Aren’t abortionists and those that sell abortion and lie by omission complicit in the killing??!!
Anywhoo,…abortion is legal. Until it’s not, here we are. Trying to change the hearts of women who need real help and real alternatives, not killing.
Joe,
Forced abortion is not “rare.” Talk to the women I know that were held down and forcibly aborted.
Have I not yet taken “responsibility” for my abortion??
So you actually are prolife but you are advocating putting post abortive women in jail which is what the proaborts are saying we want??!!
Joe, Joe, Joe…
It is not difficult to strap a woman down to a table, naked, shoot her full of tranquilizer, and then, when she has changed her mind, when asks to be let off, when she says no, to reprimand her for moving around, to ask the assistant to help the doctor, and to blithely ignore her screams. It is not difficult at all, unfortunately. Talk to women. Talk to me. Where were all the feminists with their no means no then? Outside, arguing with the pro-lifers. Steinem can kiss my butt.
And really, what is to be gained putting a 13 year old in jail when her parents forced her to ‘abort or get out!’
Yes, women who are “post abortive”, which is a way of saying mothers who have killed their children, should be prosecuted and punished. Am I wrong? Should mothers who KILL their children get NO punishment whatsoever?
Don’t we punish mothers (and fathers) who kill their infants, toddlers, teenagers?
Don’t we punish men who rape women, even if psychologically driven to it after having been abused by a woman in their childhood?
Don’t we punish armed robbery, assault, shoplifting, trespass, fraud, arson, kidnapping, carjacking, auto theft, embezzlement, animal cruelty, child molesting and on and on?
Why should unborn children, alone of all human beings, be denied FULL legal protection?
If my arguments are faulty someone please explain how. I am simply arguing in favor of treating abortion crime, prenatal homicide, whatever you want to call it the same way we treat ALL other crimes. Is that really all that unreasonable?
Even anti-human pressure groups like NARAL support penalties to enforce laws, so their arguments are disingenuous and deceitful. They supported the dreadful FACE Act which provided for years in prison for sit ins in front of abortion killing facilities!
Every time the abortionists start this type of intellectually dishonest fearmongering we must make them defend the premise of their “argument” that it is wrong and bad to have penalties to enforce laws. In this way we can use NARAL to help us get rid of unsound thinking in our own movement and to expose the deceit, the lies, the fraud, the fallacies and the inhumanity of the “pro-choice” on killing human beings movement.
Women seeking abortion are LIED to, Joe. They are told it’s not a baby. You couldn’t lie to the mother of a BORN child of any age and tell her “It’s not a child, so it’s ok to kill it”. But since the pre-born baby is inside the mother, and she doesn’t SEE it (a lot of the time), it’s easier to tell her “It’s not a baby” and “disconnect” her emotions from her child. That’s what happened with my niece. She was scheduled for an ultrasound with her ob/gyn, but when she decided to go ahead and have an abortion, she didn’t want to see the sonogram, because she KNEW then she would have an emotional connection, and she was determined to go through with it. I did EVERYTHING I could to talk her out of it, INCLUDING offering to adopt the baby. She was so irrational in her determination at that point that nothing stopped her. That was two years ago. She now drinks to the point that her liver is in danger (according to her doctor), but she continues to punish herself for what she did. She thinks she DESERVES it. I have offered to get her post-abortive counseling, which she has refused. Do you REALLY think she deserves to be incarcerated, Joe? Seems she has made her own “prison”.
Joe,
Are you prolife?
I agree the criminal abortion movement and industry are vile, vicious, inhuman, uncaring and dishonest. They have a compulsive psychological need, I believe, to support and commit child killing. I am pained and distressed that we have people who support the killing of our fellow human beings, our children, living in the world. I wish everyone was nonviolent and compassionate and humanitarian. Believe me, I wish it were that way. However, we have to deal with the reality that these awful people will go on promoting these terrible crimes until we stop them. Only strong laws attacking prenatal homicide from all angles will stop the killing.
If we have strong laws that deter mothers from killing their children, from even trying, we will then save literally millions of mothers from having to go through the agony of realizing that the criminal abortionist lied to them and that they killed their precious child. Don’t you see, if we can deter mothers from killing their children it will actually be compassionate in the long run and save them an enormous amount of suffering?
The unborn human rights movement does an enormous disservice to the unborn by not supporting tough laws that attack both sides of this criminal transaction and provide FULL legal protection for our vulnerable and helpless children.
It is high time that the major unborn human rights organizations repudiated their flawed reasoning and supported FULL legal protection for the unborn by treating them as the legitimate members of the human family which they are, by treating them the way all other human beings are treated.
What is it about my support for FULL legal protection for unborn children that would cause anyone to question if I am pro-life?
My position is the true pro-life position.
Except for that compassion for women needing help part.
I think you are actually quite frightening, Joe.
I have compassion for all human beings and other life forms but I do support prohibiting crimes, all crimes, and providing appropriate criminal penalties when people break the law.
In what way is my argument wrong?
All I am advocating is treating the crime of prenatal homicide the same as all other crimes.
Bobby Bambino just affirmed that women who abort will be treated like criminals. Thank you. Len agrees with Bobby. Joe agrees that women who abort should be treated like criminals, as just Justlookingon. Thank you, all of you, for proving exactly what NARAL said. Antichoice passage of laws leads to treating women who abort like criminals.
Keli, I did not put words in your mouth. See that “according to my understanding” part?
Carla, you say that you know women who were forced to abort. Yet you also claim that women who enter a CPC and learn there are no abortions there are strong enough to just walk out. Why aren’t women also strong enough to just walk out of abortion clinics?
Kushiels Moon:
Women and men who KILL human beings, whether born or unborn, have committed crimes and therefore fit the definition of “criminal”. Is there anything about this you do not understand?
Instead of making an empty “argument” about how we would treat people who commit crimes as criminals, why don’t you prove, using logic, that killing us human beings in the first nine months of our lives and depriving us of our entire human lifespans does not violate our rights and is therefore not a crime.
It is absurd to “argue” against our position as you do, because it implies that it is wrong to treat crimes as crimes. If killing unborn children is a crime, should it not be treated as such?
All you have to do is prove killing us human beings in the unborn stage is not a crime. If it is, you have no case.
Kushiel’s Moon,
What do you mean “treated like criminals?” That’s pretty vague and not even a legal term.
If abortion is made illegal it would be against the law to obtain one, correct? And when one breaks the law one is charged with a crime, correct? I don’t see what the point would be in passing a law and not enforcing it. Or do you also think that women are so weak, vulnerable and feeble-minded that we can’t control our own behavior or know right from wrong? That we don’t even have the mental capacity to take responsibility for our own behavior?
I for one would be happy to see a personhood type of solution applied to the situation. If an unborn child is recognized properly as a person then the laws would apply equally to the child as to anyone else. However, a statute that recognizes the difficulties of applying a uniform, one size fits all approach would have to be developed.
In dealing with abortive mothers, as in all situations involving the untimely loss of human life, standards would have to be enacted into the code that take contributing factors under consideration that equally weigh compassion and justice. Someone has to advocate for the unborn and that mitigates against a mere slap on the wrist. It is a difficult situation.
Kushiel said:
Carla, you say that you know women who were forced to abort. Yet you also claim that women who enter a CPC and learn there are no abortions there are strong enough to just walk out. Why aren’t women also strong enough to just walk out of abortion clinics?
Kushiel, women at CPC’s are not DRUGGED! They are not STRAPPED DOWN! If they change their mind and decide to kill their child, they can walk out and go do that. CPC’s are places to get referrals and, depending on the CPC, material goods such as diapers, clothing, cribs, etc, and at some CPC’s a woman can even get an ultrasound. Your comments make me nauseous. Where were you when I changed my mind? Hmm? Where was my choice then, smarty pants? People like you are the reason I got active in the pro-life movement. Child murder has to stop. Women have to be educated about prenatal development and the long term effects of this dangerous, deadly procedure.
“Like lukewarm water, I spit you out of my mouth.”
My position, Kushiel, is that if abortion is made illegal, there would indeed be consequences for obtaining an abortion. However, just like any other crime, there are many many circumstances to be taken into consideration. We don’t just say “oh you had an abortion? 30 years in prison.” We have lived in nearly forty years of legal abortion which would be taken into consideration. Like ninek said, many women have been lied to and said that it is a blob of tissue or whatever. Those things would be taken into account. If it were made illegal tomorrow, there would be so much confusion that would ensue on the part of someone looking to obtain an abortion. So what is the punishment? Like any crime, it depends. It depends on a ton of factors, and it is much more complicated than probably any other crime at this point in time in the United States. Len said it perfectly.
Though it’s off topic, I came across this paper earlier regarding the lack of legal protections for women who give birth to babies conceived in rape.
http://www.georgetownlawjournal.com/issues/pdf/98-3/Prewitt.PDF
If NARAL’s the champion for reproductive and women’s rights then why aren’t they tackling problems such as this instead of helping to perpetuate and exacerbate them?
btw- There is no such thing as a “Catholic Democrat pro abort”. He is simply a Democrat pro abort.
And suppose I do “make NARAL’s point.” How is NARAL’s point good or compelling? Again, if we as a society deem that an action should be made illegal, what is wrong with saying that if you partake in that action, then there will be consequences, especially keeping in mind my previous post about looking at the circumstances and realizing that there is a lot of damage and confusion done by legal abortion?
Kushiel’s remarks remind me of a comment I heard about a rape case that was in the news years ago. One of my coworkers said, “Obviously she wasn’t raped. If she had been raped she would have fought harder and ended up in the hospital or dead. She must have wanted it.” Yes, you heard correctly. He said this as blithely as if he were describing a baseball game. She proves MY point: feminists and pro-choicers don’t care about women.
Bobby,
I agree that if abortion is made illegal, it needs to be punishable, though I would target the abortionist. 15 Years in prison, mandatory, for butchering a baby. If the mother will not give up the identity of the abortionist, then she can do the time. That oughta drain the swamp.
“That oughta drain the swamp.”
Yup.
Ok, I admit I stopped reading midway down, so sorry if this has been resolved and I’m off topic. I think the reality is somewhere between Carla and Joe, at least for now. If abortion is made illegal again, then we’ll be coming off a 30+ year period when it was perfectly legal to walk into an abortion mill and kill your child. In addition, that “right” has been propped up by an absolutely ferocious propaganda machine designed to convince women that (take your pick): it’s your bodily autonoy; it’s not a human being, it’s not a person; it’s a tough decision but the right decision, this is a perfectly legitimate way to make your life more convenient and get back on track. However, I agree that it’s insulting to women to treat them like they are all helpless victims of abortion. Education would be key for a period following a change in the law, and obviously, at all times, if a woman is forced to abort through threats of violence then her culpability is diminished (if not eliminated). But if abortion is made illegal it will be b/c we as a society have finally rightly recognized that this is the taking of a life. And women are not just victims of this act but active participants. I don’t see a logical reason why we would prosecute abortionists but not the mother. There are many many crimes which people commit out of desperation and many many criminals are extremely sympathetic (Battered women who kills their batterers in a non self-defense situation come to mind). But nowhere under our laws (especially with something as grave as murder) do we say that b/c we feel compassion for your plight that you are fully immune from responsibility under the law. As I said, I support a gradual increase in punishment over a period of time just b/c Carla is right that there has been 30 years of actively promoted misinformation geared toward making a woman feel comfortable choosing the lie. But even now a woman who asks her bf/husband to beat her to cause an abortion will stand trial for that (along with him). It’s nonsensical that she could have had a perfectly legal abortion with no one batting an eye. It would be MORE nonsensical if abortion were illegal, but sneaking off to an abortionist to kill your child relieved you of responsibility while trying to achieve the same end your self resulted in criminal charges. Just my two cents.
Joe and Bobby, I was not arguing that your position (given your political position) does not make sense.
My point was that Jill is saying NARAL was wrong. NARAL said: “if abortion is made a crime, then women will be treated like criminals.” Jill, in her post, claimed: “Of course NARAL knows, like we know, its ad and aforementioned statement are patently false.”
However, Joe and Bobby and Len and JustLookingOn and Gerald Nadal and CT all agree that women SHOULD be treated like criminals. Therefore, Jill’s claim that NARAL was wrong is wrong itself.
Ninek, my question was a question for Carla. It was *not* a statement of my beliefs about forced abortion. I was looking for Carla’s opinion, not stating one of my own.
Joe: “If my arguments are faulty someone please explain how. I am simply arguing in favor of treating abortion crime, prenatal homicide, whatever you want to call it the same way we treat ALL other crimes. Is that really all that unreasonable?”
I think the missing link here is the lack of recognition of the unique nature of pregnancy – the baby still contained within the mother. I don’t know if I can articulate what I mean, but I’ll try.
There seems to be two extremes: At one extreme, the unborn baby is not considered a “person” in her own right, because she is still contained within the mother, and not completely separated, and therefore the mother has the right to abort.
The other (although I agree that the baby is a person in her own right and ought to be protected in law) is that if the mother procures an abortion, she ought to be convicted for murder.
I don’t think either one of those scenarios is appropriate. The first doesn’t recognize the developing child as a life, and the second doesn’t take into consideration the unique nature of a woman…..the ability to carry a child within her own body, the emotions she goes through during pregnancy, the pressure to abort under particular circumstances, just to name a few.
I’m still not sure if I’ve articulated what I’m feeling, but that’s the best I can do right now. I think Joe is off-base and is being too absolute. Criminalizing the abortionist would be sufficient, and I think not criminalizing the mother can be logically defended.
I think Joe articulated his position very clearly, and his response does not cause me to question whether or not he is pro life. I will reiterate, there would need to be consequences for women who obtain illegal abortions. It would fall under the definition of ‘accomplice’. Like the person hiring a hit man in a murder-for-hire scheme.
One could argue however, that the real profiteers of abortion should receive the harshest penalty. I also agree with Gerard. Perhaps his suggestion is a better alternative.
The reason I like what Joe said is because it re-establishes consequences for wrong choices. And I still say, whatever prevents the murder of one child (within the context of the law, for Kushie so she doesn’t bring Scott Roeder into this) is worth considering.
I love babies. I love men and women. I don’t want to eliminate compassionate providing for women who are faced with untimely pregnancies, but before I worry about touchy feely things, I need to know the baby will be safe.
I am not sure that Jill is wrong. She has reiterated that in the past mothers were able to get away with responsibility for killing their unborn children. The major unborn human rights organizations (National Right To Life, Americans United For Life, etc.) have maintained that it will be that way again if and when prenatal homicide is treated as the crime that it is.
However, many of us cannot accept their logic and continue to insist that we must hold everyone accountable who involves themselves in any way in the killing of a human being, in this case an unborn child. We do not do this because we lack compassion for women (or men) but because we want to make sure that all human beings, including the helpless unborn, have the full protection of the law.
The only way effectively to protect unborn children (and the protection must be effective not just window dressing) is to make it impossible for abortionists to operate through aggressive police enforcement and by organizing a vast army of pro-life volunteers who will go undercover to flush out criminal activity.
On the other side we must deter mothers from even thinking about killing their unborn children through threat of criminal prosecution and then have a well organized strategy of interception and apprehension for those mothers who are not deterred to make certain that their children are safe.
I wish we did not have to do any of this (actually I wish we did not have to do this sort of thing with regard to any crime – I wish crime did not exist), but given the realities of human nature we will have to do all of these things, I believe, if we are serious about stopping the killing of unborn children. All of these things, after all, are done to protect us from violence. Why should not helpless unborn children be able to enjoy the same level of legal and actual physical protection that we ourselves enjoy? And we at least are able to protect ourselves from attack to a certain extent, which is something of which they are completely incapable.
I want to take this opportunity to call upon all pro-life, all unborn human rights organizations and leaders to start supporting full legal protection for unborn children from attack by all persons under all circumstances in every way it is possible to protect them.
Providing children with protection from criminal abortionists while leaving them completely exposed to lethal physical attack at the hands of their parents is completely unjust and unworkable.
The ONLY way to FULLY protect unborn human children is to prohibit mothers from killing them themselves, prohibit mothers from hiring criminal abortionists to help kill them, prohibit criminal abortionists from accepting the contract and doing the actual killing and prohibit fathers, grandparents, friends and others from aiding and abetting in any way the killing of the unborn child.
This the true pro-life and true legal protection of unborn children position.
So NARAL is right and prolifers want to put women in jail.
Well the majority of prolifers on this thread anyway.
Got it.
Again Joe I have to ask
How will you HELP and SUPPORT mothers in an unplanned pregnancy?
TRUTH
If abortion had been illegal I never would have considered it.
Carla,
Your challenge to Joe sounds eerily familiar to the ‘dead babies r us’ folks mantra, “How many children have you adopted?”
It is a non-sequitur.
Joe is not required to help pregnant women to hold the pro-life view.
I believe we all know your heart.
I believe you would be just as caring, compassionate and concerned even if you were NOT a post abortive mom because that is the way GOD wired you.
As a post abortive father of a now dead son I have to confess that I was complicit in the homicide.
I gave the mother of my child the money to pay the abortionist to have him killed.
In the state of Texas there is no statue of limitations for murder.
The only thing that protects from me from prosecution is that it was ‘legal’ to do so.
But even that defense is weak. The Nuremberg trials established that men could still be held accountable for their actions, even if it was ‘legal’ at the time they committed them.
If we excuse or make exceptions for women who have freely chosen to kill their prenatal child, then we are implicity declaring that women are inherently inferior to men. (I do not for a moment believe that.)
We are also violating the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment to the constitution.
We are turning the basis for our justice system on it’s head. Which says no preference/deference shoud be shown to the strong over the weak or the weak over the powerful. Justice is supposed to be blind to these things. (These are biblically based principles. Read Proverbs)
The law and the facts should determine the verdict.
This is why we have a legal system with judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors and jurys of our peers.
If my conviction and execution for being complicit in the murder of my pre-natal child would put an end to this barbarism I would willingly except that punishment.
There are serveral different classifications of homicid. ‘Murder’ is only one of them. The ‘facts’ of the individual case determine which one would apply.
“the emotions she goes through during pregnancy, the pressure to abort under particular circumstances”
I believe this is one of the mindsets that needs changing. Not to downplay in any way the emotions women go through during pregnancy but men also go through emotions during an unplanned pregnancy (although in different ways). Their feelings have been all but forgotten in the abortion wars because “it’s her body.” Even if he is willing to raise the child alone, he has zero say in whether the baby lives or dies. If I were a prolife man, I would be so angry and heartbroke over this mindset.
I believe legalized abortion has greatly widened the circumstances which women are pressured to abort. This pressure needs to change. Stigmas about women need to change. Women are disrespected more than ever in part due to abortion which has further objectified us. The bar needs to be raised for both men and women and I believe there needs to be some accountability by both genders. After all, both people participated in what led to pregnancy and are equally responsible. To say any less is to keep women down. If the father supports/pressures/knows about the aborting of their child, there should be consequences for him too. Rape is a whole different issue and we expect these men to be held held accountable so I’m not sure why we would expect zero accountability for those involved in what we know to be murder.
Education really is the key. The tons of money poured into the killing mills and sex ed progams that are just more of the problem needs to be channeled into places that will help men and women move through unplanned pregnancy and carry over into the joys of parenting. Places and programs that support not shame. Programs that talk to young people about the dignity of their bodies, teach them ways to stand up to peer pressure but also talk of the importance of taking responsibility for their actions.
When you ask a woman WHY she is thinking about abortion you can address those issues and help her choose life. It happens everyday outside abortion clinics and at PRC’s.
Ken,
I will accept whatever punishment is handed down to me as well. Although what I have been through in my recovery I consider hell on earth. I wouldn’t mind seeing you in jail with me my brutha.
I am asking a simple question of Joe. Where is his compassion for women in crisis? You can be prolife and not lift a finger to help. I see that all the time too.
Joe claims he holds the true prolife view. I disagree.
PS I guess I am more than tired of reading that I have not taken responsibility for my abortion.
Team Carla.
There’s a true crime book by Ann Rule called If You Really Loved Me, in which a man convinces his teenage daughter that her stepmother is a danger to the family and they have to kill her. His theory is that his daughter should be the one who actually does it, because she’s a teenager and she’ll get sentenced to less time. He spends months brainwashing her and telling her all these lies about her stepmother, to the point where she really believes that she has no choice but to kill her. She does it and ends up sentenced to a juvenile facility; once she’s spent some time out from under her father’s influence and can see the situation more clearly, she realizes he was lying and gets in touch with the police. He ends up convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
A lot of girls and women who are pregnant in less than ideal circumstances are like that girl in that they’re being fed a bunch of lies while in a vulnerable state and convinced that they have no other choice. The girl in the book tries to come up with ways they can “stop” her stepmother without killing or hurting her, but each time her father has a reason why her idea won’t work. If they say Z, the authorities won’t believe them. If they do Y, their stepmother will still be able to get revenge on them. It’s a non-stop littany of why she has no choice but to kill her stepmother, and her father tells her that if she really loved him, she’d do it.
The non-stop littany for some women and girls starts before they’re even pregnant. “Seventeen years old and having a baby – oh, your cousin is just ruining her life. And she was always the smart one in that family.” “If I ever get pregnant, I’d get an abortion, because I’m not going to end up living in the ghetto on welfare.” Et cetera, et cetera. It’s an entire mindset.
Feeling like you have no choice and being presented with only one choice(abortion)hardly equals choice.
Team Marauder,
Wow. Are you saying that is a true story?
Joe
The women who regret their abortions, such as Carla, are already “punished” when they learn the truth about abortion. Their grief, their emotions, etc…..
They should NOT be treated like criminals.
Its the abortionist that does the deed, the actual killing.
Please listen to what Carla is saying because what you are saying is that SHE and other women who regret their abortions should be jailed. NO PRO LIFE person would EVER agree with that!
“Feeling like you have no choice and being presented with only one choice(abortion)hardly equals choice.”
Nice logic. I guess if I feel I had no choice in robbing and shooting a gas station clerk, because I really, really needed the money, then I should get off scot-free since *sniff sniff* I felt like it was the only choice I had, and *sob sob* I already feel so guilty about what I did, being a poor, grieving, post-homicidal woman and all. If you and others here really feel that abortion is murder, then women who partake in that “murder” of their own free will deserve to be treated like any other murderer or accomplice to murder. Or, after declaring abortion to be illegal and an act of murder across the land, would you carve out a single exception to murder laws for the poor, stupid women who can’t possibly think for themselves when soliciting an abortion–now an act of first-degree, intentional homicide?
Carla October 2nd, 2010 at 8:57 am
Ken,
Although what I have been through in my recovery I consider hell on earth. I wouldn’t mind seeing you in jail with me my brutha.
===============================================================
Carla,
The ‘hell on earth’ has been the prison and though we did not recognize each other we were fellow inmates.
We may both live long enough to come into the season where we will be counted worthy to suffer for righteousness sake, for the name of Christ and for the kingdom of God.
The same increasingly abundant and amazing grace which has brought us safe this far will still be sufficent to lead us home.
Our respective children whom have preceded us to the palace of the KING will be waiting for us with open arms and longing hearts (like Joseph was waiting for his brethren), for they know the TRUTH and HE has set them free from the lie as surely as HE has set us free from penalty of our sin.
From the dungeon a rumor is stirring.
You have heard it again and again.
But this time the cell keys are turning,
and outside there are faces of friends.
And though your body lay weary from wasting,
and your eyes show the sorrow they’ve had.
Oh the love that your heart is now tasting
has opened the gate, Be Ye Glad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCle-iTWyVU
Woman, where are the ones who condemn you? Yours sin, past, present and future is forgiven. Go your way and sin no more.
Rom 8:1-3 Therefore, [there is] now no condemnation (no adjudging guilty of wrong) for Carla who is in Christ Jesus.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life [which is] in Christ Jesus [the law of our new being] has freed Carla from the law of sin and of death.
3 For God has done what the Law could not do, [its power] being weakened by the flesh [the entire nature of Carla without the Holy Spirit]. Sending His own Son in the guise of sinful flesh and as an offering for Carla’s sin, [God] condemned Carla’s sin in the flesh [subdued, overcame, deprived it of its power over Carla because she has accepted that sacrifice], [Lev 7:37.] AMP
Be ye glad, be ye glad, be ye glad.
Joan,
Your comment shames itself.
Ken,
That is one of my favorite worship songs. The reunion with my three babies in heaven will be beyond my imagining. Be ye glad.
Indeed.
No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg. Abortion is a tragic attempt to escape a desperate situation by an act of violence and self-loss.
-Frederica Matthewes-Green
Thank you Liz!! :)
Carla,
No, your comment shames itself!
Wow, that’s an easy way to rebut an argument without actually rebutting it. I’m gonna have to use that.
I choose who I interact with here on this site. I was addressing Marauder btw but go ahead and keep ranting, Joan.
Ask yourself WHY you get in such a snit when I talk about my abortion, Joan. Your reaction to what I am writing is YOUR problem not mine.
How is that bitterness and rage working for ya?
Really? You were using my name to address someone else? Oh, yeah, I do that all the time.
Joan, I saw your comment to Carla and it was completely out of line as well as factually inaccurate.
Carla, I just have to say that you are a ray of light here. Thank you for speaking about how your (1) abortion hurt you, and your story about discovering the truth about what you had done when you miscarried a later child. Speaking the truth will always cause those with rage and bitterness to spew hatred at you simply for speaking out.
Keep talking, Carla. Don’t ever, ever stop.
Carla: Yep, true story, scarily enough.
Joan, do you think you’re doing anything here to help advance your beliefs or change anyone’s mind?
I am here to speak truth to power.
Joan: Ha ha ha ha. The only thing you pro-aborts speak are slogans, cliches, and excuses.
Excuses? Oh, you mean stuff like “even though I think abortion is murder I don’t think women should be held accountable for committing that particular type of murder because they are too weak and stupid to know better and they feel like they have no other choice”.
Carla,
It’s rare that I disagree with you (and I have the utmost respect for you), but I find I really do here. I don’t discount the hell you have been through and from a forgiveness/repentance standpoint I don’t think there is any suffering on your part that you have to endure for God’s sake. God forgives us long before we forgive ourselves. However, you want abortion to be illegal – a crime – but to operate differently than any other criminal statute in that only one participant in the act should be culpable under the law. For the other participant it’s enough punishment that she feels guilty. Nowhere is it the case that if one who participates in an act society deems criminal feels guilty about that participation, that’s punishment enough. And what if she doesn’t feel guilty. You said if you had been shown the truth you wouldn’t have had an abortion. What of the women who would? There are women who choose abortion – freely. And if we are ever lucky enough to have abortion recognized as criminal, there will come a point past which the “I didn’t know and anyway, it’s legal” argument will cease to hold as much weight as it does now (see my comment above – I don’t discount the propaganda machine involved here). My point is that these subjective factors that affect culpability typically get taken into account in charging/sentencing. Nowhere in our system do we have a criminal law that holds one actor completely blameless. The only broad categorical exception is for children under a certain age who are deemed incapable of forming intent. I don’t think we want to or should create that kind of categorical exception for women. They are functioninig adults who are capable of making decisions and being held accountable for them. Coercion and the degree to which it was present will serve to lessen culpability as it already does now under other laws and obviously actively being forced against ones will to commit the act will eliminate culpability – again..as it does now. There’s no reason for an abortion law to be some sort of anomaly in they system.
I know this is already long but I want to say one final thing about the term “treating someone like a criminal.” I think women who abort in a situation where abortion is illegal will be criminal in the literal sense of having violated a criminal statute and being subject to the jurisdiction of the state. What the NARAL ad and Kushiels and you seem to be implying is some sort of judgment and treatment beyond that – a sort of “you are less worthy” stigma. To say that criminal statutes should carry a penalty for those who violate them is not to lack compassion for the many factors that drive people to commit these acts or to view them as defined by the label “criminal”. It just means you chose a path society has prohibited in this case and there are consequences for that choice commensurate with the degree of your voluntary participation.
CT,
When and if abortion becomes illegal then the number of women choosing abortion would be greatly reduced. I would hope and pray that society as a whole understand the desperation of a woman in need of resources to carry her child to term and stand to offer what she needs. The women given ALL information(fetal development, ultrasound, risks etc)that choose an illegal abortion anyway would be complicit. The abortionist, when caught I would imagine punished as well. I have no problem with that. Pre Roe I believe 2 women were charged.
What of me? My abortion was 20 years ago. I paid for a dead baby and I got one.
Abortion was legal in 1990 as it is today.
It is hard for me to argue things that may or may not happen in the future. I can hardly be objective when it comes to me and the thousands of men and women like me who have been hurt by legal abortion.
What choice does a 13 year old girl have when coerced(move out or get an abortion)or forced by her parents, Joan??
I am here to speak truth to power.
Let me know when you are ready to start.
“Let me know when you are ready to start.”
Hahaha… BAM!
” I can hardly be objective”
Agreed.
“Let me know when you are ready to start.”
Let me know when you are ready to listen.
Yeah. I’ll let you know.
Joan makes a good point; let’s not dump on her.
We really do have to hold everybody accountable for their actions, especially when they have committed or attempted to commit crimes. This isn’t a lack of compassion, sympathy or understanding. I think it represents true compassion to protect everyone, especially helpless unborn children, from violence. It is also compassionate to hold people accountable for and punish them for their crimes because what we are trying to do, in addition to protecting the potential victims of crime, is to save people from the spiritual damage they do to themselves when they hurt other human beings, especially their own children. We are trying to save the perpetrators as much as the victims and doing it on a spiritual level.
Strong laws, vigorously enforced and applying to everyone will help save millions of women and men from having to endure the suffering and sorrow that Carla (and Ken) have had to endure for the last twenty years, as well as of course saving millions of children from a violent death.
My support for strong statutes protecting unborn children from anyone who might try to harm them is about as pro-life as you can get. A pro-life person is someone who supports full legal protection for our unborn children.
Carla, whether or not I am involved in giving help to anyone in this area or any other area is a whole separate question and not relevant to whether or not my support for strong protection for unborn children is the right position to take.
It was an honest question Joe.
I can be as concerned for preborn children as I am for the women that carry them.
Carla, the legality of abortion would not affect my eagerness to see that women facing crisis pregnancies get the help they need. I want that now and I would want it then too and do everything I could to make it happen (as I do now to the best of my ability). However, not having what they need would still not make abortion an acceptable choice (as I know you would never argue).
I’m not sure what you’re asking when you say “what of me?” If you’re asking whether I would be ok with you facing punishment had abortion been illegal, then in a general sense – yes, I would expect the law to apply to you w/ the question of whether you had the required intent etc depending on the wording of the statute. Would I create a grandfather clause to punish you now? No. As I said, I personally would favor a gradual implementation of punishment under any criminal abortion statute. Like you said, it’s hard to discuss particulars when we’re talking about statutes that haven’t been written yet, but as a principle, if you’re going to exert the state’s power to criminalize an act, then all actors should bear responsibility under the law. Discretion for individual circumstances will be relevant in charging/sentencing and I would not be surprised to see very few prosecutions under these statutes except for people doing it to make a point in protest (and we know those wackos are out there). As a practical matter I doubt you’d see either widespread prosecutions or harsh sentences for women.
Just FYI for whoever posted this above – In most states (I would say all, but I am not 100% sure) there is no such thing as “accomplice liability” if you act as an accomplice, you’re charged for the offense. If you hire a hitman you’re charged with murder. If you drive the getaway car, you’re charged with robbery etc. If you act only after the fact to help then usually the charge is obstruction of justice. Prior to that, there is no distinction.
I totally understand what you are saying. I thank you for your patient and respectful response.
Forgive me if I have been short with you. My passion runs away with me at times. I am just one of millions of post abortive mothers and fathers.
Just to pick your brain a bit….if Roe were overturned wouldn’t that return abortion to the states to decide? Many would move to make it illegal in their state. Some would make it legal? Am I right in assuming that?
Oooh. Just found this.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_APAR.pdf
You would not have to have “harsh sentences” for mothers or even criminal abortionists. I favor much lighter sentences for criminal abortion than criminal murder, even though they are fundamentally the same crime and have the same result. This is because in most instances the people involved in killing the unborn child believe they are doing nothing wrong or what they are doing, while wrong, is less wrong than murder.
However, we will simply have to have “widespread prosecutions”. This is because we are trying to save the lives of as many children as possible. This means we must deter mothers from even trying to kill their children (through credible threat of criminal prosecution) and above all else, we must try to apprehend as many mothers as is humanly possible, who are not deterred and who are attempting to kill their unborn children.
If we do not apprehend these mothers and if we do not hold them in jail while awaiting the birth of their children and while awaiting trial, we literally cannot stop them from going out and making another attempt to take the lives of their children.
We MUST arrest mothers who are seeking the “services” of a criminal abortionist, because if we do not, I see no way of protecting their children. We will be giving each mother every opportunity to find someone, a professional killer, who will take their child’s life and there will be nothing that we can do to prevent this. This would simply not provide unborn children with the legal and physical protection that they need and deserve.
This much is absolutely clear: if we are to be successful in actually stopping the killing of unborn children, we MUST treat abortion crime the same way we treat all other crimes. There is simply no rational alternative.
joan
October 2nd, 2010 at 2:36 pm
I am here to speak truth to power.
———————————
So we pro-lifers are in power now? That’s nice to know!
If we do not apprehend these mothers and if we do not hold them in jail while awaiting the birth of their children and while awaiting trial, we literally cannot stop them from going out and making another attempt to take the lives of their children.
Wow. I am not sure what to say to that except that most proaborts accuse us of wanting to do this very thing. “Filling the jails with pregnant women.”
I don’t believe this was how it was in 1972.
Carla,
No need to apologize! I understand it’s an emotional issue. I can’t see the link b/c my computer is being stupid about downloading it, but you’re right. If Roe and its progeny were overturned, the issue would return to the states. Many states would keep it legal. Some would move to make it illegal to varying degrees (I imagine nearly all would include exceptions for rape/incest/life of the mother and unfortunately probably a good number for fetal defect as well). Some might make moves to enshrine or forbid it in their constitutions. So Roe is step 1 of …..countless. I still support overturning it both b/c it’s an affront to legal reasoning and b/c the issue rightly belongs at the state level, but not for a minute do I think that the real fight right now is not on the street – trying to educate people/change hearts/help women see their other options. As a principle though, I think any state that does enact a criminal law punishing abortion, needs to apply it to all parties responsible (including the father if he’s involved).
Joe,
I believe a law certainly needs to allow for widespread prosecutions in that women who abort can be tried, but in practice (as in the past) I don’t really see there being widespread prosecution for a variety of reasons. My thought is that having it available as a tool to (as Gerard Nadal said) force women to testify against abortionists etc will be the way it’s more often used in addition to prosecutions of flagrant violators. I see what you’re saying about the need to treat abortion as the crime it is (and agree). But coming off 30 years (or more if/when the time ever comes) where the law allowed you to kill your unborn child at will at any time for any reason, I don’t think it’s practical to immediately prosecute to the full extent of the law. If you did the response would probably be widespread jury nullifaction which would breed disrespect and be a setback.
Carla,
you said:
“The women given ALL information(fetal development, ultrasound, risks etc)that choose an illegal abortion anyway would be complicit. The abortionist, when caught I would imagine punished as well. I have no problem with that”
I, too, have much respect for you. I also agree that women must be given all the information that you have listed so there is no doubt that she is aware of what she is doing. Only then can she be named an accomplice in her child’s murder, and then there should be a just punishment. It should be particularly harsh for the abortionist in order to be enough of a deterrent to outweigh anything they would gain from illegally performing the procedure. Hopefully and ideally the fact that it would be illegal would be enough of a deterrent for most women. I don’t think post abortive women would be jailed due to the fact that they did not break any law.
I don’t want to see women in jail. I want them to stop killing their babies. Laws are only deter crime when the penalty is enforced.
It wasn’t that way in 1972.
That is why 600,000 human beings in the unborn stage lost their lives to violence that year.
Jury nullification itself can be nullified by keeping in jail while awaiting trial mothers who have attempted to kill their unborn children and have been apprehended and criminal abortionists who have established themselves as a deadly danger to the lives of human beings. Even if not convicted, they will still be prevented from committing crimes against children and punished for their attempted crimes.
The unborn human rights movement has to decide whether or not it actually wants to stop the killing of unborn children or just talk about stopping this terrible crime.
I do not have a problem with sending to jail parents who kill or attempt to kill their own children. I do not like to send any human being to jail, but given the realities of human nature, this is what you have to do if you are to protect human beings, born and unborn, from being the victims of crime. Killing children is a horrendous crime and simply has to be treated as such. There have been instances in the last few years, I believe in South Carolina and Texas, of mothers who killed lots of their born children. No one argued that they should not be punished for their crimes.
Why does anyone insist on treating the helpless innocent unborn as somehow less deserving of protection from violence than the rest of us? Are their lives not every bit as valuable as ours? I would expect opponents of unborn human rights to make this type of “argument”. But why would anyone who supports unborn human rights, including some of our major pro-life organizations, want to argue that parents should get completely away with killing or attempting to kill their own children?
I believe that our movement does a grave disservice, no a grave injustice, to our unborn children, the very future of our race, when we refuse to treat their killing or attempted killing as a real crime and when we refuse to provide them the same protection that we demand for ourselves and other human beings already born.
One of the other problems I see with prosecuting women who have abortions is that it would make them a lot less likely to seek medical attention if the abortion was botched. And unless they knew they’d get immunity, it would make them less likely to turn over abortionists to the authorities.
Personally, I’d like to see it be a crime to A) perform an abortion, B) arrange an abortion for a third party, or C) assist in a third party’s abortion in any way, shape or form. That way you could convict not only the abortionists but also the parents who made their teenage daughters get abortions, the abortion advocates who helped someone find an abortionist, anyone providing or promoting “home abortions”, people manufacturing equipment to perform abortions, et cetera. I think it would do a lot for deterrence without punishing girls and women who felt as though they had no other options.
Do you have a source for that Joe? 60,000 abortions in 1972? How can that be verified if abortion was illegal?
Does anyone else have a problem with filling the jails with pregnant women when abortion is illegal again? Just wondering. If I am the only one, I am fine with that. :) The cheese stands alone.
Please do not think for one minute I do not value the lives of the preborn, Joe. You simply have no idea of the work I do on behalf of them and their mothers.
justlookingon,
Thank you.
I haven’t managed to read all the comments (that would have taken hours I believe), but from what I’ve read, I made up my mind and here’s my opinion. I think both extreemes (inprisonment for everyone involved in abortion/no punishment for abortion) are wrong. In a sensitive case like that there needs to be a golden middle. And here’s what I mean.
1. Like someone already pointed out, there would have to be LOTS of education to reverse the years and years of lies. The lie of “It’s YOUR body” (let them learn all medical data about how unique and separate is the baby right from the start), the lie of “it’s not a baby yet, it doesn’t have a heartbeat, it’s just a blob of tissue”, the lie of “abortion is painless and without consequences, you can go back to your normal life afterwards” and so many more lies. Doesn’t take much, just basic medical facts, fetal development facts and readily available ultrasounds in all CPC’s, and medical establishments. All the money pumped to PP, should be given to existing and new CPC’s and similar establishments, helping women with all their financial/material/emotional/psychological needs in unexpected pregnancies.
2. Grave punishments to any doctor/nurse/person for performing abortions and a national helpline/information line to report any suspected/actual abortion activity . Years and years in prison would definitely deter most of the doctors from doing illegal abortions. And when it’s left to the mothers, I’m absolutely positive not very many of them would attempt abortion on themselves (especially, if there was a wide net of support provided).
3. As to punishing the mothers for abortion/attempt there should be a discernment. I think the person who performs the abortion should be punished, but if it happens so that woman herself harms her body with intention to abort a baby, then yes, she should be persecuted. All other post-abortive women (who went to a doctor performing illegal abortions and were probably lied to by him in order to get her pay for the procedure) should receive counselling and education.
Obviously, there are such a vast number of different situations, that they cannot be all covered, and would take a lot of time to figure out the system that is compassionate enough to women in crisis but tough enough to cut down illegal abortions, but my main idea is that the person who performs/attempts abortion, should be persecuted, but not the mother (unless she performs abortion on herself).
Marauder
October 3rd, 2010 at 7:55 am
Personally, I’d like to see it be a crime to A) perform an abortion, B) arrange an abortion for a third party, or C) assist in a third party’s abortion in any way, shape or form.
Excellent point!!!
There were 600,000 legal abortions in 1972. New York, California, Washington, Colorado, many other states were allowing it to a greater or lesser extent. Large numbers of people were going to New York to kill their unborn children. The numbers there alone were something like 250,000 a year in 1971 and 1972.
The argument about mothers being less likely to seek medical attention doesn’t justify letting them get away with a violent crime. Many people are injured every year trying to commit (or committing) murder, rape and armed robbery crimes and many of them are understandably afraid to seek medical attention. Is this a good argument in favor of either legalizing those crimes or letting them get away with committing them? Of course not.
The possibility of injury during the commission of a crime is an unhappy reality of life. You might say it “comes with the territory”, so to speak. It is a very good argument in favor of not committing crimes, but not for allowing people to commit crimes. Again we are here treating unborn children as not fully human, because we would not make this type of argument for any crime committed against born humans from infants all the way to senior citizens.
In addition, if you have the threat of likely prosecution of mothers if they even attempt to kill their unborn children, hundreds of thousands of them will be deterred. This will not only save hundreds of thousands of children’s lives, but will save hundreds, possibly thousands of their mothers from being injured and dozens from being killed. It is precisely to save these mothers from this physical damage to themselves that you must deter them and apprehend those who are not deterred. It is precisely in the situation in which you do NOT provide for the deterrence of and apprehension of mothers that you will get hundreds of thousands more children killed, hundreds of thousands more mothers doing themselves psychological and spiritual damage and hundreds, maybe thousands of women injuring or even killing themselves.
The only way to stop injuries to mothers is to stop the killing of unborn children in the first place. The only way to do that is to deter and apprehend mothers before they can commit the crime. I virtually guarantee you will have more mothers killing their children, more mothers injured and more mothers killed if you allow them to commit abortion crimes and get away with those crimes, than if you make the strongest possible effort to stop them through deterrence and apprehension, thereby saving both mother and child.
Anybody else out there want to help me promote these ideas on what we have to do to stop the killing of unborn children? I believe it is critically important to get our movement to accept the necessity of having strong and effective laws to protect unborn children. I don’t want to have to carry the ball on every down.
Joan, pay attention to Marauder’s posts. You put words in my mouth. Women aren’t weak and stupid. But we are LIED to continuously, and because it’s easier to dehumanize our unborn babies, we allow ourselves to be duped, for the sense of relief, instead of doing what is RIGHT. So I believe we should punish abortionists, not women who are told that abortion is the only choice for them. What do you pro-aborts offer women in crisis pregnancies? Abortion, period. AND you tell them it is their RIGHT. Slogans, cliches, excuses. SO: What YOU are saying (if I may put words in YOUR mouth now) is that women are intelligent, sensitive, thinking souls who cannot recognize a baby when they see one, even though an eight year old can look at an ultrasound and recognize a baby. And, furthermore, even though the woman KNOWS she’s already a mother to a baby, she believes she has SO much power and importance that she can decide if her own child lives or dies. Give me a break. Nobody wins in abortion. Anyone who runs a clinic, and anyone who performs abortions, and anyone who makes money off of lies and blood is a criminal. Perhaps we should help women NOT get pregnant, instead of telling them (and then celebrating) the killing of their children. Joan, you’ve got a lot of thinking to do. You have said nothing that supports any logical conclusion that abortion IS a right and IS okay. All you have are lies.
I also agree with others that it will take years to educate and unbrainwash (debrainwash?) our society. Although I sympathize with prolife men whose children have been killed, there seem to have been so few men who were/are willing to support the women they impregnated. This would have kept abortion illegal in the first place. It also seems that a high number of women who abort are coerced by the father.
Joe, you state, “In addition, if you have the threat of likely prosecution of mothers if they even attempt to kill their unborn children, hundreds of thousands of them will be deterred.” You seem to be forgetting the other person who is responsible in unplanned pregnancies. If the father is not supporting and/or is pressuring the mom to abort, should he be jailed as well?
I believe men, women and children suffer because of legalized abortion. But as a woman, I see how women are abused at a much higher rate than men (emotionally, physically, sexually, mentally). One just has to look at how PP covers up the rape of young teens. The men abusing these children are not held accountable. Unfortunately, it is not just men covering up these rapes. Women are covering up rapes of girls too and these women should be help accountable as well. It is outrageous! Where are the vocals who were upset (rightly so!) about the male pedophiles raping boys in the Catholic church? This was all over the news but PP is still covering up rapes and killing children.
Many systems need to change and I think PP is the best place to start. Jailing those who do the abortions or give out the abortion pills (men or women) for financial profit will greatly reduce abortion. Jailing rapists and those who protect them needs to happen as well. Only after years of education and jailing the ‘big dogs’ could we consider jailing the moms — and the dads.
If you only jail the “big dogs”, you will cost hundreds of thousands of children their lives over the course of many years. Too high a price to pay for a fatally flawed strategy.
The ONLY way to save the maximum possible number of human lives is to attack both sides of the criminal transaction. This is the reality that we face.
Additionally, you must go after the mother in those situations in which she has killed the child herself. In these instances there would be no “big dog” to go after.
“But we are LIED to continuously, and because it’s easier to dehumanize our unborn babies, we allow ourselves to be duped, for the sense of relief, instead of doing what is RIGHT.”
Boo hoo. Every criminal has some sob story about how society has done them wrong, and how they were justified in doing what they did. If abortion is murder, then you need to own up to that and treat women of sound mind who have procured an abortion, entirely of their own free will, as murderers. It necessarily follows logically.
“So I believe we should punish abortionists, not women who are told that abortion is the only choice for them.”
This is logically equivalent to: “I believe we should punish hitmen, but not people who are told that hiring a hitman is the only choice for them.”
“What do you pro-aborts offer women in crisis pregnancies?”
Are these women, who have fallen pregnant entirely because of their own freely taken actions, owed something that other people in desperate situations aren’t? When was the last time you heard someone saying that people who hold up liquor stores because they’re broke should be coddled by society, have their actions excused because circumstances put them in a bad situation, and given resources to deter them from future participation in “crisis liquor store robberies”? Either an abortion is murder or it isn’t. If it is then a woman who intentionally has an abortion performed on her is a murderer. If she isn’t, then abortion is not murder. Make up your mind. You can’t have it both ways.
“What YOU are saying (if I may put words in YOUR mouth now) is that women are intelligent, sensitive, thinking souls who cannot recognize a baby when they see one, even though an eight year old can look at an ultrasound and recognize a baby. ”
What I’m saying is that the entire idea that abortion is or should be considered “murder” is ludicrous to begin with and I’m showing that even the people here agitating for it to be made illegal don’t want it actually treated as a crime for the critical participant involved: the mother who is intentionally seeking an abortion. This is sexist because it treats pregnant women as necessarily less culpable for their actions than other “murderers”.
“Anyone who runs a clinic, and anyone who performs abortions, and anyone who makes money off of lies and blood is a criminal.”
… but not the women intentionally utilizing these criminal services! Heavens no! They’re just too stupid and brainwashed to realize that they’re committing murder and therefore shouldn’t be held responsible for it.
“Perhaps we should help women NOT get pregnant, instead of telling them (and then celebrating) the killing of their children.”
Oh, okay, tell it to the Opus Dei types here who think contraception is horribly immoral and should be against the law too.
“You have said nothing that supports any logical conclusion that abortion IS a right and IS okay. All you have are lies.”
That’s probably because whether abortion is a right (it is, and is constitutionally recognized as such) and whether it is “okay” (subjective and irrelevant) have nothing to do with this discussion.
As for logical conclusions, here, try this one on for size and tell me how it fits:
1. Abortion is murder
2. A person of sound mind who intentionally performs or has an act of murder performed on their behalf is a murderer
3. A woman of sound mind who has voluntarily had an abortion is necessarily a murderer if 1 and 2 are correct
4. Persons should be uniformly punished within the confines of the law, or the law is not being fairly applied and justice has not been served
Ergo, a woman of sound mind who has intentionally had an abortion performed on her has committed murder and must be punished for the crime of murder in accordance with the law.
Okay, Ms. Logic, tell me where I went wrong here.
OK, OK After thinking about this during my shower, I guess I would agree to jail women (not children who were raped by adult men) who attempt/succeed to abort after abortion becomes illegal but only on one condition:
She gets to pick one man who has to do equal time to her own.
I love you Carla.
For people who are so willing to declare that abortion is murder without exception, you’re awfully willing to add lots of qualifiers and caveats to what kind of punishment is appropriate and how it’s carried out for what you supposedly consider to be an open-and-shut case of murder. I don’t think anyone here would suggest that a woman who stabs a taxi cab driver to death should be jailed only under the condition that she gets to pick one man to do equal time with her.
Joan, Please wake up and listen to the stories surrounding abortions.
“I don’t think anyone here would suggest that a woman who stabs a taxi cab driver to death should be jailed only under the condition that she gets to pick one man to do equal time with her.”
I don’t either because there is no comparison between the two situations. You are comparing apples to shoes, cats to oranges.
Are you the joan who got 14/15 right on the Catholic quiz?
“I don’t either because there is no comparison between the two situations. You are comparing apples to shoes, cats to oranges.”
Will no one here speak candidly and rationally about this? It’s very simple: if you believe that abortion is murder, then comparing that act of murder to another act of murder–such as stabbing someone to death–is apropos. In fact, the act of abortion is arguably worse using contemporary American legal standards, because it was necessarily premeditated–a necessary condition to prosecute first degree or capital murder in most jurisdictions. By contrast, it would be much easier for a defense lawyer to argue that a sudden act of murder such as my earlier example of stabbing a cab driver to death was not planned in advance but rather a temporary lapse of reason, and so would likely be charged as a lesser degree of murder. I think the reason you and others here are trying to downplay the severity of abortion as an act of “murder” on the part of the pregnant woman is simply pragmatic: it would (rightfully so) make you look even more extreme to people outside of the “movement”.
“Are you the joan who got 14/15 right on the Catholic quiz?”
How many joans do you think are here? Of course I am. It wasn’t a “Catholic” quiz either, but a general religious quiz.
Joan, they find it convenient to deploy rhetoric about female vulnerability, i.e. we can’t be held accountable for choosing abortion because we were duped by the abortion industry/our partners/vagaries of our own desires.
I was perfectly lucid during my abortion. I’d do time for my crime.
Megan,
(Sorry about not picking up the other thread; it’s so far off the list that it’s a pain to search for it again.)
You wrote:
Joan, they find it convenient to deploy rhetoric about female vulnerability, i.e. we can’t be held accountable for choosing abortion because we were duped by the abortion industry/our partners/vagaries of our own desires. I was perfectly lucid during my abortion. I’d do time for my crime.
I seem to say this fairly often, here, but: back up, a bit.
This particular idea (which has been thrashed out repeatedly on this forum, even in my time) seems to be misunderstood, IMHO. I don’t think anyone on this forum holds that any woman who truly procured an abortion (and had her child murdered) with sufficiently full knowledge, sufficiently free will, and no remorse shouldn’t be punished. (I know that you feel you’re in this camp, and you disagree strongly; I’ll address that in a moment.) I assert only that virtually no-one on this forum thinks that the average woman who procures an abortion is anywhere near that category! I do think that most pro-life people on this forum think that the relentless propaganda campaign against the personhood of the fetus (you, for example, certainly don’t think the unborn baby is a person with a right to life, until birth… right? You’re a fine “exhibit A” of this syndrome…), coupled with the “out-of-sight, out of mind” nature of abortion (e.g. the unborn baby usually can’t scream or cry out audibly, and the pro-abortion movement is relentless in its opposition to images of abortion, or even high-quality ultrasounds of the unborn baby, being shown to the mother who’s contemplating an abortion), and the unflagging cultural push toward selfishness and hedonism, leave a vanishingly small percentage of women unaffected. (The same is true of men, as well; the suggestions that “pro-lifers are insulting the intelligence of women” is just silly; whyever do you think so many men abandon their child after he/she is conceived within the womb of the man’s live-in girlfriend [who’s often merely being sexually used, so long as the sex is convenient for him–and babies usually don’t fit their idea of “convenient” in that regard], or whomever? No pro-lifer of whom I’m aware (on this forum, anyway) is suggesting that men aren’t likewise duped!
Is it theoretically possible for a woman to be fully culpable of premeditated murder, when procuring an abortion? Yes. Is it also theoretically possible for a woman to be so overwhelmed and/or deceived by the manifold dynamics against her (and her child) that she is completely non-culpable of the crime that was objectively committed in the abortion? Again, yes. I’d argue that the vast majority of women fall somewhere in-between, and probably much closer to the non-culpability side of the spectrum… mainly because our culture is a very good place to learn how to follow societal pressure, how to let your wants trump your child’s (or anyone else’s) needs, and how to “self-medicate” one’s conscience with well-designed (or even poorly-designed) propaganda; but it’s a very bad place to learn heroic resistance to these selfsame pressures. You’re welcome to disagree… but I’ll be quite quick to call you woefully mistaken (and ignorant of our cultural situation), if you do.
Consider your own case: you claim that you were “perfectly lucid” during your abortion (and I’m assuming you were “perfectly lucid” during your decision to procure it?). Lucidity is certainly necessary for moral culpability; but it’s not at all sufficient. Someone can be utterly lucid while being utterly deceived about the fundamentals of what they’re choosing to do. Others can deaden their consciences, bit by bit, over the years after the abortion (as a sort of “self-medication” to stop the discomfort), and end up so jaded that they can watch videos of abortion with seeming ease and lucidity (while it might have been a very different case if the video had been seen before the woman’s first abortion); that’s something like a strange self-fulfilling prophecy, which the woman tries to retroject into the past (and tell herself that she always felt that way). Still others (and these truly break my heart!) might have been brainwashed from the very cradle, and they embrace abortion mainly out of a love for the parental figure who indoctrinated them, and even views of the child corpses of abortion don’t move them, even in times of great lucidity. (I know of a local woman who’s a Holocaust-denier, and whose father was an officer in the SS who told her repeatedly that “the Holocaust was a hoax, fabricated by the Jews”; her love of her [now deceased] father keeps her utterly resistant to the truth, no matter what evidence–visual, personal testimony, or otherwise–is shown her.)
If you’re sincerely trying to accuse pro-lifers of inconsistency, on this point (and let’s be honest: you’re doing this only in order to attack the pro-life position; you’d be utterly unhappy if the law were changed to prosecute all provably-culpable abortive mothers), then you’ll need to do better than that.
Paladin, thank you for stating exactly what I was thinking. Yay! The truth is, pro-aborts don’t want to help women. They just care about abortion. That’s it. I was trying to give pro-aborts the benefit of the doubt, but they are far more unhinged than I had imagined. Very disappointing.
Joe,
Many people (including Carla and Praxedes, but probably many others–I’ve only skimmed the list of comments, so far) have already replied to your main thesis, which is (roughly) summarized in your comment below:
This much is absolutely clear: if we are to be successful in actually stopping the killing of unborn children, we MUST treat abortion crime the same way we treat all other crimes. There is simply no rational alternative.
In one sense, you’re quite right: we must (as a culture) recognize abortion as murder, and work to act accordingly. But in another sense, you’re quite mistaken, since murder has not been the “beneficiary” of such a pervasive propaganda/social-reprogramming campaign as has abortion (mainly, I suspect, because a prohibition of abortion is seen as a direct threat to restriction-free sex, which the western world [in particular] sees as an absolute entitlement; prosecution of 1st-degree murder in other circumstances doesn’t often involve a fundamental threat to sexual license). See above, for details.
If we lived in a culture where a vast percentage of adults viewed murder as “a privacy issue, a mere destruction of non-person tissue, a mere political football, etc.”, then you might see what I mean, a bit better: we’d have vast numbers of people who might genuinely believe that murder was morally permissible–and even a “right”! It’s absurd to think that non-abortion murder, which is still culturally recognized AS murder (with the notable exceptions of Terri Schiavo and those like her), could be treated identically to abortion (which, again, is one of the greatest deceptions to spread the land). To treat a dupe with the same penalties as a cold-blooded (or even hot-blooded) assassin would be to violate justice at its very core.
“I don’t think anyone on this forum holds that any woman who truly procured an abortion (and had her child murdered) with sufficiently full knowledge, sufficiently free will, and no remorse shouldn’t be punished.”
Wow. Who knew there was such nuance involved when determining culpability for intentional murder? From the time I’ve spent here, it seems that abortion is unanimously considered to be murder by the posters here, and further, they are simply shocked and appalled that the visiting “trolls” refuse to acknowledge and endorse this little “fact” of theirs, but apparently women actually getting abortions can’t be held to the same standards that “trolls” are held to.
“I do think that most pro-life people on this forum think that the relentless propaganda campaign against the personhood of the fetus… coupled with the “out-of-sight, out of mind” nature of abortion… and the pro-abortion movement is relentless in its opposition to images of abortion, or even high-quality ultrasounds of the unborn baby, being shown to the mother who’s contemplating an abortion), and the unflagging cultural push toward selfishness and hedonism, leave a vanishingly small percentage of women unaffected.”
If you believe that these things are mitigating factors to the extent that women who willingly participate in what you consider to be murder simply cannot be held accountable for their actions, then I guess you feel that Germans who willingly murdered Jews in the Holocaust should also be given a pass? After all, the things you cited as mitigating factors all applied to Nazi Germany: a relentless propaganda campaign against the personhood of the Jew, the “out-of-sight, out of mind” nature of the death camps, the existence of which was highly secretive and suppressed by the government, and of course the cultural zeitgeist which promoted theories of racial supremacy and the lack of human value of the Jews and other “inferiors”, most certainly left a small number of Germans unaffected.
The problem with your excuses is that you seem to be basing this idea of abortion as murder on some kind of natural law, and no rational person of sound mind is excused from knowing and adhering to that, even if the laws of man run contrary, right?
I think it’s really interesting how what you seem to attribute to brainwashing, general ignorance, “societal pressure” and “manifold dynamics” and all these other weasel words, can figure into the playbook of someone who clings to a natural law, conception to natural death interpretation of the value of human life.
I also find it interesting that you brought up the example of a woman with Nazi sympathies without apparently realizing the conclusion that necessarily follows when you’re comparing her upbringing and socialization to that of the average woman who has an abortion, and arguing that the circumstances of the latter excuse or reduce her culpability. Wouldn’t it necessarily follow then that those same factors, which you implicitly acknowledge apply to both women by making the comparison in the first place, also apply to the former in the event that she, for example, murdered a Jew? Would she fall “closer to the non-culpability side of the spectrum” for you? If not, why not?
I still think that if anyone performing an abortion (doctor/nurse/random person) was severely punished and there was a widespread “witch-hunt” for any abortionist still practicing illegally and a strict monitoring of everyone who has appropriate qualification to do it, plus monitoring the production/supply of tools necessary to perform abortion, on top of nationwide education program on fetal development/abortion and support system to pregnant mothers – there wouldn’t even have to be a discussion about punishment, because abortion as such would cease to exist (except in a very rare cases, in which I would agree to prosecution of the mother – if she had full knowledge of fetal development, abortion, access to support and chose to do it).
If abortion was made illegal, the point wouldn’t be about who and how to punish, but how to prevent illegal abortions in the first place. And that is through education/maternity support and extreemely tough persecution and prosecution of abortionists.
Question for Joe: what about teenage girls who have abortions? Would you want them convicted too, on either a juvenile or adult level?
Why do you ask that? Does the law make exceptions for teenage girls who commit murder as it presently stands? I don’t think it does.
I’ll probably regret this, but… Joan, I’ll try, at least once, to discuss this with you. Your track record really doesn’t inspire confidence, and your “troll” record stands on its own. (The word really does mean something; I don’t use it for insult value.) But if you’re willing to learn new ways of interacting with people with whom you disagree, then of course we can talk.
That being said…
[Paladin]
“I don’t think anyone on this forum holds that any woman who truly procured an abortion (and had her child murdered) with sufficiently full knowledge, sufficiently free will, and no remorse shouldn’t be punished.”
[Joan]
Wow. Who knew there was such nuance involved when determining culpability for intentional murder? From the time I’ve spent here, it seems that abortion is unanimously considered to be murder by the posters here, and further, they are simply shocked and appalled that the visiting “trolls” refuse to acknowledge and endorse this little “fact” of theirs, but apparently women actually getting abortions can’t be held to the same standards that “trolls” are held to.
(*sigh*) That was dangerously close to an uncritical, hysterical rant, Joan. You’re welcome to “vent” as you please (within the patience levels of the moderators), but there’s really nothing to say in response to it. Sick to tactical issues, eh?
“it seems that abortion is unanimously considered to be murder by the posters here”
It is. I don’t understand your confusion, here; I’m speaking of the difference between objective evil and (subjective) moral culpability. There is no contradiction in saying that “the intentional killing of an unborn child is a murderous act” and saying, “those who procure an abortion after being impaired by ubiquitous propaganda, conditioning, etc. may not be fully culpable for what they did.” If you disagree with that, perhaps you could explain why?
[Paladin]
“I do think that most pro-life people on this forum think that the relentless propaganda campaign against the personhood of the fetus… coupled with the “out-of-sight, out of mind” nature of abortion… and the pro-abortion movement is relentless in its opposition to images of abortion, or even high-quality ultrasounds of the unborn baby, being shown to the mother who’s contemplating an abortion), and the unflagging cultural push toward selfishness and hedonism, leave a vanishingly small percentage of women unaffected.”
[Joan]
If you believe that these things are mitigating factors to the extent that women who willingly participate in what you consider to be murder simply cannot be held accountable for their actions, then I guess you feel that Germans who willingly murdered Jews in the Holocaust should also be given a pass?
First, I think you’re confusing “legal” with “moral”; and in such a case as this (when abortion is legal under the laws of this nation), that’s not helpful. Second, your example is too dissimilar to abortion to be of much use; how many women, for instance, are shown 4-D ultrasounds by Planned Parenthood abortionists (or those of like mind)? How many are offered the baby’s remains to “take home as a souvenir”, as some hospitals do with tonsils? How many are shown the aftermath (and the dismembered child) as part of the after-surgery protocol? (At least one friend has shown me photos of a large tumour which was removed, so the practice is hardly unknown.) If you were speaking of the abortionist, who witnesses and enacts all steps of the dismemberment of the child (even after his own social programming), you’d have more of a case; that’s precisely why the vast majority of abortionists cannot “plead innocent ignorance”, in fact. The woman whose child is being killed, however, is almost always kept quite in the dark about the reality (and the clear visual evidence) of the baby’s humanity, in ways mentioned earlier. Do you see the difference?
After all, the things you cited as mitigating factors all applied to Nazi Germany: a relentless propaganda campaign against the personhood of the Jew, the “out-of-sight, out of mind” nature of the death camps, the existence of which was highly secretive and suppressed by the government, and of course the cultural zeitgeist which promoted theories of racial supremacy and the lack of human value of the Jews and other “inferiors”, most certainly left a small number of Germans unaffected.
Of course. But see above; very few such “innocently ignorant” people were called upon to dismember the Jews in person; correct?
The problem with your excuses is that you seem to be basing this idea of abortion as murder on some kind of natural law, and no rational person of sound mind is excused from knowing and adhering to that, even if the laws of man run contrary, right?
Yes… though you may certainly substitute “sane reason” for “natural law”, if you like. You possess an awareness of this law, too; it’s what drives you to think that throwing live puppies or kittens into a running blender would be a bad thing to do, for example.
I think it’s really interesting how what you seem to attribute to brainwashing, general ignorance, “societal pressure” and “manifold dynamics” and all these other weasel words, can figure into the playbook of someone who clings to a natural law, conception to natural death interpretation of the value of human life.
(??) I… see. So your claims about being “Catholic”, in the other threads, were mere artifice? Surely you know that, at very least, Catholicism requires a belief in the natural moral law, which is established by God? The very idea of a “Catholic” who disbelieves in the natural moral law is a flat contradiction in terms; one might as well speak of a Muslim who laughs at the idea of following the teachings of Mohammed! One might find someone who CLAIMS to be “Catholic” or “Muslim” under those conditions, but such a person would be uttering nonsense syllables, with no reference to reality.
Perhaps, in the interests of time, you might answer this: *do* you believe in a God Who established a moral law? If not, then I’m not sure what we’d have to say to each other… unless you either: (a) return to a Catholic worldview, or (b) decide to embrace agnosticism/atheism, and continuing your resistance to the natural moral law.
The argument about cultural conditioning to cause people to accept the “morality” of abortion crime is interesting, but unfortunately it still misses the point.
The goal of our movement is this: to stop the killing of unborn children, the criminal destruction of human beings before birth.
While it might be nice to try to understand the motivations and the difficulties of mothers and fathers (and others) who feel a “need” to kill unborn children, ultimately if this constitutes a criminal act, the unjust killing of human beings, then we have to do all in our power to stop the violence. We are talking about human beings here. Our letting mothers and fathers essentially get away with killing their children, because we feel they have been brainwashed by the the lies and fallacies of the abortionist movement, is not morally acceptable.
The fact that mothers and fathers believe they are doing nothing wrong or else something which is not as wrong as, say, killing an infant should cause us to support substantially lower penalties than those for murder, as I do. However, there will have to be penalties if we are serious about saving the lives of unborn children. If we really are going to let parents get away with killing their kids, then we might as well disband the unborn human rights movement, because we just will not be making a credible effort to save unborn lives.
Joe wrote:
The argument about cultural conditioning to cause people to accept the “morality” of abortion crime is interesting, but unfortunately it still misses the point. The goal of our movement is this: to stop the killing of unborn children, the criminal destruction of human beings before birth.
Yes… but go back a step further: if you’re completely heedless of HOW that’s done, then you cut the ground out from under your very own position (i.e. “abortion is morally wrong, so it should not be done”). See below.
While it might be nice to try to understand the motivations and the difficulties of mothers and fathers (and others) who feel a “need” to kill unborn children, ultimately if this constitutes a criminal act, the unjust killing of human beings, then we have to do all in our power to stop the violence.
No… we must do all within our power THAT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE MORAL LAW, to stop the violence. We are not permitted to choose an evil act, even if we predict that the evil act will yield good results. (E.g. We would not be morally free to machine-gun all abortionists, shoot any man who claims to want his child killed by abortion, or the like.)
We are talking about human beings here. Our letting mothers and fathers essentially get away with killing their children, because we feel they have been brainwashed by the the lies and fallacies of the abortionist movement, is not morally acceptable.
Again: on one hand (re: gaining clarity of a general principle: “abortion is an inhuman crime”), you’re close to being correct… but you cannot embrace the “ends justify the means” approach; nothing justifies the free choice to do evil… and that idea will only serve the devil in the long run (and probably in the short run, as well), anyway.
The fact that mothers and fathers believe they are doing nothing wrong or else something which is not as wrong as, say, killing an infant should cause us to support substantially lower penalties than those for murder, as I do.
I think we may be talking past each other, here; I don’t think any pro-lifer disagrees with the idea of getting to what you describe EVENTUALLY. (And note this carefully: I do not say that out of any sense of political “pragmatism” or timorous anticipation of the political difficulties in enacting such a policy! I say this because, as matters stand, it would currently be punishing people who are truly too ignorant of what they’ve done to be culpable for their crime.) Now, if you’re saying, “Get the law on the books which prosecutes women, and decide leniency, perhaps even sentence dismissal, on a case-by-case basis”, then that’s far closer to a workable plan. I wouldn’t envy the ones who try to implement it, but there’s be no moral problem with it. My only objection was that we cannot “lock up the women and throw away the key” (as might be the case with a “standard” 1st-degree murder charge), as things stand now… nor do I think that the vast majority of women would ever qualify for such treatment.
However, there will have to be penalties if we are serious about saving the lives of unborn children. If we really are going to let parents get away with killing their kids, then we might as well disband the unborn human rights movement, because we just will not be making a credible effort to save unborn lives.
Again, I’d ask you to remember why the penalties are there in the first place: to punish willful wrongdoing, and to deter others from willfully doing likewise. The second reason might work (I have no idea, given the current cultural climate), but the first wouldn’t be satisfied, if you enact it against a woman who’d been truly duped (and ravaged in the process, and probably abandoned). If you go too far with this idea, and “punish” those who did not freely and knowingly choose an evil act, then you’d be in favour of a sort of utilitarian “social re-education”, heedless of justice. That simply won’t do.
Paladin:
Why do you think I am “heedless” of how to stop the killing of unborn children?
I believe I have laid out a solid plan as to how we can stop prenatal homicide in the most efficient and thorough way possible. I have advocated policies which I believe will work to prevent the vast majority of killings of unborn children.
I cannot accept the false argument that going after criminal abortionists while leaving mothers and fathers free to kill their unborn children is the way to protect future generations of human beings from abortion violence.
Joe, are you a Christian?
Do you remember what Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery? “Has no one condemned you?“ “No one sir” “Then neither do I. Go and Sin no more.”
You have to remember that many women are caught in vulnerable situations. They are LIED to (especially when it comes to FETAL DEVELOPMENT). They are led to believe that their child is NOT a baby or told false information about heart beat or that its just a “clump of cells” or “tissue”.
Instead of condemning them, we need offer them help and healing, like Rachel’s Vineyard does for post abortive women. If we throw them in Jail, the pro aborts have won.
Many women do come to regret their abortions, such as Carla or a few other women who have posted here. You would send them to jail regardless of regret or pain.
There’s a difference between a woman caught in a vulnerable situation, pressured by parents or boyfriend (the father or his parents) to abort and a woman like Susan Smith who drowns her children and shows no remorse.
Liz:
This is not about forgiveness. I have no problem at all if God forgives parents who kill their unborn children or anyone else for that matter. I am all in favor of that.
I have been discussing what I believe is necessary for the purpose of preventing people from breaking the law and killing unborn children. In other words, I am trying to determine what types of legal strategies will be successful in saving the maximum number of unborn children possible and then convincing our movement to pursue those strategies.
I want to protect the unborn from violence and I believe that what I have advocated in the way of abortion laws will do the trick.
To reiterate, I have argued that if we are to fully protect unborn children, we must prohibit:
1. mothers killing their unborn children by themselves
2. mothers contracting with, paying and helping criminal abortionists kill their unborn children
3. criminal abortionists accepting money to kill and then killing someone else’s unborn child
4. fathers, grandparents, friends and others aiding and abetting the killing of unborn children.
This is all completely reasonable and necessary to achieve our goal of an abortion-free world.
All I am saying is that we must do everything in our power to save as many unborn children as possible.
Joe - ‘Our letting mothers and fathers essentially get away with killing their children, because we feel they have been brainwashed by the the lies and fallacies of the abortionist movement, is not morally acceptable.’
I think this is the nub of the matter. ‘we feel’
That is the point that evinces the fact that people will always disagree and that abortion will always take place – its personal.
Because while you ‘feel’ that pro-choicers have been brainwashed by lies and fallacies, pro-choicers ‘feel’ exactly the same way about the anti-choice movement. And as we all know, people will choose to ‘believe’ what they wish to support what it is they want to do and how they want things to be – from whatever point of view on whatever topic.
The unborn human rights position is logically derived from placental mammalian biology. It is objectively true.
The anti-unborn human rights “position” is based on satisfying psychological needs. It is objectively false.
I agree that people will believe what they want to believe. That, however, does not make what they believe, what they want to believe, true.
It’s a pity we aren’t Vulcans then isn’t it Joe. We use as least as much subjectivity as we do objectivity. That’s why abortion will always exist.
‘That, however, does not make what they believe, what they want to believe, true.’ – I could not agree with you more.
“(*sigh*) That was dangerously close to an uncritical, hysterical rant, Joan. You’re welcome to “vent” as you please (within the patience levels of the moderators), but there’s really nothing to say in response to it. Sick to tactical issues, eh?”
If that’s how you feel then I’m sorry that “uncritical, hysterical rant” was all you were capable of taking from it. Perhaps a more perspicacious reader would have instead recognized the point I was trying to make, even if a little reading between the lines is in order: if abortion’s status as “murder” is as cut-and-dry as it’s made out to be here, nobody, least of all a pregnant woman intending to have the procedure done, would have an excuse for lacking “sufficiently full knowledge” to be held accountable for committing that particular act of murder.
“It is. I don’t understand your confusion, here; I’m speaking of the difference between objective evil and (subjective) moral culpability. There is no contradiction in saying that “the intentional killing of an unborn child is a murderous act” and saying, “those who procure an abortion after being impaired by ubiquitous propaganda, conditioning, etc. may not be fully culpable for what they did.” If you disagree with that, perhaps you could explain why?”
And I’m asking YOU how “being impaired by ubiquitous propaganda, conditioning, etc.” could or would excuse someone from lacking the basic faculties of moral reasoning to discern the difference between right and wrong. If abortion is an objective evil to you then there is no subjective moral culpability to speak of in this matter: an act of premeditated murder, the most basic and egregious of crimes, has been committed. How do you excuse or explain away that?
“First, I think you’re confusing “legal” with “moral”; and in such a case as this (when abortion is legal under the laws of this nation), that’s not helpful.”
No I’m not. We’re discussing a prospective legal situation where abortion is recognized as murder.
“[Y]our example is too dissimilar to abortion to be of much use; how many women, for instance, are shown 4-D ultrasounds by Planned Parenthood abortionists (or those of like mind)? How many are offered the baby’s remains to “take home as a souvenir”, as some hospitals do with tonsils? How many are shown the aftermath (and the dismembered child) as part of the after-surgery protocol?”
What does this have to do with anything? When is ignorance an excuse to commit crimes? I’ve never heard a criminal defendant successfully beat a murder charge by saying “I didn’t know shooting that guy in the face was murder!” Look, either you believe abortion is murder, society should recognize it as murder, and people who willfully solicit or perpetrate murder should be punished accordingly, or you don’t. All this other nonsense is irrelevant.
“Of course. But see above; very few such “innocently ignorant” people were called upon to dismember the Jews in person; correct?”
Not using your standard of “innocently ignorant”. Even concentration camp soldiers herding Jews off to gas chambers could meet your simple criteria for being “innocently ignorant”: they were brainwashed, “impaired by ubiquitous propaganda”, socially conditioned, etc.
“Yes… though you may certainly substitute “sane reason” for “natural law”, if you like. You possess an awareness of this law, too; it’s what drives you to think that throwing live puppies or kittens into a running blender would be a bad thing to do, for example.”
But it’s not enough of a deterrent to prevent pregnant women from knowingly paying to have their fetuses murdered, and so they can’t be held accountable when they do. Okay.
“(??) I… see. So your claims about being “Catholic”, in the other threads, were mere artifice? Surely you know that, at very least, Catholicism requires a belief in the natural moral law, which is established by God? The very idea of a “Catholic” who disbelieves in the natural moral law is a flat contradiction in terms; one might as well speak of a Muslim who laughs at the idea of following the teachings of Mohammed! One might find someone who CLAIMS to be “Catholic” or “Muslim” under those conditions, but such a person would be uttering nonsense syllables, with no reference to reality.”
It’s not really any of your business to question my religious credentials, thank you kindly.
“It’s not really any of your business to question my religious credentials, thank you kindly.”
It is when you’re telling all of us you are Catholic. You are deliberately misleading others about the Catholic Church and this makes your religious credentials my and other practicing Catholic’s business.
I’m not misleading anyone. I have not once claimed to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. The views and opinions I’ve expressed here are entirely my own and I haven’t claimed otherwise.
What’s the “anti-choice movement”?
“Anti-choice” is the ridiculous expression that supporters of virtually unlimited killing of unborn children use to refer to the unborn human rights movement. We are, of course, “anti-choice” on the crime of killing children, but then we are and should be “anti-choice” on the commission of all crimes.
Since this may be the final comment in this section, let me restate some of the points which I have been trying to make here the last few days.
We must recognize that all humans have a natural right to live a full human lifespan in accordance with our nature. Since it is our nature to live through both the born and unborn stages, it follows that we have a right to both. Therefore, it must violate our rights and thus constitute a crime to kill us in either the unborn or the born stage.
Thus:
Since the law is designed to protect our rights, the law must prohibit the killing of human beings in the unborn stage.
To be effective, the law must have penalties for those who violate it, which penalties should be consistent with the nature of the crime.
Since many people are ignorant of the facts of fetal development and have been subjected to propaganda and disinformation from the abortionist movement for many decades, it is reasonable to advocate lesser penalties for the crime of abortion than the crime of murder.
However, it is still necessary to have reasonable but substantial penalties to safeguard and protect human beings in the unborn stage, beings who are as legitimately human as we are and as deserving of protection and respect for their rights as we are.
The penalties applied to prenatal homicide must be applied consistently to all parties involved in the commission of the crime and must be applied to the mother alone in instances in which she is solely responsible for the death of her child.
It is high time that all people come to accept the basic truth that ALL human beings at every stage of our lives are legitimate human beings of worth and value and with inalienable natural rights which must never be denied any of us.
Opponents of unborn human rights must abandon their unjust and inhuman support for unlimited killing of their fellow human beings in the unborn stage.
Supporters of unborn human rights must abandon unsound ideas and beliefs which cause us to advocate laws and strategies which will provide the helpless and innocent unborn with less than full legal protection for their basic human rights.
I know, Joe, I was just “asking” to make a point. Thanks, though.
I realize that. I just wanted to make a point about our opponents’ silly rhetoric.
What a fatuous argument. If the “Culture of Death” has permeated society–a fact that would somehow absolve women if abortion were criminalized–then one could argue that every crime has been conditioned. FYI, I went to a Planned Parenthood clinic and asked to see the ultrasound. I asked the nurse to print out a picture, so I could be entirely sure of what I was getting myself into. I guess it’s difficult to measure the extent to which I was an autonomous rational actor, but without any overt signs of insanity, you have no case.
And yes, Paladin, I resist the paternalism your legal scheme represents. I wouldn’t want exceptions made for pregnant women; it wouldn’t be just.
Absolutely, we must hold everyone who is a free moral agent accountable for their actions.
The unborn deserve no less.
“Anti-choice” is the ridiculous expression that supporters of virtually unlimited killing of unborn children use to refer to the unborn human rights movement. We are, of course, “anti-choice” on the crime of killing children, but then we are and should be “anti-choice” on the commission of all crimes.
This. Of course, “choice” is a mere euphemism for abortion. I’m anti-choice, then, regarding rape, shoplifting, child abuse, etc. etc. etc. The term “anti-choice” is completely inaccurate because it says we are against CHOICE, in general, but in the act of choosing, something must be chosen. Obviously we believe in choices, just not ABORTION as a choice, and therefore it’s more accurate to say “anti-abortion” not “anti-choice.” Whenever a pro-abort argues this, that they’re not for ABORTION, but CHOICE, that makes no sense at all. It’s disingenuous and it could be comical if it weren’t so tragic.
So, either women who choose abortion are knowingly killing their own children–knowing full well that they are human babies–OR women are taken advantage of and lied to in their vulnerable state. They don’t like either scenario, but those are the only ones they have. They don’t like the idea of women being vulnerable and being lied to by the abortion industry (inferring by this that we are saying they are DUMB….which we are not), and refuse to acknowledge and help the thousands and thousands and thousands of women who are hurt by abortion. They like the idea of empowerment, but they don’t like the idea that it makes them sound callous and cruel–because they know that in abortion, a human baby is killed. So in order to get what they want, they have to dehumanize the unborn, and anyone who calls them on their actions is against THEM, and their RIGHTS. So, again, I say: Pro-aborts only have slogans, cliches, excuses, obfuscation, and lies.
You are absolutely right, Mary Lee.
The problem for the abortionists is that their position is completely fallacious and unsound.
The thing is, either an argument is sound or unsound. If it is sound, defend it using logic.
If it is unsound, repudiate it forthwith.
The problem they face is they cannot abandon their position because I believe they have a psychological and cultural need to support and have available abortion violence.
Since they can neither defend it nor repudiate it, they have no alternative but to resort to intellectual dishonesty. This is why we have seen a vast number of lies and fallacies from that inhuman movement in the last forty five years.
Yep. Yep times TEN, Joe.
I have been thinking about this all weekend and I have a few thoughts I’d like to share. I don’t know if anyone will read this, but I hope so.
I often see the term “slippery slope” thrown around in comments here, often with regards to homosexual issues. Reading the comments above, I am seeing a slipperier slope by far.
We are all hoping for abortion to be made illegal (I think). Many of us are pushing for “personhood amendments” to be passed. We need to stop for a minute and think of the consequences if these happen. If the unborn are legally recognized as human beings then we are going to have to accept that obtaining or performing an abortion is going to have to be considered murder. It will be LEGALLY DEFINED as the deliberate taking of another HUMAN LIFE. Any woman seeking an abortion will have to be charged with some sort of crime. And face it; it will not be up to us as individuals to determine her sentencing. I promise you the judges will not be consulting with random commenters on pro-life blogs for creative ways to punish these women while taking into consideration their special, weakened state of mind.
It will be up to the judge and/or jury. It will be up to the woman’s lawyer to present the judge with a compelling case for the woman. It will be up to the woman and her lawyer to convince the court that she is weak, easily led, unable to see right from wrong, and was coerced into breaking the law.
I would be willing to bet that a good percentage of criminals out there have a compelling, heart-wrenching story as to why they did what they did. Abusive, dysfunctional childhoods. A manipulative boyfriend or husband who convinced them that they had to drive the getaway car, sell drugs, prostitute themselves OR ELSE. These people are charged, convicted and sentenced every day. People that honestly thought they had NO OTHER CHOICE. Their husband would leave them, they would lose their home, their kids needed to eat, etc. Why should women seeking abortion be treated differently? Because we feel more sorry for them? Because we can empathize? I honestly believe that the majority of prostitutes sell their bodies because they are forced to and think they have no other choice. I feel horrible that they do, but I don’t necessarily think they shouldn’t be held accountable for their illegal actions.
It is just something to think about when pushing personhood amendments. We can opine all day about the consequences WE think these women should face, but unless we all become lawyers and judges it will not necessarily be up to us.
It would not be and should not be up to us.
The argument I have been making all weekend is very simple. All human beings deserve to be protected from violence, including human beings in the unborn stage. The only way to do this effectively is to prohibit their killing in every way possible and to hold accountable anyone who kills or attempts to end their lives.
Our movement needs (and the unborn need) our pro-life leaders and major pro-life organizations to step up to the plate and pledge themselves from now on to support only laws and strategies which provide protection for unborn children in every way possible and from everyone, parent or abortionist, who tries to harm them.
It would not be and should not be up to us.
That’s what I’m saying, Joe. Everyone above seems to think that if abortion becomes illegal they will have some sort of say in doling out punishments. We won’t.
I don’t understand why pro-aborts have such animosity towards the unborn. They claim pro-lifers don’t care about women. But we care about women, and women’s health, more than pro-aborts do. And we love the babies. How can you not love the unborn? How is that possible? What kind of person would not only NOT love them, but dehumanize them and support their destruction? It’s rather frightening.
Mary Lee:
To produce an abortionist activist, I believe you need two things. First, you must have someone who is sexually liberal, someone who wants very much to have sex before marriage but who does not want to have children. This creates the condition in which one has a psychological incentive to support the killing of unborn children. Second, you need a certain level of lack of regard for others, a lack of empathy for those who are different from you (in this case, the unborn).
Put it all together and you have people in a movement who very much want to be able to eliminate unwanted unborn children and who do not have the spiritual strength to resist their weakness and to show love and compassion for those whose lives they would take.
“I honestly believe that the majority of prostitutes sell their bodies because they are forced to and think they have no other choice.”
Agreed. However, she/he could not be a prostitute unless others are willing to pay her/him. These people need to be held equally accountable as well.
My argument in relationship to abortion is that the focus needs to be equally on the father as it is the mother. This way, both genders would be forced to think a bit more who they are willing to become sexually invoved with.
Joe wrote, in reply to my comment:
Why do you think I am “heedless” of how to stop the killing of unborn children?
I suggested that you seemed heedless of the way you distinguished culpable mothers from non-culpable mothers (i.e. you thought the second category was non-existent), for one; your suggestion that “no mothers could possibly be innocently ignorant” is a statement for which I don’t envy you the proof.
As an example of what I mean (and yes, it’s far-fetched–many illustrations in situational ethics need to be): suppose a woman were asked (by a man in a lab coat) to participate in an experiment, in which a red button was pressed repeatedly. The woman was told, perhaps, that the pressing of the button activated a food processor which was chopping some type of vegetable salad. Much later, the woman finds out that the button actually triggered a sort of food processor into which a live human baby was placed, and chopped to pieces. Would you (Joe) hold that woman guilty of murder? The fact that the baby was murdered in a horrifying burst of mayhem is beyond all doubt, mind you… and you might well have outraged and sickened people screaming for vengeance. “She should have asked more questions! She should have known that the set-up was too bizarre to give consent! She should be punished!” What say you?
You might also note that I never held a “don’t prosecute any mothers who had abortions, ever, under any circumstances” position; you’re aware of that, right? Those who are genuinely culpable should certainly be punished–with the punishment fitting 1st degree murder, if applicable. I simply suggested that the number of women who’d “qualify” for that severe penalty (i.e. life in prison, without parole, for example) would be vanishingly small. I didn’t say it was zero. From what Megan says, she thinks she fits that small category (I still think I might possibly disagree, Megan, depending on other factors–at the risk of irritating you further by being “paternal”… :) And BTW, be sure to be back by 10 PM, young lady…)
I believe I have laid out a solid plan as to how we can stop prenatal homicide in the most efficient and thorough way possible. I have advocated policies which I believe will work to prevent the vast majority of killings of unborn children.
I can, too… by sterilizing every man and woman on the planet. It has the advantage of being fool-proof, in fact (while yours will still allow a sizable number of criminal-minded and/or deranged people to commit the crime anyway–see the stats on rape and murder, if you doubt), if only we can endure the somewhat irksome side-effect of ending the human race. Do you see my point? Mere zeal for an end does not excuse being muddle-headed or utilitarian about necessary details. Mind you: I say this not so much to criticize your proposal, as to criticize your criticism of MY comments. (Your proposal has merit, if it’s properly implemented.)
I cannot accept the false argument that going after criminal abortionists while leaving mothers and fathers free to kill their unborn children is the way to protect future generations of human beings from abortion violence.
You’re presenting a false dilemma, friend… and I still think you’re misunderstanding me (and others). Let me say this again, clearly, in bold-face type:
Women who have sufficient freedom and knowledge of the factors surrounding their choice to have their child killed by an abortionist should be punished with a penalty suitable for 1st degree murderers.
Let me also repeat the flip-side of that point:
Women who are sufficiently impaired in freedom or knowledge of the factors surrounding their choice (if it could even be called that, in such a case) to have their child killed by an abortionist should be punished lightly, or not at all, depending on the circumstances.
If I understand you correctly, you’d like to declare abortion to be a capital crime (or equivalent), while allowing individual judges and juries to incorporate leniency (or even jury nullification) during final judgment and/or sentencing. Is that close?
Paladin:
I am not sure where you are coming from. You seem to be misunderstanding the point I have been trying to make with my 25+ comments here the last few days.
I am arguing that unborn children deserve the same protection that all of us born humans take for granted. I have never called for killing unborn children to be a “capital crime”. First, I do not and never have supported capital punishment. Second, I advocate much lesser penalties for killing unborn humans than born humans for the very reasons you offer, namely that many people do not consider prenatal homicide to be a crime at all or at least not a crime as serious as murder. For this reason, I advocate penalties of one to two years in prison for each offense, not the ten to twenty or so you might receive for an act of killing a born human. Of course there are a variety of factors operating here in each individual case and dealing with that would be up to the courts. I am merely asserting as a general principle that we should hold accountable everyone in involved in the killing of human beings, born and unborn. I believe this is absolutely necessary if we are to make a serious attempt to protect the unborn from being killed. I definitely do understand the reality of mitigating circumstances.
Reread my comment posted at 5:07 AM above. It lays out quite clearly the position I have been arguing.
“Does anyone else have a problem with filling the jails with pregnant women when abortion is illegal again?”
The jails would not be filled with pregnant women – hopefully the jails would not be filled with any women, but if they were to be filled it would be with women who were no longer pregnant because they had just murdered their child by abortion. Those women would be jailed right along with the women who just murdered their children by poison, blunt force trauma, drowning, suffocating, etc., etc.
Again, with your last comment, well said Joe. I understand what you are saying, and I agree, for what it’s worth.
Hopefully the jails would be full of pregnant women who expressed interest in ending their pregnancies. The unborn will need saving from us–what better place to ensure the continuation of a pregnancy than in a jail?
Oh, and Paladin, you’re right. I was, and am, completely delusional. Just went and filed my application for graduation. What the heck am I doing??? Should be hungering after my neighbor’s children for want of a baby. Maybe in an act of post-abortive desparation I’ll steal one of them.
MaryLee, do you think women accepted every pregnancy with warmth and joy before Roe? Did women themselves not for access to birth control to control their fertility so they weren’t popping out children every year? I guarantee that if abortion is criminalized, we will see many, many more Andrea Yates-type cases. Women have learned to refuse to be treated as mere breeders, to speak out against attempts to render us “barefoot and pregnant.”
Also, it seems that many of you who are anti-contraception also happen to be in relatively stable, equitable relationships. What about a woman with a domineering partner who forces sex on her? Should she merely accept these pregnancies as a matter of course? Ask him to practice NFP with her? I suspect that you have no easy answers, will probably offer some piffle about God’s will and the opening of the womb and whatnot.
Megan, in the past, women were seeking abortions because women who had children “out of wedlock” were stigmatized. Women were not able to find support, they were shunned, they had no chance of going to school, finishing their education. You pro-aborts seem to focus, again, SOLELY on abortion, and the fact that women have been seeking abortions when faced with a crisis pregnancy.
WHY do women seek abortions? Women seek abortions mainly because they don’t think they can handle it. They are frightened, they feel the child is a punishment, they don’t want to lose their job, their boyfriend, etc. The pro-life community is seeking to give women actual choices, so they don’t have to kill their babies. We don’t live in a time that stigmatizes unwed mothers anymore. So now, it’s just an act either of complete desperation (which it usually is) or a complete act of selfish defiance.
I believe in birth control. I don’t understand how one can tell women not to abort and then tell them not to ever use birth control. And, to me, if NFP is really just a way to have sex without conceiving a child, then I see no difference in using birth control, and also being open to the fact that a child could possibly be conceived even if those measures are taken.
You pro-aborts seem to view any pregnancy that isn’t planned some kind of tragedy or life sentence. It’s not. Children are not a punishment. Unborn babies are not the enemy. I don’t know how someone can kill their own child in the name of liberty, but that isn’t liberty. That’s not what the first feminists were fighting for, and as a woman, I cannot get behind a movement that not only tells me that my child–a distinct and separate person–is part of my body (biologically false and also impossible), but that I should support and celebrate the killing of my child, for any reason I wish.
Justlookingon:
Thanks for the encouraging words of support. What I have been arguing all weekend seems so self-evident to me that I cannot understand why anyone would argue with it.
I must take issue with one point you made in your last comment however. I think that the jails would be filled with pregnant women, women who tried to kill their unborn children and were apprehended before they could actually commit (or pay someone to commit) the crime. There would of course be unpregnant women who had already killed their children, but the whole idea would be to prevent the killing of children and thereby save lives. Plus, you would have to hold pregnant women for the duration of their pregnancies, because they would have already established themselves as a threat to their children and if you let them out, they would be likely to try again to kill those children.
Many supporters of unborn human rights seem to treat pregnant women as some sort of special class of human beings, who are exempt from the moral standards to which the rest of us are bound. The unhappy reality (and this is a reality that a lot of pro-life people are unwilling to face) is that pregnant women have killed more human beings than anyone else in history. They have killed several billion of their unborn children over the course of the last few millenia.
I think that our movement does not fully understand what it will actually take to stop the killing of unborn children. The only way to stop the killing is to have strong and effective laws that are vigorously enforced, laws that apply to everyone who might be involved in any way in the killing of an unborn child. I do not think we will be able to stop the killing of our children until our major pro-life organizations and leaders have come to realize the need for this.
Joe, your words paint a scary scenario in my mind.
‘…pregnant women have killed more human beings than anyone else in history. They have killed several billion of their unborn children over the course of the last few millenia.
I think that our movement does not fully understand what it will actually take to stop the killing of unborn children. The only way to stop the killing is to have strong and effective laws that are vigorously enforced, laws that apply to everyone who might be involved in any way in the killing of an unborn child…’
The constant and continuous monitoring of women to check for pregnancy. All but locking them up to ‘protect’ the pregnancy. Women suffering through pregnancy no matter what. Dying through pregnancy no matter what. Neighbours spying on neighbours. Pregnancy police. High security maternity facilities. Daily blood and urine tests for pregnant women to check for RU486 etc. Daily blood and urine tests even for non-pregnant women. All women under constant suspicion and supervision from puberty onwards.
It all sounds a bit ‘brutopian’ and fascist to me. Is that the world you envision?
You pro-aborts seem to view any pregnancy that isn’t planned some kind of tragedy or life sentence. It’s not. Children are not a punishment. Unborn babies are not the enemy. I don’t know how someone can kill their own child in the name of liberty, but that isn’t liberty. That’s not what the first feminists were fighting for, and as a woman, I cannot get behind a movement that not only tells me that my child–a distinct and separate person–is part of my body (biologically false and also impossible), but that I should support and celebrate the killing of my child, for any reason I wish.
Thanks for this, MaryLee.
‘‘You pro-aborts seem to view any pregnancy that isn’t planned some kind of tragedy or life sentence’ – no we don’t, sometimes it is the case but not in most.
‘celebrate the killing of my child’ – celebrate? Who, how, when?
You do exaggerate!
By the way Kel, I shan’t react to people such as ‘yor bro ken’ by creating some derogatory derivative of their monicker.
Joe,
This issue has already been thrashed out, rather extensively (see this thread for copious comments to that effect; look especially for comments from Jamie, Carla, Ed and me, regarding punishment for women who procure an abortion); there are implications to your position which I don’t know if you’ve quite considered, yet. Check out that thread, and let us know what you think.
You wrote:
Since many people are ignorant of the facts of fetal development and have been subjected to propaganda and disinformation from the abortionist movement for many decades, it is reasonable to advocate lesser penalties for the crime of abortion than the crime of murder.
Perhaps… and let me be clear: you and I may be far closer to agreement than you realize. My main complaints were from some of your more broad-sounding statements which belied your qualifiers, and from your repeated insinuations that we (who are debating you) somehow reject (categorically and without exception) the prosecution of any and all women who procure (or attempt to procure) abortions. Can you show me who’s been arguing thusly? Otherwise, you’re arguing against a nonexistent opponent.
Let’s try to cut to the chase, here:
1) You support criminalization of abortion. Well and good; so do I.
2) You support prosecuting mothers who succeed in (or who attempt) the procurement of an abortion. I may be able to agree, but only with a caveat: there must be a formal provision by which the culpability of each individual woman can be discerned (to the best of our human abilities), and by which the outcome of the prosecution can be influenced.
3) I see why you’d be tempted to set a “low bar” for the punishment of women who procure abortions; but that may collide with your repeated assertions that “we treat abortion just the same way we treat murder”. For example (and I admit the irony in my argument of this–take it as playing the devil’s advocate, if you like): how will this serve justice in the case of a woman who freely and knowingly (in her view) hired an assassin to kill her unborn child? A high bar with leniency potential (for women who weren’t so cold-blooded) could accommodate that situation; a low bar would not.
If we do not apprehend these mothers and if we do not hold them in jail while awaiting the birth of their children and while awaiting trial, we literally cannot stop them from going out and making another attempt to take the lives of their children.
Here’s where your example gets rather extreme, and where it would probably fail to pass constitutional muster: it’s simply not possible to hold every woman who has tried to procure an abortion. Even under current law, one cannot be imprisoned for the duration of a pregnancy, out of fear for the child; a single writ of habeas corpus would make short work of that, I think. If even a gangster who verbally threatens someone can’t be thrown in prison and kept there until the safety of the potential victim is secured, how would you expect to enact what you propose, here?
We MUST arrest mothers who are seeking the “services” of a criminal abortionist, because if we do not, I see no way of protecting their children.
I have no objection to that. My concern regards how things are handled AFTER that. I’m still not sure I understand your position on that matter, specifically. Could you be more specific?
This much is absolutely clear: if we are to be successful in actually stopping the killing of unborn children, we MUST treat abortion crime the same way we treat all other crimes. There is simply no rational alternative.
Here, for example, is where you lapse into very broad and imprecise language which belies the more subtle qualifiers you place elsewhere. In what way do you mean, “treat abortion the SAME WAY”? There are literally hundreds of possible meanings for this, not all of which are either feasible or morally justifiable. Hence my previous comments.
The penalties applied to prenatal homicide must be applied consistently to all parties involved in the commission of the crime and must be applied to the mother alone in instances in which she is solely responsible for the death of her child.
Hold on. Are you suggesting that the woman should receive the same punishment as would the abortionist? I need to have your answer clearly, before I can comment further on that.
Supporters of unborn human rights must abandon unsound ideas and beliefs which cause us to advocate laws and strategies which will provide the helpless and innocent unborn with less than full legal protection for their basic human rights.
That sounds very fine, as a campaign speech… but I don’t think you’ve thought through the details and implications of this; it’s almost painfully vague. Can you clarify, with specifics? As just one example: What would be the statute of limitations for women who procure abortions? There is usually no such statute for murder; would you consider it just to prosecute those women who procured abortions (or, more likely, were forced into abortions) when the deception of the culture of death was at its height? This isn’t a rhetorical question; I’m genuinely interested in your answer.
“The pro-life community is seeking to give women actual choices, so they don’t have to kill their babies.”
What do you think “liberal” voters do when they support universal healthcare, Title X, welfare programs, WIC, Head Start, affordable childcare, back-to-work programs, etc? What do you think the New York Civil Liberties Union is doing by fighting to keep open the few remaining public schools with programs for pregnant students?
http://www.nyclu.org/issues/reproductive-rights/rights-of-pregnant-and-parenting-women
We don’t expect women to depend solely on the largesse of volunteers in the third sector to alleviate social disparities. Unfortunately, even with all the structural changes in the world, some pregnant women will still choose…not to be pregnant, hence the fight for abortion rights.
What kind of accommodations will there be for pregnant women in jail, Joe? I’d expect only the best. You do know that stress causes undue harm to the fetus? I’m sure you’ve read that big piece on prenatal development that ran in Time Magazine last week. Will there be pregnant-mommy yoga? Will you cater to women’s idiosyncratic cravings? How about counseling for women at risk of post-partum depression (which, I imagine under the conditions, will constitute most of the incarcerated pregnant population)? Will you shoot up laboring women with epidurals or provide equipment for water births? Do let me know about the logistics; the safety and health of the fetus is at stake!
Cranium:
Your abortionist movement has always been known for extreme intellectual dishonesty and you are showing yourself to be the same way. You completely twisted and distorted my sound arguments to make them seem absolutely ridiculous. I did not say anything about “constant monitoring” or “pregnancy police” or anything like that. I simply said that individuals who try to kill their unborn children, human beings with rights, should be arrested and held accountable for their actions. People who are a danger to others cannot be allowed to walk free while they continue to constitute a danger to anyone else, including their own children. The reason you twisted my arguments instead of refuting them is because you know they are sound.
As an opponent of (unborn) human rights, you cannot actually find anything “scary”.You would allow all of us human beings to be killed in the unborn stage and to have every one of us deprived of our entire human lifespans. If you would allow the total destruction of every member of our species, how can you be concerned about anything else that ever happens to us? You can try to be an advocate for pregnant women who kill or attempt to kill their unborn children, but remember you would have allowed every one of those women to have been destroyed in the first nine months of life. How can you show concern for human beings each of whose lives you would have supported ending?
Paladin:
Of course there would be acomodations for individual circumstances. It would be up to the courts to decide. Obviously, I am only trying to assert general principles here.
I am arguing that as a general rule we should hold people accountable for their actions. I am simply trying to assert that the unborn must be protected to the fullest extent possible. This is obvious but I am having to make these arguments because a large part of the establishment in the unborn human rights movement has come to what I consider to be a highly irrational conclusion, namely that mothers and fathers are somehow always “victims” rather than perpetrators of abortion crimes. Obviously, there are times when this might be true and that would be taken into account, but as a general rule, this line of argument is absolutely lethal to the unborn and devastating to the cause of protecting them. I cannot really see how under a system advocated by many in this movement that we could effectively protect unborn children from violence and that is of course our goal.
Megan:
I was asserting a general principle that we must do all that we can to protect all members of the human family, including those in the unborn stage, from violence. I was not attempting to map out in great detail every aspect of how the criminal justice system would work. That would be for experts in that field at the appropriate time.
Please stop referring to unborn children as “fetuses”. You would not refer to infants as “neonates” in an attempt to dehumanize them, would you? The preferred expression is “unborn child” or “unborn baby”. Whether you like it or not, unborn human beings are legitimate members of the human family, as legitimately human as you or I. There have the same rights as every other human being at any stage of our lives.
Your attempts to dehumanize them and your lack of regard for their rights as human beings I find very offensive and immoral. I think I speak for a lot of pro-life people when I say that.
Joe wrote:
Of course there would be acomodations for individual circumstances. It would be up to the courts to decide. Obviously, I am only trying to assert general principles here.
All right; but some of your other comments (and the specifics to which they allude) may not be feasible, and some might even be violations of justice. See above for details.
I am arguing that as a general rule we should hold people accountable for their actions.
I don’t think anyone would disagree with that general statement. But it’s far too broad to help us discern this matter clearly, I think… and I really don’t think your pro-life opponents disagree with it (as you seem to think). More on that, below.
I am simply trying to assert that the unborn must be protected to the fullest extent possible.
Very true. It’s just a matter of “how”… which is precisely the topic of our discussion.
This is obvious but I am having to make these arguments because a large part of the establishment in the unborn human rights movement has come to what I consider to be a highly irrational conclusion, namely that mothers and fathers are somehow always “victims” rather than perpetrators of abortion crimes.
Well… can you distinguish between those who are “absolutists” in that particular “mother is never culpable” sense (whose position I would reject as readily as you do) and those (like me) who are convinced that, while not unanimous or absolute, the vast *majority* of women have had their instincts, their consciences and/or their raw data on the matter corrupted [to a greater or lesser extent] by a veritable sea of lies? If you think that the number of women who’re genuinely deceived on this matter is a mere handful, I’ll have to disagree completely with you… and I don’t envy you your task of proving your case!
Obviously, there are times when this might be true and that would be taken into account, but as a general rule, this line of argument is absolutely lethal to the unborn and devastating to the cause of protecting them.
Again: I think you’re making your “opposition” seem more extreme than they are; you’re using something of a caricature (i.e. casting your opponents as saying, “all women are completely innocent of all wrongdoing, and it’d be a moral crime to convict even one woman–no matter how cold-seeming and calculating–of a crime related to her abortion!”) which doesn’t describe the typical pro-life commenter on this forum. If you have counter-examples, I’ll be happy to look at them.
Joe wrote, in reply to Megan:
Please stop referring to unborn children as “fetuses”. You would not refer to infants as “neonates” in an attempt to dehumanize them, would you?
Oooh! :) That’s a good image; I might have to steal that one…
“If you would allow the total destruction of every member of our species, how can you be concerned about anything else that ever happens to us?”
Now that’s a silly question. Allowing women control of their pregnancies would hardly result in the destruction of the human species. One could argue that every woman in the world could suddenly go Lysistrata and choose not to have sex or reproduce, which would result in the discontinuation of the human species. But that won’t ever happen, and neither would the “total destruction of every member of our species.” Women will continue to have babies and will continue to choose to end their pregnancies, whether safely or otherwise. Been happening for millenia.
Also Joe, I think it’s fair of you to attend to the logistics of the policies you seek to implement. I want to know what these jails would look like.
Megan:
You would allow ALL human beings to be killed or to have been killed in the unborn stage. You would have allowed every member of the human species to be destroyed in the unborn stage and you would have allowed every member of the human race to have their entire lifespans taken from them. The fact that “only” 25-30% of human beings are killed in this way does not change the fact that you would allow 100% to be killed.
Given that you would have allowed all of us to be killed and be deprived of the lives we are living, it is not logical for you now to care about any human being alive today. I realize that you do, but if you actually accept the abortionist mentality as it is and not as you wish it to be (and you do not because almost no one does), then you must believe that we can all be deprived of every minute of our lives and cannot have a right to a full human lifespan or any part of it. I am saying you cannot be concerned about anything that happens to any woman or man (I realize you do but I am saying it doesn’t make sense) in this life when you would have allowed the total deprivation of the very same life. In other words, you cannot say it is okay to kill people but do not do any harm to them. If we can all be destroyed, nothing else that happens to us can matter.
Why do you talk about “pregnancies” instead of talking about unborn children? Are you afraid to face the reality of the lethal violence which you would allow to be inflicted on your fellow human beings?
The only way to “end a pregnancy” safely is to give birth. Killing a human being in the unborn stage is a violent and lethal crime. It cannot logically be called “safe”.
The fact that some women, lacking a highly developed conscience and strong moral/human values or having been lied to and deceived by the abortion “industry” will continue to try to commit this violent crime against their own children does not in any way justify allowing it to continue. Are you aware of the fact that men have been raping women for thousands of years and that parents also committed infanticide in ancient times? That slavery was committed against human beings for millenia? Does the fact that these crimes against human beings have been committed in the past justify them?
I do not know what the jails would look like. I am not an expert on criminal justice.
Paladin:
I realize that there are many complicating factors here as to how much the mother knew, if she was coerced by the father or grandmother, what her psychological and emotional state was, etc. I am curious as to what your position is here. Are you saying that if large numbers of mothers are unaware of the facts of fetal development and were pressured by father/grandmother, etc., that they should receive no punishment? What if a young mother truly does not know what she is doing but is still a threat to her child? Should she be allowed to be a threat and go ahead without intervention to kill her child? Although I am concerned about the punishment to be imposed on a mother after killing her child, I am more concerned with apprehending mothers so that they cannot kill their children in the first place. This is really the whole point, to protect unborn children from being killed.
To stop the killing of unborn children I believe we will need to deter their mothers from trying to kill them and when that fails, to apprehend them when they make the attempt. We need to protect children from both those mothers who know exactly what they are doing and those who honestly do not. How will you protect children from mothers who are “not culpable”? The lack of culpability in many instances is why I have advocated lesser penalties for prenatal homicide than postnatal homicide. The reality is that not only are there many young women who do not know fetal development, but there are others who full well know, but still believe that you have a “right” to kill unborn children. I cannot see, except in rare circumstances, having NO penalty for an act which kills a human being.
Think of this. Al Qaeda members know they are killing human beings but sincerely believe that God has commanded them to wage holy war against “infidels”. What are they to do, disobey God? They may tell you they would prefer not to have to do what they are doing, but they must obey the will of God. Should they not be punished? I would actually consider giving them a lesser sentence because of that mitigating circumstance, but they should definitely still be punished, not because they believe they are committing a crime, but because they are committing a crime.
If we cannot deter or apprehend mothers (or a very large percentage of them) because we say they “don’t know what they are doing”, even if we are right and trying to be fair, the bottom line is that large numbers of children will die unjustly. Is this fair or moral?
Joe wrote, in reply to my comment:
I am curious as to what your position is here. Are you saying that if large numbers of mothers are unaware of the facts of fetal development and were pressured by father/grandmother, etc., that they should receive no punishment?
That depends; sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no. That’s precisely what would need to be determined, case-by-case.
What if a young mother truly does not know what she is doing but is still a threat to her child? Should she be allowed to be a threat and go ahead without intervention to kill her child?
Er… are you forgetting that someone might INFORM her of what she’s doing, and of the manifold evil implications? That’s much of my point; truly innocent ignorance (which is the type that I’ve described, in previous comments) can be rectified by knowledge. If someone is “a danger to her child”, then the first order of business is (while using minimal necessary force to restrain her intention, and giving her every benefit of the doubt, along the way) to EDUCATE her, using every resource at our disposal (e.g. 4-D ultrasounds, videos, testimonies of post-abortive mothers, information about available pregnancy care centers and charities, sensitivity and care while giving the presentations, and so on). Surely that stands to reason?
Now, if the mother–after every possible intervention–is still bound and determined to kill her child, THEN we can speak of more severe prosecution and/or restraint, since “ignorance” would no longer be a valid plea. (Even then, one must be careful not to be draconian; the conscience-deadening/brainwashing took a long time, and even the best evidence and information might not “cure” everyone overnight.)
Does that clarify?
But how do you find her in the first place? She is out there trying to find a criminal abortionist to kill her unborn child. How do you stop her?
I don’t discriminate against groups of people who live outside women’s bodies. A woman’s right to control her pregnancy also protects born individuals from bodily injury or harm. Bodily autonomy: parents who don’t immunize their kids can’t send them to public school because it places both their kids and other children at risk of disease. When a child exists in the world, parental interest ends when a child’s well-being is at stake. We can’t send people to jail without due process. And the state has learned that it cannot constitutionally interfere in a person’s private sex life, as with the repeal of Texas’ anti-sodomy laws.
Upholding an unborn child’s “right to life” undermines any individual’s claims to bodily autonomy. Any practice could be justified if it were deemed capable of upholding “right to life” claims: AIDS patients could be quarantined to stem the spread of the disease; individuals with severe chronic or terminal illnesses could be dropped from insurance plans to minimize risk and maintain the pool for healthier people with better future prospects; domestic workers could be forced to endure horrible working conditions and insufferably long hours without remuneration while taking care of other people’s children.
Too bad these horrifying Handmaid’s Tale-esque cases of abuse occur all the time in the Western world. And it would only get worse if your worldview were instantiated. Let alone a pregnant woman, I would not want to be anybody in the horribly dystopian universe you’ve depicted.
I’m still waiting, Joe, for a response. You seem to know quite a lot about criminology, actually, since incarceration of pregnant women was your idea in the first place. Why not attend to the details? The lives of unborn children are at stake.
There is no “right” to “control a pregnancy” (translation: kill an unborn child). You need to be able to talk about killing human beings in the unborn stage and not hide behind words.
The reason there can be no “right” to kill unborn children is because we are placental mammals and it is intrinsic to our nature to live in the bodies of our mothers for nine months. We have a fundamental right to live in accordance with our nature and this means that we have a right to live in the bodies of our mothers in the first part of life. It is ridiculous to argue we can be killed in the unborn stage because this would essentially mean that we do not have a right to live our lives.
You are asserting a position which would properly apply to living beings whose biology is different from ours. It does not and, by its very nature, cannot apply to human beings. You have to recognize that the abortionist mentality is and always has been fallacious, as it is contrary to our nature and based entirely on satisfying psychological needs.
You, as a former unborn child, should recognize that we are all members of the human family, that we all have a basic right to live a full human lifespan and that killing us at any point in our lives is a violation of our human rights.
‘You completely twisted and distorted my sound arguments to make them seem absolutely ridiculous.’ – I don’t think I did Joe and I based my response on the statements that you had made.
Some examples:
‘I think that our movement does not fully understand what it will actually take to stop the killing of unborn children. The only way to stop the killing is to have strong and effective laws that are vigorously enforced, laws that apply to everyone who might be involved in any way in the killing of an unborn child…’
‘ I simply said that individuals who try to kill their unborn children, human beings with rights, should be arrested and held accountable for their actions. People who are a danger to others cannot be allowed to walk free while they continue to constitute a danger to anyone else, including their own children.’
‘I am simply trying to assert that the unborn must be protected to the fullest extent possible’
‘To stop the killing of unborn children I believe we will need to deter their mothers from trying to kill them and when that fails, to apprehend them when they make the attempt’
‘But how do you find her in the first place? She is out there trying to find a criminal abortionist to kill her unborn child. How do you stop her?’
So tell me Joe, HOW do you intend to establish parameters which would meet your desires? I do not see how it could be done without the scenario I described. You would need to know when women are fertile, when they are sexually active and when they are pregnant – that is the only way you could prevent abortion.
Talking about “nature” is a fatuous, fraught argument. Another poster on this blog claimed women are less logical than men “by nature.” By logical extension, men can rape women because it’s “in their nature” to demand sex.
I’m glad my mother had the option of abortion open to her during her pregnancy. In my unborn state I had no claim on existence that superseded her right to physical liberty. Perhaps I could have petitioned the state to create a prenatal incubator for my use? Heard unborn children have a lot of legal clout these days.
It’s comforting to know that my mother had me because she wanted me. There is no ambiguity there, for me; yes, there were times when parenting was difficult for her, but I feel no guilt for existing because parenting was a choice she freely accepted. I think of the jails you propose and I want to vomit. Imagining any pregnant woman, my mother, shackled, while the state holds her during pregnancy, blasting 4-D videos of fetal development–this smacks so much of 1984 that I can’t believe the ACLU isn’t already knocking on your door.
My claim on existence began when I was separated from my mother’s body. Before that, yes, she could have had me killed. But considering at that point I wouldn’t have even existed outside her body in the world–my claim to existence being predicated on my “future potential” as a birthed child–there wouldn’t have been much to lose. I am me because I have lived twenty-something years on this earth, and conversations about “what would have been” are ridiculous because I, quite simply, would not have been, would not be present here right now to debate it, if my mother had chosen abortion.
You did not really understand anything I said. You are like all good abortionist activists, totally in your head and taking positions based on psychological need.
Human beings have an inalienable natural right to live a human lifespan in accordance with our nature. If you cannot understand that then I can offer you no further assistance.
“You are like all good abortionist activists, totally in your head and taking positions based on psychological need.”
Well clearly I DO need your assistance to prevent me from aborting any future children. Again Joe, tell me what the penal system would look like for pregnant women contemplating ending their pregnancies. Since you’re clearly advocating this position and want laws to be enacted, you need to be held accountable for the details–but maybe it’s just my psychological need to understand a proposed system that would entail state monitoring of my sexual activity and fertility?
You conveniently have not addressed this point, as well as the implications of a law that violates people’s right to physical freedom and due process. If you guarantee that every blastocyst has the right to implant in a woman’s endometrium and feed off her body for nine months, then how would you counter claims that society has the right to use the bodies of its citizens for other purposes? Why not forced quarantine of AIDS patients, Joe? Stick them all in a room somewhere and prevent them from spreading the disease to others–after all, potential infectees all have the “right to life.”
Tell me, what have I misunderstood here?
Megan:
You are again twisting and distorting my arguments. The prison system would be as it is today. I have never advocated “state monitoring of my sexual activity and fertility”. Where did you get that?
I have simply and reasonably advocated protecting all human beings, born and unborn, from violence. What is wrong with that?
You say you are in your twenties. That means you are a member of the Roe vs. Wade generation. You realize, don’t you, that the abortion crime industry killed about 30 Million members of your generation? At the same time, our movement was trying to save as many millions of you from death as we could.
Why are you making common cause with those who not only waged a biological war against your generation and killed millions of your contemporaries, but who would have killed you too if given the opportunity?
I’m sorry, how did I twist your words? You want to jail pregnant women who seek abortions. Such a policy requires some kind of surveillance system, right? Some way to catch criminals? Otherwise it would have no effect on crime, right? Also, in the name of protecting “born and unborn” human beings from violence, why not outlaw motor vehicles? Huge cause of death in the US, especially in kids.
Many lives were lost in miscarriage, many lives prevented from existing through the use of barrier contraception. There isn’t much difference in life lost at 2 days and life lost at 6 weeks. Still a being dependent on a woman’s body, not existing autonomously in the world. I don’t mourn “potentials”–there are plenty of born children and individuals who die every day from preventable conditions. Did you know that malnutrition is the highest risk factor for death from an infectious disease? I’d rather focus on helping women bring healthy babies into a healthy world than putting padlocks on uteruses to make sure every baby gets squeezed out. Structural violence exist and needs to be addressed, but until then, why force women to bring children into the world for whom they don’t have the resources to sustain?
I wouldn’t force them to “bring children into the world”. The children are already alive and here. I’m trying to save human beings’ lives, that’s all.
‘I have simply and reasonably advocated protecting all human beings, born and unborn, from violence. What is wrong with that?’ – and how do you propose to do that without creating a state where every woman must be monitored to check if she is pregnant and then prevented from taking any course of action which could threaten that pregnancy?
I do not propose to create such a state. There is no such state to stop people murdering each other or to stop men raping women.
Stop arguing against positions I have NOT taken. If you want to respond, please respond to the arguments I have actually made.
Joe,
We ARE responding to the arguments you’ve made. You want to stop abortion. Your first step is to criminalize it. Okay, so no more abortion providers. The next step is to prevent home abortions or underground, illegal abortions. How do you propose to find the women who would seek out an illegal service? Or, to re-frame the question: if pregnancy is visible, how would you prevent state authorities from identifying and monitoring individual pregnant women?
Scenario: Woman is six weeks pregnant, confides in friend that she wants to terminate the pregnancy. Friend alerts authorities. Authorities do what? Put woman on house arrest? Post officers in her neighborhood to monitor her travel activities? What?
Megan:
Finally, a reasonable question.
A few years ago I read in the papers about a woman who wanted to kill her husband. She decided to hire a hitman. She talked to a friend of hers who worked as a construction foreman about whether he knew of anyone who could “take care of her problem”, so to speak.
He went to the police and told them what she had told him. He said that she must think that since he work in construction he might know someone who would do that sort of thing. The police sent an undercover cop to pose as a hitman. When the wife offered the “hitman” $5,000 (I think it was) to kill her husband, she was arrested and charged with attempted murder.
Does that answer your question?
Well Joe, what about a woman who falls pregnant, tells no-one, and tries to abort by all sorts of methods which require no outside assistance (no matter how risky those methods may be).
How can you prevent such a scenario? Does she just get away with it if she succeeds? How many might do that? What about an illegal abortion industry operating deep ‘underground’?
Basically, if you don’t institute the sort of regime I’ve outlined – you fail.
What about men who rape women with ski masks on and run off into the night? Do they just get away with it? Yes.
What about date rape drugs? Do they get away with it? Yes, frequently.
What about “he said, she said” rape cases and there is not enough evidence to prosecute? Do they get away with it? Yes.
What about men with diplomatic immunity who rape women? Do they just get away with it? Yes.
What about child molesters? Do they get away with it? Yes, frequently.
Life is imperfect and I don’t have a solution for every problem. I was simply trying to offer the best means of protecting human beings from violence that would be available in the real world.