I apologize if this has already been covered, but I could not find a relevant thread in the archives.
Rather than hijacking this thread, I thought it would be better to start a new one.
For those of you who believe all abortions should be illegal, what do you think the punishment should be for having an abortion? I often hear pro-lifers say that abortion is equivalent to murder. Do you support the same punishment for abortion as you do for murder?
An IUD prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg. Do you also believe IUDs should be illegal? If not, why not?
And what about birth control pills? Generally speaking, birth control pills prevent ovulation, but they also make the lining of the uterus “hostile,” so if an egg becomes fertilized, it will likely not implant.
I think the penalty should be death. ONLY UNBORN LIFE DESERVES PROTECTION. Women, especially those below the poverty line, are worthy only of disdain. Any pain or suffering inflicted on them by restrictive anti-abortion policies is irrelevant–in fact, it’s a happy conclusion in that they were probably promiscuous anyway and deserve to be punished for this moral depravity…(Is this what you were hoping to hear? Does this help?)…
Actually, I’m just back from the hospital and having a bad day, so forgive me. Your questions are good ones. I don’t know what the punishment should be. I don’t know IF there should be a punishment. There are people I love dearly who have had abortions, decent, reasonable people, and I don’t think of them as criminals (though I believe they have been misguided). Hell, I’d probably kill for a couple of them (the irony, man–you could cut it with a knife!). Maybe I’m being hypocritical. Anyway, my goal isn’t specifically to have anybody punished.
For the record, since you asked, I do believe IUDs are morally troubling for the same reasons abortions are. So I get points for being consistent. Do I want IUD users rounded up and tried? Again, nope, I don’t think so. I don’t know. I’m going to go get a beer.
I guess then I’m confused. If abortion is the moral equivelent of murder, why then are you conflicted about some one paying the penalty?
Perhaps, maybe, because you DO actually see a difference between a zygote and a human being? or is it just that you see the women you know as “confused and wrong, but not criminal”.
If you detect ambivalence and confusion on my part on how to view and/or deal with those who have abortions, you are correct. I have yet to meet a person who had an abortion who did so out of maliciousness or callousness or for what they saw as a trivial reason. Those people may exist, but I haven’t met them. I don’t want people who are genuinely committed to doing the right thing (but misguided, from my perspective) thrown in jail. It’s not principally a legal issue for me. Again, I may be a hypocrite here.
I am not conflicted about my view of where life begins. So, to answer your specific question, I tend to view women who have abortions as “confused and wrong, but not criminal.” I sympathize with their plight and understand what leads them to their decision, but can’t justify their decisions within the axioms I hold. I hope this doesn’t come off as condescending.
I agree with everything said by Bob in the previous post…and he said it a lot more eloquently that I could have…
just to add a thought…
My goal (and actually, that of many pro choice folks also…I think) is to reduce the number of abortions in this country.
Criminal prosecution does not (at least as far as I can imagine the scenario) really accomplish that task…certainly not the prosecution of the woman who has it performed
I of course do not speak for other pro life folks.
not necessarily condescending, but certainly inconsistant.
Our system of justice (in the US, you seemed to answer other stuff in the other thread as an American), includes the concept of motive. And folks generally get a lesser degree of criminal action and punishment for a less repugnant motive. However, their actions are still criminal in nature.
If I may - when ever I’ve been faced by a seeming inconsistant attitude within myself, I’ve done soul searching to discover the reason, and it’s often led me to a revaluation of my stance on something.
So, if the destruction of the embryo, fetus, zygoat (and even the barely discernbable batch of cells from the IUD usage) is morally repugnant to you, and you level the ‘charge’ that it involves the of wrongful killing a human being, then why in the world would you NOT require punishment under the law?
I’m not sure if this is a good analogy or not,but there are plenty of folks who think that drug use is wrong…that there is no inalienable right to use drugs…who want drug use to decrease, but who are not always sure about the best way to accomplish that…and who think that just rounding up drug users and putting them in prison does not seem to serve a purpose
Not sure why this is inconsistent. You want to discuss U.S. law; I want to discuss philosophy. Motive has a somewhat different meaning in that context (and, yes, it’s not lost on me that there is a great deal of overlap).
Again, I’ll reiterate that my principal goal is not to punish or discuss the legality of the issue–my objective is to follow an ethical path and to encourage others to do so. If you want to make it a more specific statement, my goal (as Dave said for himself) is to reduce the number of abortions in this country. Villifying those who have had abortions would not, I don’t think, accomplish this.
If you bring it back to, “but isn’t that inconsistent with a unified U.S. legal code regarding murder?,” I’ll reply by saying, yes, it may be. But it’s not necessarily inconsistent within my own belief system.
wring discussed the issue of motive. There are a couple of additional factors if one considers abortion to be the moral equivalent of murder.
[ul]
[li]The act is premeditated.[/li][li]Since both the woman and her doctor (and presumably a nurse, office staff, etc) are involved in the abortion, charges of conspiracy should also apply.[/li][/ul]
I have to echo wring’s thought that if someone really believes that abortion is the equivalent of murder, and that if the life of the z/e/f is equal to yours or mine, than that person should not have a problem with equivalent punishment.
As far as reducing the number of abortions, what does this mean if methods of birth control such as IUDs are also considered morally questionable by (some) prolifers? Are barrier methods (not particulary reliable) and sterilization (rather extreme IMO) the only acceptable methods? I said in the OP that birth control pills also prevent implantation in some cases, so they presumabley wouldn’t be acceptable so some prolifers, either.
Keep in mind, NO one on either side is saying “yippee! abortions went up!”. But, your argument of “we’re trying to DECREASE abortions” isn’t entirely accurate. the RTL movement has as it’s aim, not only the decrease in abortions, but the DENIAL of abortions. In doing so, for example, they have made it their aim to REDUCE the funding to Planned Parenthood simply because of PP’s approach that abortion is a legal and possible procedure. To reduce PP’s funding also reduces the availability of birth control information to exactly the population that needs it most. To suggest now that your aim is to merely “reduce abortions” is disingenious, at best.
Your answer of “this is my moral stance” which shouldn’t be confused with a legal stance, also isn’t quite true, unless of course, you are content having your moral stance on your own without attempting to regulate the availability of the procedure to others. Once you cross that line and attempt to suggest your moral stance should be the law of the land, I suggest you should be prepared to defend it on LEGAL as well as moral grounds. My stance has ALWAYS been “You don’t approve of abortions? don’t get one. But don’t interfere with some one else’s actions on the subject”
And finally. To legislate the procedure, includes penalties for failing to adhere to the law. And, thank you to Asmodean, who quite nicely showed up to pontificate the general view of the RTL movement “gee why are you prosecuting the person who killed the 6 month old children when x number of abortions go on every day, 'cause it’s the same thing.”
Back to the OP - just exactly WHAT are you suggesting an appropriate punishment to be?
I don’t speak for the RTL movement (if there is a monolithic movement) …please don’t put anybody elses’ words in my mouth. I was not “disingenious” at all…unless you group all us “pro lifers” together is a neat tidy package
Exactly how, then do you work to “reduce the number of abortions”?
Do you limit yourself to talking to people about your personal beliefs regarding abortion and attempt to sway them to your side?
Or do you actively advocate to limit the AVAILABILITY of abortion (this is very different)
Do you only vote for candidates who promise to abolish abortions?
Re: companies such as PP, do you continually attempt to get them to either shut down or refuse to offer information on abortion?
Do you work to reduce the number of places that even offer abortion services, even if this means that they close down and offer NO health services?
I’m just trying to see where your actions/beliefs are different than the aims of the groups you’ve cited in your arguments.
AND I reiterate: if your stance about abortion INCLUDES taking actions to make abortions illegal or unavailable, then your moral stance has taken on a legal one and I’m still waiting to hear what you propose to have as the punishment for the woman who disobeys the law.
I will answer the OP without all the side-tracks. My opinion only, meant only as an intellectual exercise, as I don’t believe there is any way that abortion will become illegal. Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the issue simply goes back to the state legislatures. I don’t think our culture today represents an anti-abortion-rights view.
Having said that, if abortion was illegal, of course there would have to be some type of punishment. A law without consequences is no law at all. I would make the case that any doctor (or other person for that matter) performing an abortion would be subject to a penalty (manslaughter, perhaps?). I’m not a lawyer, but I believe even within the category of “manslaughter” there are sub-categories that could be applied.
As far as the mother is concerned, I do not think that she would be subject to the same severity of penalty. Our legal system takes into account mental and emotional circumstances when assigning degrees of guilt or mitigating factors for certain actions, up to and including the taking of a life.
I believe that abortion is objectively wrong. But whatever the subjective feelings about this matter, however much anguish mothers go through–these are matters that might be taken into account by others, in mitigation of guilt. When a jury acquitted John Hinckley of attempted murder by reason of insanity, they did not thereby intend to imply that he made the right decision in trying to shoot the president, or that it is objectively morally right for insane people to shoot presidents. It was a judgement about his subjective state at the time of the incident.
And no, I’m not suggesting that women be locked up as mental patients. I’m only making a point about mitigating circumstances. Even so, there would have to be a sliding scale of justice. Would the legal system treat a confused teenager the same as someone who has just aborted her 5th baby? The legal system would have to look at other circumstances as well. Is the pregnancy a product of rape, or just carelessness?
I’m not going to get drawn into the game of assigning each possible permutation of a pregnancy circumstance to some theoretical position on the sliding scale, or attempt to assign a punishment for each circumstance. If abortion was illegal, that would be up to the legal system on a case by case basis, as it is with every other crime.
Much as I would love to make a pun about your spelling of “zygote,” I’m going to spare the other dopers a dose of my groan-worthy wit. This time. (But, man, was I ever tempted!)
Dave said it fine, but I’ll reiterate: I don’t speak for anyone but myself. I also believe that pro-lifers, like pro-choice advocates, have greatly different arguments and conclusions from person to person–IOW, I don’t think anyone speaks for a single, unified movement.
**
Defending the prohibition of abortions on legal grounds is a different question then the OP, which offered it as a given–i.e., what if it were illegal, what should the penalty be? I’ve defended the position–that this is the taking of human life–as rational in other threads, though I don’t expect I converted anyone. Given that belief–I understand you don’t accept this as a given–you can see that it’s not terribly difficult to defend the prohibition of abortion, at least some abortions, legally. But, again, that’s not the question that was posed or answered.
If illegal, what should the punishment be? Again, I don’t know. It should be related to the specific circumstances, just like every other crime. I also believe it is absolutely unique in its circumstances, and I would not be troubled by the thought that this particular act of taking a life were treated differently than, say, someone who kills someone in the act of robbery. Understand, though, that in either instance I find it has produced the same effect–it has occurred, though, through vastly different circumstances, and those circumstances should be considered. But it is not exactly analogous to other acts of taking a life in anything but its consequences to the victim.
Sorry I can’t be more specific. I don’t believe my inability to articulate all the details for how this “law” (as implied by the OP) should be upheld (which is the question in this thread) necessarily leads to a conclusion that it’s impossible to support a belief that abortion is generally wrong (a different question). I get the sense that there are others who see this as a glaring inconsistency.
Speaking only for myself, I don’t see any inconsistency with the above. I only see an inconsistency where someone (not necessarily Bob) says abortion is murder (which has a specific definition and does not merely mean the killing of a human) and then doesn’t know if it should be punished the same as other murders.If you believe it’s murder, then you should believe it should be punished like any other murder. If you believe it’s voluntary manslaughter, then you should believe it should be punished like any other voluntary manslaughter. If you believe it’s wrong, but is such a unique situation that it’s not comparable to either murder, manslaughter or any other existing crime,you have far more leeway to determine punishment while still being consistent.
There are a lot of things that I think are wrong, but that doesn’t mean I think they should be illegal. Additionally, just because I think something should be legal doesn’t mean I think it’s a “good thing” to do.
If someone is saying “I think abortion is wrong in all circumstances, but I don’t think it should be illegal,” then technically, the original question was not directed to you, and I certainly don’t see this position as bein inconsistent. If someone think it should be illegal, but hasn’t considered that this actually means punishing people who break the law, I’d propose that you really haven’t thought things through. And for prolifers who claim abortion is the moral equivalent to murder (and this seems to be a fairly common position - I’ve certainly heard it frequently), but have problems equivalent punishment, I’d propose that person doesn’t really believe that a z/e/f is equivalent to a born person.
Does anybody out there who believes that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder care to answer the questions in the OP?
Also, I’d certainly like to see some answers to the questions posed in wring’s last post to this thread.