Two different acts could produce the same conclusion (the death of an innocent).
The same two acts could have vastly different circumstances which, while not necessarily removing culpability, could lead to different determinations of what the appropriate punishment should be.
I believe you’re asserting that if one values the unborn and the born equally, the only logical conclusion is that abortion should carry all the same punishments and associations as murder. I don’t agree that this analogy is exact, and I likewise disagree that this makes it “clear that {I} also draw some philosophical difference between the born baby and the E/Z/F,” for the reasons noted above. Can you clarify why you feel this is illogical? Am I mistating your position? Thanks.
This wasn’t addressed to me, but I said something similar earlier. If you believe that there is no difference between a born baby and an E/Z/F, then it illogical to feel that the punishment for abortion should be different than the punishment for killing a born baby.Slight hijack here- all illegal killings ( in my state can be criminally negligent homicide,involuntary manslaughter,voluntary manslaughter or murder) do not have the same range of punishment, and even all murders do not in fact get the same punishment ( both the charge and the sentence depend on the circumstances,including cuplability)/ I wouldn’t say that it’s illogical to feel that all abortions shouldn’t be punished in exactly the same way as an armed robbery that results in a murder, but given the belief that there is no difference between a born baby and an E/Z/F, it’s illogical to believe that an abortion should lead to less punishment than allowing a one month old to die due to neglect.
Sorry doreen, but unless I’m reading you wrong, you’re contradicting your own conclusion at a couple of points in your answer (e.g., it’s OK to distinguish between the victim of an armed robbery and a fetus, but not between a fetus and a one-month old baby). Am I misunderstanding?
** Bob Cos ** please note that I said “whatever degree of murder you decide”. The fact that you confer personhood with all of it’s attending rights onto the f/z/e SHOULD in fact mean that said personhood is deserving of exactly the same protections under the law.
So, the intentional killing of a person SHOULD = the intentional killing of a f/z/e, mitigating factors abounding, but you certainly wouldn’t in general want Ole Susan Smith wandering around 'cause she was depressed and confused, right?
So, my question to you remains. You ** do ** seem to ** automatically ** attribute less culpability to the woman who has an abortion (kills her z/e/f). (ie you wanted compassion vs. incarceration - you haven’t indicated that the murderer of a 3 month old child should be automatically dealt with compassion) Why? the only difference seems to be the stage of pregnancy.
It may be that I’m not being clear.The distinction between the armed robbery victim and the fetus is not being made based on the victim, but rather the **circumstances ** of the crime, as is the distinction between the armed robbery victim and the neglect of the one month old baby.If a one month old was killed by an armed robber, the penalties would be the same as if an adult were killed ( and in fact, if the law treated an E/Z/F exactly as it treats a born person,if the armed robber caused a miscarriage or stillbirth, the penalty would be the same as for killing an adult}.
The reason that the baby dying of neglect is punished less harshly is not because it is a baby, but because negligence, in general, is punished less harshly than intentional acts. I can understand someone who believes that an E/F/Z is equivalent to a born baby not believing that an abortion is the equivalent of an armed robbery ( for which in NY you can get life in prison), but I don't understand why it wouldn't be equivalent to the lowest form of illegal homicide ( for which the penalty could be probation) unless some distinction was being made between a fetus and a born baby.I understand that in some cases, the circumstances might diminish or eliminate culpability, but that's true of any crime. Those circumstances, in general, are taken into account **in individual cases ** when the specific charge is chosen (murder or negligent homicide),when certain defenses are used ( justification or insanity,for example) and/or when the sentence is chosen from a range of sentences ( for example,IIRC, the permissible sentences for criminally negligent homicide here range from probation to a few years in prison).They are not taken into account by a legislature essentially saying " Those who kill pre-born people are automatically less culpable than those who kill born people ( although ther's no difference between the born and the pre-born), so it will be an entirely different crime"
I just found something extraordinary here in the library: An English translation of The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, copyright 1973 by Macmillan. Page 26, volume 1 states that abortion was once again made legal by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet on November 23, 1955. That was right after Stalin went to the Great Collective in the Sky. (Or the one underground.) The reasons given for making abortion legal again are:
The higher cultural level of the population. (I guess that means the people were now better educated.)
The relatively high birthrate.
The natural growth of the population.
No mention is made of Stalin’s death. It was pure coincidence, I’m sure. :rolleyes:
I have to say this all sounds reasonable to me. It corresponds almost exactly to my stance on the matter. I guess I’m a Commie.
Now, here’s what they did to people who broke the law:
So now we know how the Soviet Union did it. Thoughts?
I don’t know how someone should be (or even if) should be punished for aborting an eight-month-old fetus. I honestly haven’t thought about it. But being sent to a Siberian labor camp seems kind of steep.
Heck, I don’t even really see why those pro-lifers who claim outright a moral equivalence between a Z/E/F and a baby can wriggle out of it so far as to declare abortion “equivalent to the lowest form of illegal homicide”. After all, by the Z/E/F=baby standard, abortion is the pre-meditated killing of a child, not just an accident or negligence. Women don’t abort their babies in barroom brawls, or in the heat of passion after catching their baby in bed with another woman’s uterus, or in self-defense. (“Your honor, the fetus threatened my client with a knife. She had no choice but to kill it.”) Well, okay, in cases of genuine life-threatening complications you could sort of claim a “self-defense” rationale. But most abortions don’t really take place because otherwise the woman will certainly die. If a woman killed her baby (or hired someone else to do so) because otherwise she’d have to drop out of college, say, I expect she’d be charged with first-degree murder. I guess in more dire circumstances–say a teenager killing her baby because of a well-grounded fear that her abusive father might literally kill her–there might enough sympathy for the girl for the prosecution to reduce the charges and/or punishment on grounds of “temporarily not being of sound mind” or something. (On the other hand, if our hypothetical teenager hired a professional baby hitman, that person would probably still be charged with first-degree murder.) Bob Cos says that “I likewise disagree that this makes it ‘clear that {I} also draw some philosophical difference between the born baby and the Z/E/F,’”, but it still seems to me that unless he wants to treat abortion as the equivalent of first-degree murder he is making some sort of distinction between babies and Z/E/F’s.
Note that I’m not arguing that people can’t argue for restriction or even abolition of abortion without making the Z/E/F=baby equivalent. You could argue that the Z/E/F isn’t fully equivalent to a baby, but is still a “potential person” worthy of some sort of legal protection. You could also argue that some abortions are the equivalent of killing a baby; i.e. Z=/=baby, but F=baby, and E=?=baby. Personally, I don’t have any moral problems with early term abortions, and I’m not bothered by the RU-486 pill or by most abortions which actually take place in this country. I am bothered by the thought of late-term abortions–7 and 8 mos and so on. If I were Dictator, I probably wouldn’t allow such abortions unless a) the baby is effectively already dead (i.e., birth-defects of the level of anencephaly) or b) the mother will actually die if she doesn’t get an abortion–the equivalent of separating Siamese twins. For early–first trimester–abortions, I’d say women should be able to have them pretty much without restrictions, and without having to justify to anybody else what their reasons are (i.e., no “rape and incest” or overwhelming mental anguish or anything like that). For stuff in the middle–well, I guess I’d have to study the issue more carefully (if I’m ever made Dictator, there’s a lot of stuff I’m going to have to read up on.)
Of course, what I’ve just described is more or less what we’re supposed to have now, under Roe v. Wade, isn’t it?
But even intentional acts are judged according to their circumstances; the fact that an act was intentional does not necessarily make it equivalent with another intentional act by virtue of that fact alone. Create an even “‘lower’ form of illegal homicide” if you like. What precludes us from doing that?
A baby who dies from negligence is no less dead, but, again, you’re acknowledging that the situation should be considered (there is culpability, but a lesser culpability–and, BTW, there is a deliberateness to negligence in my opinion; it is someone choosing not to act). And this is reasonable. An unborn child can have the same “status” as a two-year-old, but that does not mean that the intentional abortion is not a singular act, an act without a good comparison to any other deliberate loss of life.
The fact that so many decent people can believe that abortion is not wrong is proof enough for me that there is a great deal of confusion surrounding it (according to my beliefs), a confusion that does not exist, for example, with Susan Smith dumping her children in a lake. That’s the difference for me.
Now, since you think that many (or “so many”) decent people believe that abortion is * not * wrong, could you please, pretty, pretty please, let us act on those beliefs?
Nothing, but if a E/Z/F is legally a person, that new law couldn’t be so specific as to apply only to abortions.It would have to apply to all killings fitting those circumstances. You ** could ** create a law specific to abortion ( and in fact, NYS has one-see below), but doing so would acknowledge a difference between a fetus and a person.
NYS penal law § 125.05 Homicide, abortion and related offenses; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:
“Person,” when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human
being who has been born and is alive.
“Abortional act” means an act committed upon or with respect to a
female, whether by another person or by the female herself, whether she
is pregnant or not, whether directly upon her body or by the administer-
ing, taking or prescription of drugs or in any other manner, with intent
to cause a miscarriage of such female.
“Justifiable abortional act.” An abortional act is justifiable when
committed upon a female with her consent by a duly licensed physician
acting (a) under a reasonable belief that such is necessary to preserve
her life, or, (b) within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of her
pregnancy. A pregnant female’s commission of an abortional act upon
herself is justifiable when she acts upon the advice of a duly licensed
physician (1) that such act is necessary to preserve her life, or, (2)
within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of her pregnancy. The
submission by a female to an abortional act is justifiable when she
believes that it is being committed by a duly licensed physician, acting
under a reasonable belief that such act is necessary to preserve her
life, or, within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of her pregnan-
cy.
It seems to me that that’s more a reason not to make it a legal principle that E/Z/F is a person ( because, after all, that’s where the disagreement starts) than it is a reason to punish abortions differently than similar homicides given a system where E/Z/F is legally a person.
**
I agree in concept. I have suggested on a couple of occasions, though, that I think abortion may be absolutely singular in its circumstances. It’s clear to me you don’t agree, therefore any admission that the punishment could be different for abortion than for other deliberate “killing” amounts to an admission that the unborn are “different” than the born. I think I’ve isolated exactly where we disagree (let me know if I’m misrepresenting your logic). Given this, I just don’t know how else to explain my position and won’t repeat myself (only because I don’t think I have anything to add).
No, the disagreement does not automatically render the argument unresolvable (though it may be, in the sense it’s typically argued). I’m not saying this confusion is justification for coming to the wrong conclusion, only that it is a mitigating circumstance that could reduce the severity with which we “judge.”
I don’t think abortion is quite unique in terms of the circumstances,except, of course for the fetus being inside the mother’s body.If I understand you correctly, that’s not the circumstance that you find important.I think the circumstance that you find important is that decent people can disagree and be unsure of the morality of abortion. (correct me if I’m misunderstanding your position).Decent people can also disagree about the morality of euthanasia and assisted suicide, depending on the circumstances.
To quote from an earlier post of yours:
If you would feel the same about those who assist in suicides or euthanasia who meet the above conditions ( and I suspect by the tone of your posts that you would}, then in my view you are not treating the unborn differently than the born. I also suspect that you’ve put more thought into your position ( which appears to be that abortion is the taking of a human life,but not necessarily murder) than those who simply say (I haven’t seen it on the board, but have heard it in real life} “Anyone who has an abortion is a murderer” who are then dumbfounded by the question of punishment have put into theirs.
And quoting Swift doesn’t take the edge off of it.
Hm. Tell ya what, Snarky. Why don’t we serve ya a human arm, or a cell muscle culture grown from human stem cells.
After all, an arm isn’t a full human, is it?
I’d say stem cells aren’t human either, but knowing the pro-lifers around here, they’re probably ready to jump to their defense.
BTW, the placenta isn’t part of the fetus, and not all fetuses have bones.
Kyberneticist, my statement was meant to provoke feelings of revulsion and disgust. I feel that abortion is an abominable thing, and while I don’t support bombing abortion clinics or anything, I do want to express MY disgust at the killing of the world’s babies in the name of sexual freedom. Your reaction was exactly what I was trying to get people to feel.
And yes, I’m a sick, sick person. Mental illness does that to ya. Maybe I was too graphic, I don’t know. I’m in no hurry to condemn anyone, and the abortion issue is an intensely personal one, hard to pass blanket judgments on. Maybe my anger at people that kill their own babies is unrighteous. I’m unsure of myself here. But my gut reaction to the act of abortion is, it’s a sick, sick act in most cases. Am I being wrongfully and overly judgmental? I don’t know, but that’s my opinion anyway.
Ok, great. I think that the punishment for getting a limb amputated should be that you have to eat it, fingernails and all!
I think it’s immoral and disgusting that people would amputate their OWN limbs, even to save their lives.
Now, I ask you, did that make any sense at all? Just because I think it’s disgusting to EAT something doesn’t mean that we think it’s morally wrong to have it removed.
The difference being, amputating a limb is amputating a part that only belongs to you; aborting a fetus is taking away a human life that does not belong to you.
I never said it was immoral to abort a fetus to save the mother’s life. On the contrary, I think that saving the mother’s life or terminating the pregnancy because of rape or incest are legitimate reasons for abortion. Same with unviable fetuses that stand no chance of survival.
Point taken. But as for me, I will never believe it’s morally right to abort a fetus except for the reasons I mentioned above. Believe what you will, of course, but as for me I’ll believe it’s wrong.
