First, I am not arguing whether abortion should be legal or not. I am wondering about the blow back on both sides about Trump’s statements that women should be punished for getting abortions if abortion was illegal. He did walk it back and say only doctors should be punished, but…
From a logical perspective, if you are against abortion, shouldn’t you agree that both parties are liable? If you want cocaine to be illegal, you punish both the purchaser and the seller. If you think abortion is murder, then wouldn’t the woman at least be guilty of soliciting and conspiracy to commit murder?
The only arguments I have heard from pro-lifers is that the woman in this situation is somehow a victim. As if abortion doctors are stalking pregnant woman and forcing them to get abortions. Is there any logical position that can be taken that treats women as competent adults but doesn’t punish them if abortion was illegal?
(And I already know that the predictable response of “Pro choicers don’t think women are competent human beings” will be spouted. That’s why I put in that last sentence. So let’s take that as read, OK?)
I suggested in another post that there were three reasons:
Bad optics. It’s just not politically palatable.
Abortion has been legal a long time. Some of the positions are simply not completely thought through.
Paternalism about women’s lack of agency.
Since this kerfuffle started, I’ve read several pieces by pro-life people explaining their position against punishing the woman. Obviously, we wouldn’t expect 1 or 2 to be mentioned. The paternalism definitely pops up. The only new rationale I’ve seen is:
You want the women to be willing to turn in the doctors without fear of being prosecuted. I’m not sure why this would different than for any other crime, but I guess abortion has the ability to be more secretive than many crimes. Still, making it so exceptional does make it appear as if it’s considered not quite equivalent to other crimes.
I think another possible reason might be that most people know a woman who has had an abortion but not an abortionist. Similarly, most of us have some familiarity with experimenting with recreational drugs but not with dealing them, so being way more punitive toward dealers than users is politically viable. The answer is going to tend to look like putting strangers in jail, not our own kids.
And, of course, being able to charge one person has often been used to apply pressure to that person to get them to inform on the other. So I don’t know that this rationale really makes sense.
I think plenty of people in the anti-abortion pro-lie movement would very much like to punish women for having abortions. They just know it’s a losing position to talk about.
Over at 538, Leah Libresco refers to an informal survey she did of every 5th member she encountered at a Washington Anti-Abortion demonstration. n=60: caveat lector. Only 15% of the demonstrators would charge the woman with murder: another 25% advocated manslaughter charges. (15+25=40) 18% said there should be no penalty for the women. Generally speaking, they advocated harsher punishment for the physician.
Of course most anti-abortion folk don’t attend marches. Mainstream anti-abortion groups have a wider audience. The reporter notes that these questions often gave her respondents some pause. Which might imply that even among anti-abortion activists, there are some things they haven’t fully thought through.
I’ll give it a shot. I’ll note you said logical, not empirically grounded. [INDENT][INDENT]Abortion isn’t quite murder but it is very wrong. The best way to prevent it is to curb availability.[sup]1[/sup] Women obtaining abortion are often in desperate circumstances and in need of counseling. While what they did was very wrong, imprisonment will only make a bad situation worse. And fines are not only something they can’t afford, they trivialize the gravity of the crime.
Abortion providers are just doing it for a buck though.[sup]2[/sup] So lock 'em up. [/INDENT][/INDENT]
[sup]1[/sup]Cite? This applies to basically every sentence.
[sup]2[/sup] No they aren’t. They do it to save lives, to avoid back alley abortions.
Much easier/better to charge the doctor, and thereby stop x number of future abortions, as opposed to stopping only one by charging the woman with a crime. Kinda’ like how some states make women seeking abortions jump through hoops by making it extremely difficult for doctors to provide said abortions. You may hate the anti- crowd, but you do have to admire their resourcefulness and ingenuity. Too bad they don’t turn those two virtues to solving real problems.
I believe it is better to prevent than to cure or, in this case, abort. But I also don’t believe the whole freaking planet should follow my notions of ethics. And I also believe that people who refuse preventative measures to others for no other reason than Because My Balls Are Big Enough To Do So should be taken out back and shot, mostly because shooting them inside may lead to deafness. My opinion on those who don’t provide adequate sex ed when they can is even worse.
And that’s the premise that must change for the policy to make sense. I won’t hold my breath waiting for an anti-abortion politician to say that though.
A pro-life supporter would say their goal isn’t to punish anyone; their goal is to protect unborn children by preventing abortions. Ideally, everyone would simply choose to stop performing or receiving abortions so there would be no need for any new laws. But in the real world that’s not happening so pro-life people have to resort to laws to forcibly stop abortions.
So how to apply the law in a manner which causes the least disruption? Narrow its focus. Just as in drug crimes, target the suppliers rather than the consumers. Arresting one consumer has little impact while arresting one supplier disrupts an entire network of transactions. In abortion terms, consider a situation where one doctor is performing abortions on fifty women in a single year. If you arrest any of the women, you only reduce the number of abortions to forty-nine; if you arrest the doctor, you reduce the number of abortions to zero.
In addition, patients come and go but doctors are part of an ongoing system. If there is an illegal abortion business, it’s much easier to identify and find evidence against the doctor than it would be against any of the patients. And as somebody noted, the doctor is presumably motivated by economic motives; if the risk of being arrested grows too high, the doctor will just close down the business.
Hmmm, isn’t this the same logic feminists/ Hillary/ Obama supporters use to keep prostitution illegal and limit pornography? If woman sells her body, she is inherently a victim and being manipulated? It’s her body. Why shouldn’t she be able to engage in prostitution? If a woman shouldn’t be punished for an illegal abortion, she shouldn’t be punished for prostitution either.