The point is that (presumably) sober jurists and law-makers can do exactly the sort of distinguishing between different categories that you are stating “pro lifers” should not do, lest they be hypocrites.
In Canada, abortion isn’t a crime, infanticide is a crime (but a lesser one), and culpable homicide that isn’t infanticide is either manslaughter or murder. Why can’t a “pro-lifer” claim that while abortion should be illegal (therefore a crime), it is even a lesser one than infanticide?
That says nothing whatsoever about what that person thinks of the “human-ness” of a fetus, a baby, or an adult; presumably the law-makers who drafted up this law were not of the opinion that babies weren’t really people.
Since I have seen some programming on the extremes of “baby blues” I am wondering whether the motivation behind the lesser charge classification is not due to the relatively underdeveloped state of a babe-in-arms, but rather to partially protect a minority of new mothers who are not quite in their right minds at the time of the crime.
We of course make distinctions (over the nature and circumstances) when considering a (post-fetal) human life-taking. Self-defense, accidental action, absence of premeditation, and so on. I hope, though, we never make distinctions, though, over the age, physical ability or other factors of any human target of deliberate, lethal violence. Actual, premeditated murder should always be treated the same, at least within a political unit. *
Jack****
Ideally, political unit location should not matter either, but human rights are enforced by national and local governments, not godly angels or benevolent aliens. As a practical matter, we cannot expect an evenness of prosecution from one nation to another, one state to another, etc.
You’ve never heard a straight answer on this? Cause there isn’t one, except in a very practical sense (if we permit this exclusion, it’s more likely that the general public will except greater restrictions). There are, however, many, many pro-lifers (me included) who don’t believe that rape is an acceptable exclusion.
I also don’t believe that violently addressing the abortion issue will reduce abortions. On the contrary, it contributes to a growing opposition to the “fanatics.” The nutjob who killed the late-term abortionist set the cause back considerably. It makes the Notre Dame speech nonsense from Obama seem all the more reasonable–i.e., that we should continue to debate an issue where the positions are irreconcilable, that some reasonable middle ground is possible that will make everyone happy.
This is another perennial. How’s this? (1) I don’t think the woman believes she’s killing a baby (which is at least a mitigating factor, given the complexity of this issue), and (2) any policy of this sort likewise sets the cause back and pushes us further from an abortion ban. Your point is consistent with the OP, at least: there is clearly only one reaction possible, given an axiomatic belief. Um, no.
Clearly, whoever framed this law was of the opinion that certain situations (that is, moms murdering newborns) must simply be treated differently, and I agree that this was not because babies are of lesser worth than non-babies.
‘Deep depression’ was probably part of the reason, but it alone doesn’t garner an automatic 5 year maximum in any other culpable homicide case. If I am ‘deeply depressed’ when I kill a man, I will face a maximum of “life”.
Having a lesser set maximum sentence for infanticide is exactly what you decry: a distinction based, in part, on the identity and age of the target. After all, a ‘deeply depressed’ mom who kills her husband faces a maximum of life, not 5 years.
Again, if the law-makers of our country can do it without hypocracy, why not “pro-lifers”?
[Once again I’m pro-choice myself - I just think this argument is a foolish one. Many better arguments available.]
I would expect more violence from them, but you don’t need to go that far. There are plenty of non-violent actions they could take to reduce abortion - if they really did think it was “baby killing”, and not just an excuse to go after women. They simply don’t act like people who have any concern for children, unborn or otherwise; they DO act like they hate women.
Of the million or so people who attend the March For Life each year, how many are gun-toting assassins, and how many are middle aged women? There’s a reason it makes the news when (rarely) some zealot crosses the line.
I’m asking you, honestly now: have you ever met anyone who identifies as “active in the pro life movement?” I don’t think you could have; without exception, the many ones I have met (the great majority of whom ARE WOMEN – as with any other church-affiliated activity, it is a grouping of by and of women) do not “hate women” in any perceivable way (because they would, most of them, thus be hating THEMSELVES). Many or most of them take tangible action to help women and children – who do you think staffs all those church-affiliated “crisis pregnancy” centers that are so diabolically trying to “trick” women into not having abortions, and who do you think volunteers to talk to or hang out with the troubled pregnant women who show up there, and when the women decide to have the kid, where do you think they get the clothes, formula, strollers that allow them not to have to worry about at least the financial/material burdens of raising a child?
Seriously, you’re arguing against a cartoon. “They hate women.” I suppose they also have handlebar mustaches that they twirl as they do said hating. Here’s a suggestion: Go undercover; go to some church and find out who runs their “Respect Life” program (answer: almost certainly one of the matrons of the parish). Call her up and ask her how you can help, and what their mission is. If she reports back “we need to trick people into thinking we care about women, but what I’d really like you to do is oppress those (oops, us) biatches,” then come back with your silliness. If not, no more assertions of what self-identified pro-life people “act like” or “care about.”
Would have ETA but timed out: Don’t take any of the above as saying that I am asking you to believe that they are necessarily right, or not-wrong. A meaningful debate can be had while acknowledging that most on both sides, probably, sincerely, morally believe what they say they believe, and are not stupid or knowingly evil for doing so.
Mitigating factor or not if you believe a baby is being killed then the woman has committed a serious crime right?
Are you saying that you’re willing to let the baby killers go free because it gives you a better chance to stop the killing of babies? I happen to find that pretty inconsistent as well. My question is, do most pro lifers believe women and doctors should be found guilty of a serious crime but refrain because it sets the cause back, or , when it comes down to it, do they want to stop abortion without punishing the criminals who commit the crime?
No, he/she would not concede that. IIUC, he/she is making the argument that the specific intent required for murder is “intentionally killing someone known to be a live human being” (I don’t know if any state has phrased it exactly so, but it’s not crazy), then no, there could be NO crime, or maybe there is but it’s a less serious one, if the woman, firmly believing the fetus factually to be something other than a live human being, were found to lack the specified intent. Specific intent is an element to every crime.
That is why if I see a shape rustling in the woods while out hunting, and I shoot it with the intent to kill, I may escape prosecution, if I can convince the prosecutor that what I thought I was killing was a deer, and not (as it turned out) my hunting buddy. To take a more contrived example, Tom (who has a horrible temper) gets into an argument with Jerry, and pumps multiple rounds into his head point-blank. Jerry is lying there, blood everwhere, motionless. I decide (as an onlooker) that, well, tough luck for Jerry, but now that he’s gone, I can finally see how my hollow points would penetrate a human body (I’ve been wondering for years). So I pump a round through Jerry’s chest. Which the coroner later informs me was the actual cause of death, because the six shots Tom pumped into his head bounced off the steel plate he had put in years ago, and when I thought he was dead, he was really just napping. I may be prosecuted for a lot of things, but not, I think, murder, because I did not know Jerry to be alive (and, that belief was reasonable under the circumstances of a motionless guy just shot in the head).
Everyone seems to be coming up with reasons why abortion may not be considered murder, but few seem to be tackling the given criterion in the OP that since X number say they consider abortion murder, what would be the logical action by that group of X? No explanation about different penalties for different crimes that are not considered “murder” answers this question.
Are you seriously arguing that the victim of a violent rape (pretty much redundant) should be forced to carry the resulting fetus to term? Do you maintain that the continued existence of a fetus which has never drawn a breath, which has never had a thought, is more important than the needs of a woman who has already been victimized in one of the cruelest ways imaginable? Do you think that preserving that fetus justifies continuing to punish the rape victim?
It’s a pretty straightforward question. There’s no “trick” involved. If you believe I’ve mischaracterized the situation, you’re certainly free to reframe it. Brushing it off, however, is just a cop-out.