Oh, my cat. I was referring to her in the post I wrote directed to you. Obviously.
Oh yay! Stratocaster’s being sarcastic! That should really help move the discussion along. Well, either I’m a dimwit or it is possible to see “singular” as meaning different things within the context of criminalizing abortion: you said “abortion is a singular act”. So, the man who impregnated her would not at all be liable, since his “act” is potentially completed. And if there are extenuating circumstances of any sort, those just get melted down into the very moment of the abortion? That would seem strange, since we normally do take history into account when judging.
I’m getting that sense.
To what lengths am I allowed to go in order to prevent an abortion from occurring? Must I stay within the bounds of legal behavior?
Unfortunately, you still haven’t provided me with a cite as to why that is my moral obligation and not just yours, superimposed.
If you are “morally obligated” to prevent me from getting an abortion, when will your moral imperative to action stop and my moral imperative as an adult female begin?
Before Roe v. Wade, even in the 1950s, the vast majority of illegal abortions in the U.S. were performed by licensed physicians. The number of abortion-related deaths in the U.S. was already declining rapidly in the 1960s before Roe v. Wade — obviously, not through legal elective abortions (only three states had them), but through improvements in obstetrics.
But if “back alley abortions” rallies the troops, don’t let the facts stop ya.
I want to point out that this discussion has ranged very far from my OP. Can we please steer it back there?
So far I’m hearing from the pro-life people who have posted that they don’t believe that women should be punished for getting abortions. My question to them is “Why not?”
If human life begins at conception, then abortion is murder – full stop. So why don’t you believe that it should be punished like murder? A woman who drowns her newborn will likely be jailed for life. Why is getting an abortion different?
Putting aside the ethical issues (which are not as black and white as you are stating them), there are the practical political issues. State laws outlawing abortion have always been directed at the abortion providers, not women who have abortions. Laws that would prosecute women for obtaining abortions are just not politically palatable. To support such a draconian law would be a recipe for failure.
And here’s an article in today’s LA Times that addresses exactly the point I raised in my OP. If abortion is murder, then why don’t the proposed punishments fit the crime?
There are many different degrees of “murder.” You’ve got first-, second- and third-degree murder, for example. Then there’s manslaughter, which is murder in the general sense, even though a legal distinction is often drawn between the two. On top of those, you also have criminally negligent homicide and so-called “wrongful death.”
The bottom line is that not all murders are equal, and not all should be prosecuted in the same way. I’ll leave the details to those who are more thoroughly well-versed in these legal distinctions; however, the point remains. I I do not see any clear reason why abortion should *necessarily * be treated in exactly the same manner as other forms of murder.
The different degrees of murder all depend upon the intent of the killer. Was the action premeditated or done in the heat of passion? Was the intention to kill the victim or did the death occur as a by-product of some other crime? Was it just an accident? The law doesn’t recognize victims as being different classes of human being.
(There are a few exceptions to this. The murder of a government official like a police officer or a judge is punished more harshly than the murder of a private citizen. In certain circumstances the murder of a member of a minority group may be deemed a hate crime deserving of increased punishment. But in all these cases the increased punishment is justified on the grounds that those types of murders are attacks on society as well as the individual. It’s hard to see how this sort of reasoning could apply to abortion.)
“The vast majority”? I dunno. A lot of them undoubtedly were. And it was wrong to outlaw them then, and it’s wrong to outlaw them now. And some were undoubtedly performed by non-physicians … and there were undoubtedly some women who died that way. It would be a hard thing to get stats on due to the culture of shame that was so powerful back then with regard to sex. Even one woman dead in that way is wrong. I suspect there will be many, many more than one woman killed if the anti-choice folks win, and they WILL rally the troops. Believe it.
Sorry about the previous post. A lot of unclear antecedents there. Let’s see if I can get it clearer:
Should read (revised text in BF):
A lot of abortions undoubtedly were performed by licensed physicians. And it was wrong to outlaw those physicians back in the 50s, and i’ts wrong to outlaw them now. And some abortions were …
I should be hitting the sack soon, writing that sloppy annoys the bejezus out of me. And I’m not even being paid for it, which annoys me even more.
First, all the emotions and intellectual functions matter, not just pain. Second, we don’t know that a dog is more complex that a newborn; the dog is older, but the infant has brains the dog will never have. Besides, it’s irrelevant since there isn’t any comparison between dogs & babies and abortion. A fetus is closer “mentally” to a plant or insect than a dog.
Of course not. I’m pointing out that a tumor has no right to live for the same reason a fetus has no right to live; it’s not a person.
No, it’s evil. It’s nothing more than the persecution of women and children.
Lazy, perhaps, but hardly cowardly.
That was then, this is now. If doctors are imprisoned or executed for peroming abortions, I doubt many will be willing to perform them.
While I’m hardly “pro life”, I expect the real answer is that they do intend to punish women; they just won’t admit it until the antiabortion laws they want are in place. Then they’ll point out that if abortion is murder it should be treated as murder, and demand that when who are convicted of abortion get life imprisonment or execution.
I’m curious why you insist on this statistic. It could be true. I don’t know. I don’t care. But how does it in any way help the anti-abortion cause?
“No, no. There won’t be backalley abortions because doctors will be standing by to take your call!”
?
I get the impression you think this is some sort of trump card, and I just don’t follow. Yes, if abortion is made illegal but there are enough doctors willing to perform them anyway, then illegal abortions will be performed by doctors. Is that supposed to make me less upset about the prospect of abortions being illegal? Is that supposed to make someone on the fence swing anti-abortion because the illegal abortions that happen will be safer? What?
Do you doubt this statistic? Remember, it came straight from Planned Parenthood. Are you saying that Planned Parenthood was not presenting the truth?
Anyway, this statistic is relevant because Evil Captor expressed doubt about the claim that the vast majority of illegal abortions were performed by duly licensed physicians. I’m merely pointing out that Planned Parenthood’s own medical director is the one who made that claim – quite emphatically, I might add.
Why would I care one way or the other about the statistic? Why is the statistic relevant? Why do you care so much about the statistic that you bring it up in most abortion debates? What’s in it for you(r side)? How does it bolster your cause? How does it discredit mine?
The only thing I could take away from accepting your stat is, “Oh, so illegal abortions were really safe.”
Well, thanks for letting me know that! It’s good to hear that if I ever need an illegal abortion, it’ll be just dandy!
Could be people posting to this thread please address the OP?
The question is: If abortion is made illegal what should the punishment be and why?
So far all I’ve heard is that women shouldn’t be punished because it’s not politically expedient to do so. But is this politically expedient approach logical or morally sound?
Pay attention. I bring it up whenever a pro-choicer talks about the millions of back-alley abortions that allegedly occured – or in this case, because Evil Captor expressed doubt that these abortions were mostly performed by physicians. Why is this statistic relevant? Because it directyl counters the myth of those back alley abortions.
Golly gee whiz. I guess it’s okay to claim that women were dying by the thousands due to illegal abortions… until the facts are presented. Then all of a sudden it’s “Why should I care one way or another?”