JThunder, what do you think the punishment should be for a woman who gets an abortion?
Is it different from the punishment given to a woman who murders a newborn? If so, why?
The point is that not all murder is the same. Ergo, we should not insist that abortions should be punished in exactly the same way as other murders. Perhaps in some cases, but not as a general rule. Heck, since many women have been lied to about the biological nature of the fetus, that alone is relevant in determining in their intent.
(BTW, “fetus” is still an accurate term to use, since most abortions do not occur until after the 8th week of pregnancy, which is when the transition from embryo to fetus occurs.)
But, as I point out above, the law makes distinctions based upon the intent of the killer, not on the nature of the victim. All human beings are deemed deserving of equal protection before the law. Why is abortion different?
If there are laws against non-therapeutic abortions, they should be directed at the abortion provider, not the pregnant woman.
My pleasure.
I’m happy to contribte some facts at this point, but I haven’t decide whether to wade into the quicksand of the OP’s question yet. It’s an interesting deabte, though.
In fact, I would argue that if human life begins at conception then any anti-abortion law that does not treat abortion as murder is almost certainly unconstitutional.
Here’s Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
An anti-abortion law that doesn’t punish individuals involved in an abortion as severely as individuals involved in the killing of an adult is clearly in violation of the bolded text. If embryos and fetuses are human beings then it is **unconstitutional ** not to impose the same sentence upon a woman who gets an abortion as we do upon anyone who solicits a murder. It would be no different than if a state were to write a murder law that said there was no punishment for killing a black man, or for killing a cripple.
This thread is amusing: the pro-life side is saying they’d rather not prosecute women, and the pro-choice side is urging them: Be consistent! Prosecute women!
Have we stepped through the looking-glass?
The abortion law first would have to establish that life begins at conception, and that the fetus has all of the rights of a born person. Abortion laws do not establish that. Nor has any court established that. So the 14th Amendment argument fails.
I just want to note that, by my understanding, the rationale for outlawing abortions when the laws were first passed in the latter half of the 19th Century was to protect women from what was, at the time, a dangerous and often fatal operation, even when performed by a licensed physician. This is one reason that the providers were punished instead of the women.
The rationale now for outlawing abortion is quite different. It’s ostensibly to protect the life and alleged rights of the unborn fetus/embryo. Which means that punishments devolving upon the provider are not a logical outgrowth of the motive for outlawing the procedure.
If you wish abortion to be illegal in order to protect the life and alleged rights of the fetus/embryo, then only punishing the provider is illogical. To be ethically and morally consistent, you must advocate punishing the woman procuring the abortion. If you shy from this on political grounds, your ethical and moral sense is deficient. Period.
And yes, I’m well aware that any attempt by advocates of abortion restriction to punish the incipient mothers is doomed to abject failure. The thought makes me all warm inside…
Not really. As I noted in the post I just made, the only logically consistent procedure if one really considers abortion murder and therefore necessary to be outlawed is to punish both the provider and the procurer, given that the model that the pro-lifers are using to exclude the women involved is irrelevant, as the old laws weren’t passed to protect the fetus, but the woman.
The fact that this puts the pro-lifers in a state of conflict between what’s morally consistent and what’s politically possible is just the butter-cream icing on this cake.
IMHO : The “pro-lifers” are either being dishonest or deluding themselves about the logical/legal implications of claiming a fetus is a person and killing one is murder. The pro-choice people are pointing out those implications; we aren’t promoting them, just using them to point out the basic absurdity and evil of the “pro-life” side.
For now. However there’s a strong possibility that if* Roe v. Wade* is overturned it will be done so in a manner that will establish rights for the unborn. In Roe v. Wade the court said that in order to void a woman’s right to privacy the state needs to demonstrate a compelling interest. In order to reverse itself the court must either roll back the right to privacy (perhaps by reversing Griswold as well) or establish the rights of the unborn. The latter approach is what the right-to-life movement has been pushing.
The crux of the anti-abortion movement is that embryos and fetuses are human beings. It seems the height of hypocracy to abandon that argument the moment its consequences becomes politically inconvenient.
American Medical Association on abortion, 1859:
1871:
The AMA on abortionists, 1871:
The logical error you make is in assuming that the motive must be to punish, and not to protect. If the motive is to protect, then the method that best promotes the protection is the most ethical. Political reality shows that laws targeted at abortion providers are feasible, and that laws targeting pregnant women are not. Supporting a law that would target pregnant women would, in the end, fail to prevent any abortions, because such a law will not pass. Not in any state.
I certainly don’t want to hijack this thread anymore than it already has been.
What would happen to fertility clinics if all the rights of a fully formed human were given to a blastula?
If I recall correctly, plenty of fertilized eggs are destroyed at these places. Would the people there be criminally liable as well?
Do pro-life people protest at fertility clinics? (I’m honestly curious, I haven’t heard of any cases).
The logical error you make is in assuming that anyone needs protected. Laws that are targeted at pregnant women are ineffectual because at the end of the day the woman is in charge of her body. If abortion was ever to become illegal then many women would become underworld criminal types.
If MY lack of religion believes that the glob of cells that are a pregnancy, is something that can be aborted from MY body without the wrath of god, all you should be concerned with is praying for the soul it never had.
Jotun, interesting point.
Another thing the pro-lifers ought to take into account, is the fact that most women will only have a small and fixed number of kids in their life; one, two, three at most. If she commits abortion, it is often because having a baby at that particular time in her life, from that particular father under those particular circumstences, isn’t good for either her or the baby.
If she gets the abortion, it is very likely she will have a baby a few years later, under better circumstances.
Punishing the woman lessens the chance of those better curcumstances occurring and thusly, of having the soul of the infant (re)born into flesh.
According to the most recent CDC report on the issue, about 60% of abortions in the U.S. are performed at or before 8 weeks.
Seriously, no snarkiness or sarcasm intended, what do you think “singular” means? To me it means “unique,” “not like other acts,” or “with important factors that distinguish it from other acts.” That is, the dictionary definition I provided. It doesn’t mean “an act for which there are moral implications possible for one person and that person alone.” Am I reading your question properly? That’s what I think you’re trying to get at, and that wasn’t what I was trying to convey. My point was that abortion is unique among (potentially) criminal acts, and the prosecution of it may well have to be a singular method as well. I was responding to the OP’s sense that if you’re pro-life, you really would have to think of abortion as a “this is murder, so lock up the mother” scenario.
If you’re a woman, you shouldn’t have one performed. If you’re a man, you should use peaceful means at your disposal. And I believe that staying within legal bounds creates the greatest chance of the pro-life movement not being demonized, and it therefore creates the best chance of abortion being made illegal. That’s not the only reason to stay within legal boundaries, of course.
Well, there’s the rub, right? From my perspective, it is your moral obligation (and mine)–it is simply axiomatic to me that innocent human life deserves protection, just as it may be axiomatic for you that newborn children shouldn’t be killed for the convenience of it, whatever the morals of the parent in question. If the parent said to you, “But it’s my choice. If you don’t want to kill your newborn, so be it. But this is my choice,” you likely wouldn’t find this compelling.
Now, I realize you probably don’t see the situations as analogous. But I do, and I’m just trying to illustrate how difficult it is to answer your question. It is the unanswerable essence of any prohibition–why are your axioms, and not mine, the ones that “win”?