I agree it’s politically expedient, but I also posted that I think the act is unique in that most of those who seek the procedure do NOT believe they are seeking an immoral act. The acrimony in these threads demonstrate the ambivalence surrounding the act for many, many people.
That ambivalence doesn’t exist to any significant degree for an act like the premeditated murder of a business associate (just as an example). So, I don’t want women prosecuted because it would be political suicide to take that approach and (and more important) I don’t think desperate, misguided women who don’t believe they are doing wrong need to be thrown in jail.
And this belief is not at all inconsistent with the belief that a human being is killed when an abortion is performed.
Notice the phrasing, though: at or before 8 weeks. In other words, the 60% figure includes abortions that occur within the eighth week. Besides, I’m sure that the precise figures vary from one year to another.
More to the point though, bluethree said that 85% of all abortions occur at the embryonic stage. So even if we ignore the 8th week distinction, that would still make the 85% figure grossly inaccurate.
Exactly right. That’s why the intent in committing murder is relevant to this discussion.
Earlier, I talked about different degrees of murder (first-degree, second-degree, manslaughter, wrongful death, etc). These are distinguished by one’s intent in committing murder. That’s why I see no reason why women who commit abortion should necessarily be prosecuted for, say, first-degree murder.
Well, you said “most abortions do not occur until after the 8th week” (emphasis added). Which is mathematically incorrect; 40% of abortions occur after the 8th week, and 40% is not “most”.
There have been some dips but overall the percentage of U.S. abortions performed in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy has significantly increased since Roe v. Wade, from 36.1% in 1973 to 60.5% in 2002.
If somebody makes an inaccurate statement I don’t think you should make an inaccurate statement back at them just to even things up.
We probably do disagree on what constitutes privacy - when it comes to that, I’m more of a libertarian sort. This is an issue that should be between the woman and her doctor. It should not be between her, her doctor, and whatever politician is “playing to his base” for poll points or re-election. It’s a cynical view, but cynicism can be useful. A brothel is a “whole nother thing”. It is legal to operate a brothel in parts of Nevada, and the world hasn’t ended yet. But I don’t want one on my block either. One could argue there, that nobody is suffering harm, and there is no compelling interest (at least in Nevada) to shut them down. There is something about the concept of privacy - some sense that it should not depend on a vote, a changing political climate, or the changing whims of local/state/federal government without some pressing and serious need. Finally, most pro-life platforms that I’m aware of, are based squarely on religion, and don’t even try to pretend otherwise.
If so, then I think you are the exception. Question time -
What exactly is your position, and what is it based on? Where did it come from? What is the “underpinning” you base yourself on?
A temporarily unconscious person has at one time formed a sense of identity. They have had a desire to live, and since it generally doesn’t hurt anyone to let them continue to live, the best thing to do is allow them to. Now, if there was a situation where medical care was being strictly rationed, I bet we’d see the unconscious people being taken off the medical equipment first.
An embryo, on the other, has no more sense of identity than a ficus. They cannot distinguish themselves from their surrounding. They may have instincts to avoid death, but if you could somehow make one understand “you are going to die”, they would not care. Because they have no concept of life, death, themselves or the future. They would not miss anything. They would not mourn their passing. They have no more sense of meaning than a kitten- and I can take a kitten down to the shelter any day and have it gassed no questions asked.
Embryos do hurt people though. Pregnancy is not a minor inconvenience. It changes your body forever, sometimes in very major ways. Unlike unconscious people, an embryo can cause great harm. So we consider them- like kittens- okay to kill in situations where they are causing harm.
How would they become “underworld criminal types” if the abortion laws target abortion providers, not the pregnant woman? No one seriously believes a law targeting a pregnant woman for punishment would pass a state legislature.
Different states have differing criteria that need to be met that elevates first degree murder to capital murder (i.e. a possible death penalty offense if the state has a death penalty) but near as I can tell the above definition will fit for any state.
So, once again if we start with the premise that abortion = murder then I see no way around the above that is logically consistent. I see NOTHING in there that suggests the murderer’s state of mind is a factor. Perhaps at the sentencing phase of the trial the murderer’s state of mind is relevant as a possible mitigating factor but not to decide guilt. Add in that I believe crimes such as this have minimum mandatory sentences regardless of mitigating circumstances and it is a sure bet those convited of first degree murder will be going to jail for a very long time (which does not even enter death penalty territory).
If my understanding of the law is correct then this would cover at the least the woman seeking the abortion, the doctor performing the abortion, anyone aiding the doctor performing the abortion (e.g. nurse) and anyone who drove the woman to get the abortion (assuming she did not drive herself). The net might be cast wider…I do not know…but the above seem to definitely be within the scope of a first degree murder rap.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act targets those who sell or dispense prescription drugs without a prescription, not the user who so obtains the drug (21 U.S.C. 353).
Since when has personally believing a criminal act is not a criminal act been any sort of defense in any court of law anywhere for any reason? Since when has a person’s state of mind absolved them of their crimes?
For instance, by all accounts Andrea Yates was very mentally unstable for a good while leading up to her murder of her five children. That got her (it seems) off of death row for those crimes but she is in jail for life now.
So, you’re saying yes. Women will be free to use RU486 without any legal repercussions. There will simply be another drug for the drug warriors to go after.
It wouldn’t be a “prescription drug” of course, so I don’t think your cite is relevant.
Whack-a-Mole, perhaps the fact that women in the U.S. have never prosecuted for murder in the matter of abortion, even under the strictist pre-Roe abortion laws, may suggest that your legal interpretation is not shared.