If abortion were illegal, RU486 would not be a prescription drug. It would be an illegal drug.
If it remained legal, then “abortion” wouldn’t be illegal. “Surgical abortion” would be illegal.
Not necessarily. If therapeutic abortions remained legal (e.g., life or health of the mother), RU-486 would remain legal as one of the methods of obtaining a therapeutic abortion.
Or me. Nothing against kids, but if I had wanted one, I would have had one long before now. I don’t mind babysitting them, but I’m always happy to give them back to their parents and go home when the job is done. I don’t go all gooey at the sight of an infant, and…Oh my gosh, there must be something wrong with me! :eek:
:dubious:
Read the definition of First Degree Murder again and tell me how it doesn’t apply to abortion if we accept that abortion = murder and that life begins at the moment of conception.
That it might be politically expedient to not prosecute women in this way is a different matter entirely. If a pro-lifer takes the stance that once conception occurs having an abortion is murder as surely as if you shot me in the head. For them to state it is somehow a lesser crime, a crime for which the mother has no culpability, is to admit that a blastocyte/embryo/fetus is indeed something less (legally and more importantly morally/ethically) than a fully formed, walking, talking human being. I can accept an argument from such a person that they will take the “lesser crime” approach and only jail doctors as long as it is an incremental step to seeing the mother and everyone else involved prosecuted for first degree murder.
Good luck building that straw man.
Why is it a straw man?
Well, you’ve constructed two alternate bogeymen for people on the pro-life side:
-
Pro-life people secretly want to prosecute women “and everyone else involved” for murder if they obtain abortions.
-
Pro-life people don’t really think the unborn child is a human being whose life is worth protection. That’s just some hypocritical lie they made up.
Why not? Is it because they believe, but not enough to go all the way?
Let’s make a gross example, using a classic undworld sitation, straigh from the Godfather:
- Abortion is murder.
- The doctor who performs the abortion is then a murderer.
- The patient who requests and consents to an abortion is party to murder.
Now let’s change just a few operative words.
- Whacking a rival is murder.
- The hit man who whacks him is a murderer.
- The boss who ordered the hit is party to murder.
One would never dream of going after the nit man and not going after his boss, the man who gave the order. So, in order to be consistent with the abortion = murder meme, you just have to go after the women who have abortions. At the least, if abortion is illegal and someone goes to an abortionist, they are aiding, abetting and financing an illegal operation. They are breaking The Law and must be punished. Anything less means a serious lack of True Justice.
I suppose after being in place for a few years, then it will be safe to start arresting and convicting the women. Rather than grab it all at once, just chip away a bit at a time, so nobody notices, so everyone can get used to it in small increments.
What bogeymen?
If ‘we’ believe abortion is murder, how can we prosecute the doctor who performed it, call HIM a murderer and NOT the woman who ordered it, went to doctor’s office, and then paid for it? All the while, knowing EXACTLY what ‘crime’ they were committing.
I get that we have degrees of criminality, but I don’t usually get a pass if I pay you to murder my child. Hell, sometimes even the actual ‘murderer’ is given a lessor charge if he rolls on the gal who comissioned the murder.
What’s the difference here? When an abortion occurs, is a child, a human being, being murdered/killed or not? If so, how does the principle player in the act go home, perhaps to ‘kill’ again?
So what is your rationale for not prosecuting the prime actor in this crime drama? As someone said before, this is like punishing the hitman but not the disaffected husband who paid the guy to off his wife. If abortion is murder, the woman is just as morally culpable as the doctor. Letting her off the hook is inconsistent and immoral, if we follow your rationale. I don’t see the middle ground here, unless that middle ground is, “We do believe that abortion is murder, but we don’t think we can possibly get it outlawed if we prosecute the person who’s REALLY responsible for that murder.”
It’s moral waffling and political cowardice. There’s no consistency here at all.
I guess there’s also the possibility that you’re only trying to make abortions rarer by this tactic, also. You know what would make abortions rarer without sending anyone to jail? Better sex education, better access to contraception for teens, better and easier methods of putting a child up for adoption, more support for teen or unwed mothers. Most of which are just as opposed by the pro-life crowd as abortion itself.
If the morals of the pro-life contingent won’t be bent on the issues in the previous paragraph, why are they bent so easily on the issue of who is really responsible for the murder that they consider abortion to be?
Of course, there IS an explanation for this strange disjunct…but I hate to accuse anyone of thinking that women are too weakwilled to resist the siren call of the cadres of evul libral abortion advocates who are running around telling women they must not give birth, ever. Oh, wait…those don’t exist, do they?
See post #135.
So political expediency trumps exacting justice. I think I said that…
I’m sorry, but I reject the idea that it hinges on political expediency. Either belive completely, or not at all. But post 135 raises another question -
What about those who don’t want this “protection” and reject it outright? What if the politicians who pass this law are not in any position to know the circumstances of each and every individual case? Wouldn’t it be better to let the individual decide for herself? There is something about “protecting” people against their will that “tingles my Spidey senses”.
I am not saying they are “secretly” trying to do anything. I am saying that not going after the women who seek an abortion or the person who drives them as well as the doctor and nurses who perform the abortion is logically inconsistent with the law (again assuming the abortion=murder bit).
Again, I am not saying they are hypocritical but they are being morally and ethically inconsistent if they allow a lesser punishment for an abortion and altogether absolve the mother of wrongdoing.
I am not foisting “abortion=murder” and “life begins at conception” on them. This has been the mantra most of the pro-life movement has been throwing out since they started.
Say you sit in your apartment and plan a murder then go out and kill:
90 year old – First Degree Murder
30 year old – First Degree Murder
10 year old – First Degree Murder
1 year old – First Degree Murder
Newborn – First Degree Murder
The pro-life movement has maintained that aborting a fetus is no different than killing anyone listed above. So therefore:
8 week old fetus – First Degree Murder
If pro-lifers take the stance that aborting an 8 week old fetus is a lesser crime then by default they are making a judgement on the value of that life and see it as something less than a fully formed, already born person. How is there any way around that conclusion?
There is no unified voice or stance or opinion for those who consider themselves pro-life. There is a spectrum of opinion.
Protect the unborn life.
Is that an order?
Just not at the expense of anyone’s election hopes.
And?
One line answers that suggest there are differences of opinion is worthless here. Untill you air them here there is no way to say if a given person’s opinion is morally ambiguous or logically inconsistent. Please point me to places that make the case, from anything other than political expediency, that aborting a fetus is murder but not as bad a murder as killing an already born person and where the person seeking to obtain the abortion (thus committing a crime) is legally blameless but the people she paid to commit a crime are guilty of a felony. Or make the argument yourself…I don’t care.
So far all I see from you is dodging rather than making your case.
Oh, no, not at all. I can’t order anyone to do anything. However, it can be a good way to phrase something and make it a little stronger.
Seriously. What am I gonna do? Tell you
“YOU BETTER LISTEN AND DO WHAT I TELL YOU” ???
You’d rightly tell me to go to hell.