First of all, how many of you are women? Okay, hands down.
Abortion is a desperate act committed by a desperate person. Most women don’t get pregnant to deliberately abort (which, mercifully, you seem to understand; other pro-lifers don’t), and there are more choices in contraception than there were thirty years ago. However, that there are more choices is insignificant when you consider that some women don’t have access to them at all, for whatever reason. I’ve known women forced into pregnancy when their spouses/partners sabotaged condoms or thrown their birth control pills away. What do you say to those women? “Sorry, honey, your husband was an ass, so you’re going to prison”?
In any case, re-criminalizing abortion merely makes backstreet surgery more likely. And if you’d like to hear about the consequences of that, I’d tell you to talk to my great-grandmother, but I can’t. She died in the '20s of sepsis following a backstreet abortion. My grandmother and her sister barely remember her.
Good question. Does US criminal law typically apply when only planning stages for a crime occur on US soil, but the act is completed abroad? I suspect the drafters of the law would look to precedent.
Possible, but likely difficult, and as you imply, probably rarely enforced.
Perhaps. Your point? The rich are always more adept at evading the law, but we don’t typically use that as a reason not to pass a law. I’m assuming, for the purposes of this thread, at least, that abortion has been determined to be wrong. Just because the rich and celebrities are better at commiting murder (not just abortion), we don’t make murder legal so the poor can do it too.
<sarcasm on/>Looks like abortion tourism could become a major investment opportunity.<sarcasm off/>
Possible, but likely difficult, and as you imply,
probably rarely enforced.
More like impossible, what are you going to do, give pregnancy tests when women from pre-teens to early 50’s leave the country and then retest on re-entry if we’ve not got a babe-in-arms?
You question is suggestive of a non sequitor. You don’t have to be in a particular situation or even be capable of being in that situation to determine the morality of actions taken responsive to that situation. Admittedly, being susceptible to the situation is helpful (although not required) for sympathy, but not to determine ethics. In fact, I would argue that to the extent one can, one must determine one’s ethics prior to being faced with a decision. Many choices become possible or even desireable in the heat of battle which would be unthinkable in the comfort of our home or classroom. Moral decisions are often very difficult, unfortunately, but I’m not sure the difficulty should change our morality. And make no mistake, this is not an easy position for me to take. It would be easier on me if my ethical rules were a little more flexible.
Well, I’d think the first part (about her husband). Of course, as you point out, she was risking pregnancy in the first place since contraception is not full-proof. And she only becomes subject to punishment of law (prison, community service, whatever) if she makes a second decision choosing her personal comfort and right to privacy over the right to life of an innocent, who through no action of his/her own, is now in her womb. Regardless, extenuating circumstances reduce or eliminate punishment.
The goal of any law is to make the commission of the crime difficult. Nonetheless, I’m sorry to hear your sad story (not quoted), especially since, from my perspective, you lost two relatives due to that one event.
Upon completion of their current crusade to illegalize abortion, all prolifers should pledge an equal amount of their time and money to help those who become pregnant and do not wish to carry the child. We should work heavily to abolish the stigma of being pregnant (which currently exists in some circumstances) to reduce the personal trauma to such women, and we should hold them out as unqualified heros for triumphing over adversity, and carrying their unwanted children to term.
I think abortion, except in the case where the mother’s life is in danger, should be illegal.
I think that it only should be the doctor who gets punished, not the mother.
3)I might be in favor of lighter sentences for doctors who perform abortions who have abortions after having rape and incest, but I still believe that there should be a punishment, because, while I view rape and incest as wrong, I also view abortion as being wrong, and I don’t think that two wrongs make a right.
The harshest sentences should be given for doctors performing late term and partial birth abortions.
I’m a member of RTL, although I haven’t been to a meeting in years
When I use to go, discussion of this very thing came up often, and I was kind of surprised then, and even more so now, that some people still believe this, considering the advances in technology since Roe V. Wade. Hell, anybody who’s seen an ultrasound can see a head, body, arms and legs. Hardly what I would call a blob of tissue.
Considering the state of medicine at the time, that’s hardly a surprise. Surgery in general was a lot more dangerous back then.
Moreover, Planned Parenthood’s own Dr. Mary Calderon admitted that the vast majority of illegal abortions were performed, not by back-alley butches, but by licensed physician, and she went out of her way to praise their competency and safety. See http://www.roevwade.org/illegalmyths.html for details.
Well, of course things IUD’s and the like would be a much more tricky subject than medical procedure abortions, and I seriouls doubt that if abortions became illegal, that anybody would be punished, because it’s going to be increadibly difficult, if not impossible, to outlaw doctor performed abortions in the first place. And IUD’s and so on became illegal somehow, I would only want to see the manufactures and distributors get punished anyway, not the women who would buy them.
First of all, it’s hardly a given that these laws are absolutely unenforceable. One might argue that they’re extremely difficult to enforce, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be enforced at all.
Second, history shows that the law is itself a moral teacher, influencing the worldview of people who are subject to the law. Consider, for example, the vast numbers who defend abortion on the grounds that “It’s legal! It’s legal!” See www.str.org/free/bioethics/Seriously.pdf for further discussion of this matter.
Prohibition only addressed one aspect of organized crime, so I think you’re extrapolating far beyond the evidence at hand.
Moreover, nobody is claiming that the law will always be successful in educating the people. Sometimes, human greed and depravity will still win out. The point is that we should not assume that a law is utterly useless, simply because it is “unenforceable.”
Hi Candida,
I agree with you on this point. But we are talking here about human life (assuming for this thread) and not consumption of recreational substances.
Every law has bad effects, and so each law has a threshold of returned benefit to justify its enactment, where the total returned benefit = evil stopped by law - evil caused by law.
In the case of prohibition, the evil stopped by the law was minimal (consumption of alcohol) compared to the evil caused by the law (organized crime and it’s effects).
In the case of outlawing abortion, the evil stopped is the deaths of over a million people per year (again, assuming for this thread). Millions dead per year has happened before, and is generally assumed to be the greatest evil period in history. It would take a very great evil caused by the law to nullify the good of millions of lives saved, and if history is a guide, there is no such evil accompanying the abolition of abortion.
Again, I’m assuming that because the OP assumes abortion is illegal, and asks about punishment, we are also assuming that an abortion kills a person, and I am arguing the pros and cons of the punishment of law in that context. If abortion doesn’t kill a person, then there is no reason to ban it whatsoever, IMO.
What might be reasonable is to let everywomen have ONE abortion in the first tri-mester. Since many hellbent on terminating a pregnancy will take drastic steps to do so, a safe legal option should be made available. ONE though, after that it would be off to the courts to decide the punishment.
I personally think one is too many but I know there are mothers out there who will do anything to terminate. Many would excersize caution thinking that they should save up their ONE chance for when they really need it.
Earlier NaSultainne argued that abortion should be illegal, beginning in the first trimester (though apparently not from the moment of conception, which means that the political fight would continue), based in part on the availability of numerous methods of contraception:
Based on statements by various pro-life websites, birth control pills and IUDs, DepoProvera, and Norplant, and of course methods of “emergency contraception” would presumably all be unavailable, their manufacture and distribution illegal. This should leave barrier methods intact, nonetheless, what is currently the most popular form of contraception–the birth control pill–as well as implant methods which are useful for many people precisely because they don’t require any special action by the user each time she has sex would be outlawed if the pro-life movement gets everything it seems to want. In a society in which the pro-life movement has its way, there would be a dramatic decrease in birth control/contraception methods, and there would not be available emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy even after intercourse.
Here’s one libertarian who thinks that abortion is aggression/coercion against the life of the unborn, and given that assumption, libertarian philosophy dictates that the government is not only authorized, but should make it illegal. Remember: I think abortion is the premature termination of a human life. Libertarians don’t generally like that. (Imagine that.) Check out this thread: Libertarians & Abortion – A Platform Inconsistency?
