Posted on 04/04/2016 8:13:22 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
The law...does not enjoin that which pleases a weak, frail man, but, without any regard to persons, commands that which is good and punishes evil in all, whether rich or poor, high or low. 'Tis deaf, inexorable, inflexible. On the one hand it is inexorable to the cries and lamentations of the prisoners; on the other it is deaf, deaf as an adder, to the clamors of the populace. – John Adams Pro-lifers were quick to "correct" Donald Trump when he told Chris Matthews that "there has to be some form of punishment" for a woman who procures an abortion – were abortion hypothetically made illegal. The candidate backtracked. But in my world, 2 plus 2 still equals 4.
If abortion is the murder of an innocent human being, as we pro-life advocates have always said, then by what mental gymnastics do we allow the murderer to escape justice? Barbarians can merrily point to all the "compassionate" conservatives on TV this week and say, "There goes one of us; a person who thinks with his feeler."
If a certain drug is illegal, then who should be punished when that drug is traded: the seller, the buyer, or both? If prostitution is illegal, who should be punished: the buyer, the seller, or both? If it's against the law to hire an undocumented foreigner, who should be punished when that law is broken: the employer, the employee, or both? There is only one rationally consistent answer. Any two people knowingly engaged in a criminal act are both guilty. And if we still punish the guilty in America, that means that both are deserving of punishment.
Some have said, "We believe that the mother is a second victim of abortion." That's certainly true. She's a victim of the lies of the pro-aborts. She's a victim, let's say, of pressure from others. But that doesn't prevent her from also being a perpetrator. A person who gets cheated in a business deal, and who then shoots and kills the other party, is a victim of fraud, but he is also a perpetrator of murder. The two roles are not mutually exclusive.
And why is the woman called a "mother?" This is abuse of language to the level of propaganda. A "mother" is exactly what she refused to be. She can't wrap herself in the apron of Motherhood after she has chosen to murder the one who would have made her a mom.
A woman who procures an abortion is analogous to a person who hires a hit man. Yes, the professional killer actually pulls the trigger, but it was his client who set the whole crime in motion. Such a monster should go free?
We pro-lifers have said that there is no moral difference between the life of an unborn human and any other human. But I know that the mother who drowns her toddlers in a bathtub won't get the same "victim" treatment as the non-mother who kills her children in a clinic. So when push comes to shove, maybe some pro-lifers don't see born and unborn lives as equally valid. What other conclusion can we reach?
"You'll have to jail millions of women," comes the objection. But the fact is that punishment deters crime. We won't have to deport all 11 million illegal aliens, for example; we can visibly pursue justice and watch the criminal behavior diminish. You don't make abortion illegal so that you can have the same number of abortions, but lots more prisons. You outlaw abortion to save millions of babies. And the more serious you are about stopping it, the more severely you punish it. As George Savile said, "Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen." Here is another case of Conservatives arguing badly.
As far as I can tell, it is not logically consistent to say that yes, abortion is murder, but no, we will not punish the person who caused the murder because we don't like how that would play to the viewers of MSNBC.
Is Abortion Murder, or Not?
___________________________________
I thought it was. But what do I know? All the “conservative” candidates and even right to life groups say it is not.
If it was murder, wouldn’t you think the women allowing the murder should be punished?
How about starting by being consistent at looking at history. When something was treated as a madness rather than a crime, there may have been a reason for it.
A society that can think of no better reason to do something than “law” is already lost.
Murder is malice aforethought, meaning it’s a planned killing.
Murder, even when committed through madness, is punished.
Yet, there’s no reason to think that abortion is “madness” rather than premeditated murder. A woman who gets an abortion knows what she is doing. It’s a pre-meditated act.
When a person walks into an abortuary to have her child aborted, that is malice aforethought.
A planned event. The person didn’t just happen to wander in there.
There is insanity defense.
Your approach is one that is guaranteed to get the woman on the fence against you. Rotsa ruck when you can’t even outlaw “gay marriage.”
People forgot that God, at bottom, was a big softie and loathed being pressed into any other position. Why did He suffer for our sake?
“Murder” is a legal definition. Abortion is undeniably a homicide. At present it is a legally sanctioned homicide.
Another Freeper posted that prosecuting the woman who procures an illegal abortion runs afoul of the fifth amendment due to the need for the woman to testify against the doctor. If she is in legal jeopardy over the abortion, then she cannot be a witness for the prosecution of the doctor. I wish I could remember who posted this in order to give proper credit.
I believe murder is the correct term here.
Either way you charge the abortionist with murder or homicide and the mother with conspiracy to commit either as an accomplice.
Yes.....it is a particular type of murder. The unborn are dehumanized to whitewash the process and make the practice acceptable.
The problem is that if you look at the old court cases you’ll find that the courts held that killing a fetus was not murder. The courts said that the woman had to give birth before it was considered murder. There were states that outlawed abortion but that was a separate crime—not murder. The main reason was that in those days child birth was such an iffy thing. There was a good chance that the baby would not be born alive, so they chose the point of birth as the dividing line. Even before Roe v. Wade there were some states that allowed abortion, like NY. Obviously that would not have been permitted if a fetus were considered a person.
Gal_6:7 - Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Justice says that actions have consequences. It is cause and effect. Forgiveness must me earned to be deserved. Mercy substitutes for justice a dose of the undeserved and does so in the name of pity. The pity is not for the innocent among people or the good, but for the perpetrators of evil. The person who possesses basic human dignity and self esteem asks for justice not the pity of mercy.
is smashing spotted owl eggs ‘murder’? Illegal? Publicly announce you are going to go to old growth forests, and find all the spotted owl eggs you can find, and smash them, and see how quickly you are arrested- If killing something that isn’t born yet isn’t a crime when it comes to people- why is it a crime when done to bird eggs? Spotted owls may be endangered, but if spotted owl eggs aren’t spotted owls yet, the smashing them shouldn’t constitute a crime, correct?
Yes, abortion IS MURDER.
Nest question.
Exactly.
Morally, abortion is murder. It is the intentional killing of an innocent person.
Legally, abortion is, for now, the same as removing a wart or trimming your fingernails, except that Obamacare does not mandate employers paying for manicures. I don’t know anyone who feels guilty about trimming their nails, but most people who get abortions feel guilt. That’s a pretty clear sign that morality is right and the law is wrong on abortion.
“Yes.....it is a particular type of murder. The unborn are dehumanized to whitewash the process and make the practice acceptable.”
I’ve had conversations with some on the left about partial birth abortion, and used the example of puppies. Interestingly, they were appalled by the prospect of killing developing puppies this way, whereas partial birth abortion of human babies has been some sort of abstract political/ideological issue. I feel as though despite the great technological progress we’ve made (humanity in general), our spiritual/moral growth has been sadly lacking. We use surrogate activist issues to cover this up, but spiritually/morally we have a very long way to go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.