Posted on 04/06/2016 4:55:25 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Abortion is unique because pregnancy is. The fact that an unborn baby resides entirely inside the body of another human being with rights of her own makes mincemeat of our whole approach to justice, which is based on individual rights, balanced against the rights of others and the claims of the common good.
Yes, the baby has the right to life, but the mother has the right to control her body, too, so how can we disentangle the claims of two people who literally inhabit the same space, eat the same food, and are intimately related? To what else can we compare this situation: Siamese twins? A stubborn, unwanted tenant? A famous violinist who needs to share a healthy person’s organs, whose fans have kidnapped her and hooked the two together? Since no other relationship is exactly akin to pregnancy, all analogies finally fail. Abortion has no prefabricated answer, but requires the careful needle of a custom-tailor statesman.
Donald Trump in his blundering way put his finger on the core difficulty yesterday when he asserted, and then denied, that pro-life laws should include legal penalties for the mother. His flip-flop probably was what his rival Ted Cruz asserted: the kind of reversal you go through when you really think about an issue for the first time in your life.
Or maybe Trump has faced the question before. He has publicly boasted of sleeping with uncounted women — many of them the wives of other men. What are the odds that not a single one of these women became pregnant, and came to him for answers? Some reporter should ask him about this, perhaps with this tactful formula: “Mr. Trump, given the thousands of women you claim to have had sex with, how many abortions have you demanded or paid for?” Given Trump’s willingness to drag his opponents’ wives’ medical histories into the campaign, this question seems fair game to me.
For those of us who, like Senator Cruz, have been pro-life for decades, the issue has already vexed us: We know that abortion is homicide and are willing to punish the doctors. Indeed, I’m in favor of quite strict punishments for abortion profiteers. But since the woman who hires the doctor is the primary author of the decision, does it really make sense — as all prominent pro-lifers have prudently chosen to say — that we would never punish such a woman? What’s the logic there?
Well, the first logic is political. We know that treating women as exclusively the victims of abortion, and never as its author, is absolutely critical to passing any pro-life legislation. So we’re willing to overlook the moral inconsistency, rather than let the “best” be the enemy of the good. In the same way, most pro-lifers reluctantly make an exception for genuine victims of rape, who never willingly took the risk that their body might be on loan for the next nine months. We don’t like it, we know it doesn’t quite embody justice for the unborn, but we fear that such is the best law we could probably ever pass and really enforce.
The problem with the rape exception is obvious: We don’t have the death penalty for rapists themselves, so why should we impose it on their children? There is no satisfying answer, but you could ask the very same question about a pregnancy that directly endangered a mother’s life: That child is just as innocent. It isn’t as if he were trying to kill his mother…. We acknowledge the wretched messiness here and try to pass the least bad law that we can.
So no, it wouldn’t be perfectly fair to severely punish doctors who provided illegal abortions, while completely absolving the women who sought them out and paid their fees (not to mention the ne’er-do-well boyfriend who drives her to the abortionist, happy to be relieved of the burden of a newborn making the case for him growing up and becoming a responsible husband and father). At the same time, there is a real difference between a woman who hires an assassin to murder her husband, and one who procures an abortion. The obvious difference is that the first woman has other options for getting away from a husband, however abusive. A pregnant woman can’t escape her pregnancy, however unwanted or traumatic, without taking an innocent life. Many, perhaps most women who make the lethal choice of abortion are terrified and desperate. The decision itself does them grave emotional, spiritual and even physical harm. Any one of these factors would be enough to mitigate the remaining punishment that might be called for.
In fact, the most productive and compassionate approach to this vexing question may be this: We decide as a society to stigmatize abortion as such a desperate, self-destructive and irrational act, that it cannot be treated as grounds for a criminal prosecution of a mother. Instead we will treat women who go outside the law to end their pregnancies the same way we treat people who attempt to commit suicide. We might mandate that they get help, in the form of counseling — instead of leaving them to face the crushing guilt without support, as Planned Parenthood leaves the young women who fall into the organization’s clutches today, shooing them out the door after taking their fees and selling their babies’ organs. We would waive all charges against a woman in return for her help in prosecuting the doctor. As to him, he should get the same legal treatment as Dr. Kevorkian, the ghoulish suicide doctor.
This answer isn’t perfect. Some will say that it infantilizes women by treating their (im)moral choices about their pregnancies as pathological. It’s not a great answer for women who repeatedly decide to have illegal abortions. But it’s the closest thing to a fair solution possible in our degenerate society.
He was right.
Poor Ted. 13 more days to act like a big shot.
It’s such a hoot to watch the propaganda on the forum.
It’s not working, but hey, it helps create such a peaceful atmosphere here.
Trump on April 19th, will end Ted Cruz’s presidential bid.
Yea!
This killing of unborn humans ( hillary’s term) is an abomination to God. All those complicit should be harsly punished to insure deterrence. With stiff rape laws , there is no excuse for un-wanted pregnancy. ZERO.
Trump disagrees with Trump on the issue, leaving his supporters with egg on their face. But like a battered wife, they will continue to defend Donald.
“Yes, the baby has the right to life, but the mother has the right to control her body, too, so how can we disentangle the claims of two people who literally inhabit the same space, eat the same food, and are intimately related?”
Simple: one had the CHOICE to put the other into that dependent position.
Maybe we could get rid of this extraordinary crime if both were up for punishment.
Even when it was illegal, the only time that it was prosecuted was when the woman wound up in the hospital and she snitched. Attorneys would run to her bedside to get her deposition.
They should be punished only if the law made all abortions illegal. That is what he said. The truth is that if a law is illegal and you violate the law you should be held accountable. That is what Trump said an if anyone disagrees is stupid.
Zmirak's comments have nothing to do with Trump (or Cruz) except as a topical hook. No reason whatsoever to think Zmirak is shilling for Cruz, or gunning for Trump--- who has already, himself, repudiated the "punish women" approach.
But I overestimated the potential for actual discussion here.
one of the reasons why we are being flooded with low-iq savages is because we were fed a load of crap about a woman’s right to choose. Of course it should be punishable. Having babies should be rewarded
Trump was right, being a willing accessory to murder should be punishable accordingly. Is it political suicide to admit this in today’s America? Yes.
Usually.
“That is what Trump said an if anyone disagrees is stupid.”
A few hours later Trump disagreed. I guess that means Trump is stupid.
Women who give themselves abortions (deliberately through drugs, trauma or other means) are currently charged. There are many examples of this.
If you go to Planned Parenthood, it’s okay.
Gosh.
People were saying how hurtful Trump’s remarks were to the pro baby side.
So we keep bringing it up on Free Republic.
Maybe it’s not about Trump’s remarks.
Maybe it’s about trying to score political points against Trump.
I appreciate the perspective - conservatives have sold out for politics. We need to have this conversation, but I think we also need to delve into casual sex and women not being deemed as special because we are so busy insisting we be treated like men.
People who attempt suicide can wind up institutionalised for years. It is difficult to win an argument when you have no cure convictions. There are some truths in life that must be acknowledged regardless of how bad they make you feel.
Nice try. If you think I’m buying that, think again.
I simply don't know.
This may vary from state to state. Serious question, can you link to more information here?
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.