Posted on 01/28/2017 9:31:12 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Chris Matthews gave generally respectful treatment to pro-life activist Abby Johnson, who appeared on last night’s Hardball in the context of discussing the March for Life. But Matthews challenged Johnson on the position—generally adopted by the pro-life movement—that the only person who should be punished is the doctor performing the abortion, and not the woman who chose to have one.
Said Matthews: “If abortion’s a murder and the person who goes to an abortion clinic is given no sanctions, no punishment whatever, there’s something that doesn’t square there . . . if you believe it’s murder, you go after the person who went to the clinic to have the abortion. Or else you treat her like a child, a vulnerable person who’s not really a grownup . . . Going after the doctor is a cute way of avoiding the question. If it’s murder, act on it. If it’s not, stop saying it.”
View the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
I would argue that the abortionist is fully aware that they killing a human being with every abortion. However, the law says it is not homicide, and they make a lot of money doing it. There is every reason to believe that those who gravitate towards abortion as a vocation are true psychopaths, who do not have the innate capability of empathy that most people are born with. They simply do not care that they are killing human infants. Some even get pleasure out of the act.
“If you have a teen who’s being told it’s not a baby yet, by everyone in her world, not just doctor and family, but the entire culture, and you combine that with coercion, no court well-grounded in the traditional view of murder is going to find mens rea (guilty mind).”
That’s an interesting defense strategy.
Suppose a 19 year old mother is put on trial for the murder of her two week old baby that she tossed in an abortion clinic dumpster after stabbing her baby with an ice pick and tearing the baby’s limbs off.
No one directly involved in her life made it clear to her that here baby was a real baby.
Therefore, she does not have a guilty mind.
NO, go after the actual murderer, the abortionist. Charge the abortionist with first degree MURDER.
I realize that the woman could be viewed as hiring a murderer (hit man), making her just as guilty. Which she is. Let the courts decide. I’m okay with it either way.
Murder is murder.
Just remember, the old saw that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body.
The problem with that is that the baby’s body isn’t hers. In this country it is an abomination and illegal for one human being to OWN another. Babies are not PROPERTY.
So, a woman can not legally dispose of an unwanted human being. Abortion is worse than lynching.
You’re going Pontius Pilate on me - washing your hands of it.
I’ll ask it again this way - “YOU think that all abortion is murder. What would YOUR punishment be for a woman who aborts her 10 week pregnancy?”
I know it’s a very difficult questions. Honestly search your own conscience, you’ll be surprised what you find.
I struggle with this myself, and it’s truly a tough one, but it’s a question that us anti-abortionists need to answer with logical consistency to get clarity in our own minds, otherwise we look like hypocrites.
Logic fails Chris. You go after the murderer....Gosnell
What about ectopic pregnancies?
Oh get off that high horse. I owe you nothing.
To the contrary, a jury in THAT case would easily be persuaded her claimed lack of intent was not credible. Her personal, tangible interaction with the body of the child, the manner of treatment, etc., a good prosecutor could easily show mens rea even if the woman denied it. Because mens rea does not rely exclusively on testimony of the person. If it did, you could never convict for murder. But in cases where intent is denied, it may still be found through indicators that are external and objective. "I didn't mean to run him over with the car fives times" will not work as a defense.
Which is why there is no one size fits all easy peezy lazy ass solution for this problem. I know people want it to be simple but it isn't. It'll always come down to specific cases and fact patterns. The jury will hear all the facts, and if a case can be made to the jury that the person lacked the right kind of intent, they won't be convicted of murder. Sorry.
Peace,
SR
Unless the father wants the child and the mother says no and goes through with procedure against his will. It happens. Probably more than people think.
If abortionist doctors were criminally pursued, they’d have to make a risk:benefit analysis. Most would decide that several years in the slammer wouldn’t be worth it. That would dry up the source of abortions and result in far fewer doctors who perform abortions and less access for women who think they want an abortion.
It would be similar to pursuing drug dealers and leaving users alone (for a while) till their source(s) dried up.
Lucky me - ‘cause you have nothing to offer.
“If you believe abortion’s murder, “you go after the person” who had the abortion”
I researched this argument when Trump said something along this line during the primary campaign.
Prosecuting women was not American judicial policy when abortion was illegal.
Women were considered the victims of abortionists.
There were exactly TWO occasions in the entire 20th Century when women were prosecuted for getting abortions.
In the majority of states such prosecutions were not even possible. In the states where they were possible they were exceedingly rare, witness just two prosecutions.
Chris Matthews is an (alleged) professional journalist. It’s not hard to find out the history of how abortion was prosecuted in America. Ergo he’s either lazy, incompetent, or a liar.
I vote he’s all three.
“If you believe abortion’s murder, “you go after the person” who had the abortion”
I researched this argument when Trump said something along this line during the primary campaign.
Prosecuting women was not American judicial policy when abortion was illegal.
Women were considered the victims of abortionists.
There were exactly TWO occasions in the entire 20th Century when women were prosecuted for getting abortions.
In the majority of states such prosecutions were not even possible. In the states where they were possible they were exceedingly rare, witness just two prosecutions.
Chris Matthews is an (alleged) professional journalist. It’s not hard to find out the history of how abortion was prosecuted in America. Ergo he’s either lazy, incompetent, or a liar.
I vote he’s all three.
Neither do you crazy.
Thanks for the information.
I had wondered about this. And I figured if Roe Vs. Wade were ever overturned, then the state laws regulating abortion prior to that case would be reinstated, along with whatever penalties were part of the laws back then.
It astounds me that when people discuss this issue, about will we prosecute mothers and all that, that nobody ever talks about how these laws were enforced back in the day.
My point is that Matthews is trying to trap Trump into insinuating that women should be jailed for having abortions. That would play well for the Left.
The abortionist is like a hit man or woman.
If you get rid of the “hit women”, the women arent gonna self-abort. They dont want to die either.
Of course the woman should go to jail. Unless it’s a minor who was forced by her parents to go thru with it. But you’ll never find a politician that would dream of introducing this into legislation. Political suicide.
What about ectopic pregnancies?
************
I’ve avoided jumping in until now but I’ll take the easy question...
An ectopic pregnancy is an immediate and very real threat to the life of the mother and cannot be continued to term. Removing the baby in that case even though it results in the death of a human being is not murder ,, it is a homicide by definition but it is necessary and cannot be avoided except to allow the pregnancy to continue which would likely result in 2 deaths.
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.