Posted on 09/30/2014 1:18:59 PM PDT by presidio9
Kevin Williamson, a correspondent for National Review, suggested Monday that women who have abortions should be hanged.
Williamson's tweet came in a back-and-forth on twitter that started with Williamson's piece criticizing a blog post by actress and director Lena Dunham on why women should vote.
The key part of the exchange was captured by Charles Johnson of the blog Little Green Footballs. Here is the exchange:
(Excerpt) Read more at talkingpointsmemo.com ...
Is Kevin Williamson up for election?
Leftists say worse things every single day. Did you see what RFK Jr said the other day? and I think he really is a candidate.
Somehow it's some huge story what this guy tweeted though?
Leftists say worse things every day
So what? I don’t want them to win elections. Do You?
Ha! If democracy is that delicate, the game is over anyhow.
You really think what a National RINO writer says on Twitter is going to effect the vote?
Why not just drop them into Syria?
More proof that nothing good ever comes from Twitter. You can’t have a serious discussion of big issues in 140 characters or less.
“If you believe that abortion is murder, and in capital punishment for murder, then what other position can you come to?”
Well, one big problem with this is “ex post facto”. You can’t apply a punishment retroactively to something that wasn’t a crime at the time it was committed. Abortion may be murder, but at this time, it is not “homicide”, as far as the laws and the courts are concerned. So, we cannot go back and apply any punishment to those who have committed the act, without violating our own long-held legal traditions.
If abortion was classed as homicide today, then we could talk about applying capital punishment in the future to someone who commits the act, but that is a different matter.
Is it?
If you believe that abortion is murder, and in capital punishment for murder, then what other position can you come to?
And if capital punishment is murder? What then?
Not my view, but it does seem "intellectually consistent."
I guess we’ll see what happens in the next election.
I guess I’m just not that cavalier in my attitude toward future elections.
Good point.
I’m not a fan of it either.
I think the poster was trying to say that limiting abortion to only cases involving rape, incest, and life of the mother would be a good start. I personally believe that abortion should only be permitted when a mother’s life is in danger, but incrementalism doesn’t seem like such a bad thing when you compare it to the status quo.
Well, to be honest, an abortion IS 1st degree, premeditated murder: you plan to murder your unborn child, hire someone to kill the baby, and then you get someone to drive you to the abortuary, and then the murderer butchers and kills your baby.
If you took these steps to kill your husband or lover, it would be 1st degree capital murder.
Seems plain and simple: 1st degree, premeditated murder. Only semantics deems this butchery as anything else. Maybe life in prison without parole instead of hanging.
As you can see, I have little or no patience with this whole slaughter of a human being.
Incrementalism. Yep. I got it.
Start with mothers life in danger, then move on to maybe the baby’s life will be in danger. Of Downs Syndrome or something.
So abort.
Or maybe the incrementalism is at gestation. Over 20 weeks? No! No abortion, But less than 20? Well... OK.
Clearly you are looking for a fight. I think that would be a waste of time, because I am assuming that you and I agree 100% on the morality of this issue and its philosophical underpinnings. My interest here was in the stupidity of an otherwise smart guy like Williamson giving liberals ammunition when they are starving for it. From where I'm standing, the only issue that Democrats have to work with in the upcoming election is the so-called "war on women." Race relations won't work, because a large majority of voters believe that these have suffered under the current administration. Income inequality won't be effective, because the voters believe that the economy is worse off under the current administration. The truth is that they are ready for a guy like Reagan: A guy who can simply explain that government isn't the solution to all of our problems. Reagan was as pro-life as you or I, but you will notice that he did not confuse things by spending a lot of time campaigning on that issue.
If you re-read my post you will notice that I am not suggesting that outlawing abortion with some exceptions in the only step. I said it was "the first" step. The adults in the Democrat Party have gotten much better than us at understanding that Democracy is about compromise, and that change happens incrementally.
...and let me clarify that further:
I am not saying that this is the correct and final moral position on this issue. I am saying that it is the correct answer to that question when it comes from a Clymer like Charles Johnson.
And it is.
Nicely said.
If one does not believe in capital punishment, then there’s no conflict. Though one would still be faced with what punishment is appropriate for a “mother” who aborts and murders her child.
Though, imo, anybody who believes execution of a convicted murderer is itself murder is an idiot. One can be opposed to capital punishment without holding to such an absurd position.
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.