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 ...
The woman could conceivably be considered an accessory under certain circumstances, and those are really “no-go” parts of town.....like having a couple of abortions a year for several years running.You don’t wanna go there.
I’ve had the same question and did a bit of research and have had a hell of a time finding the answer.
I have to believe that “guilty mind” is an extreme oversimplification of mens rea. Just because an abortionist doesn’t believe they are committing murder or at very least homicide, doesn’t make them any less guilty of the charge. Of course the law considers abortion differently than that, but if the law were changed and a state decided that their law on abortion was that it was manslaughter, then there should be no escape from that fact. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Chris is not making that point. Chris would never call her unfit to be a mother, or call her or otherwise imply she is a murderer. Chris is just trying to put, for his own purposes, both his interview subject, and the Pro-Life march,and Donald Trump, in a trick bag.
That is total B$, the state never had the right to kill the babies until Roe. I know almost every politician now touts State Rights in order to wash their hands of the decision, but if it is murder when the Feds allow it, then it is still murder if the State does it.
If you have a teen who’s being told it’s not a baby yet, by everyone in her world
what a ridiculously low standard to set for mens rea...accepting homicide because we’ve infantilized the intellect of the perpetrator...
You have the most correct answer in this thread today.
If society pulls the plug on abortion providers, the abortion industry essentially vanishes.
Those who chose to engage in self-abortion often lost their lives in the process.
There will be a small number who will still try to self-abort, of course, but for most the temptation to engage in such an act tends to be self-limiting, if one reasonably believes it might cost them their own lives.
FReegards!
I can't even begin to imagine how there is any question about what it is, coming up in the 50's. Then again you could ask any High School student in the 50's what a Natural Born Citizen was and get the correct answer. Takes a lot of lawyer a lot of years to make plain English mean something it doesn't say.
But doesn’t that really take a normal level of adult agency and responsibility away from the woman?
Why not every time—unless she is kidnapped, sedated, and operated on without her consent?
So what is your answer to the question “if abortion is murder, what should the punishment be for the mother?”
This is a very important and difficult question that in the struggle to answer it we will discover a lot about ourselves.
Don’t chicken out and dismiss it because Matthews brought it up (actually many people have brought it up). It’s a valid and important question.
So should the mother be put to death for aborting her ten week old pregnancy?
Then how on earth do they ever charge Vehicular Homicide?
This is a very important and difficult question
yes, you’re right; but in my humble mind, I believe we make it more difficult than it need be, by not addressing what appears obvious...the sane society would provide abortions if, and only if, the affected party can provide a compelling reason for doing so, subject to independent review and rigid interpretation, along with substantial documentation...
a very restricted set of reasons might include a bonafide toss-up between mother and child (quite rare, actually), or perhaps a well defined determination that because of illness or deformity the child will suffer physically if brought to term...absent any of that, parties agreeing to perform an abortion should be subject to established law...
Unless the insane decision of Roe is reversed you don't do anything. If Roe is repealed then likely there will be legislation to address that.
Once the law is clear then enforce it like any other law we don't like.
Even the most evil of serial killers rarely face death, so what is the point of your question?
The pro abortion mob have no problem of murdering a baby and yet don’t want to kill someone in prison for murdering someone how’s that for insane logic.
Vehicular homicide isn’t enough information to figure out if it’s murder. All we know from that label is one person killed another person with a vehicle. It could be entirely accidental, or there could be criminal negligence, or there could have been a real intent to kill another person without justification or excuse. If there is an absence of intent to kill a person without justification or excuse, you don’t have enough for murder. Manslaughter comes up for the criminal negligence, where you drove under such conditions that you just didn’t care. That gets you much closer to murder, but not quite over the line. And you can still be punished for criminal negligence.
But words have meaning. In legalese, if you don’t have the right kind of intent, you don’t get murder. This is not new, BTW. It’s been like this for centuries. Nobody should be surprised by any of this, least of all Chris Matthews, who to me is just trying to show up prolifers as inconsistent and uncompassionate, so he doesn’t really care about the technical requirements of murder, and he probably knows he can buffalo most of his audience because they sure don’t know.
Peace,
SR
It bothers me that women who have abortions are often thought of as just another victim. Some of them are just as heartless as the “doctors” and express no remorse for it.
More Chrissy Matthews sphincter-thought.
I am suggesting nothing. I am saying quite clearly that they really don't know that abortion is the murder of a human being.
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.