[digg=http://digg.com/political_opinion/How_to_Stump_Anti_Abortionists_With_One_Simple_Question]
Did you know you can stump anti-abortionists with one simple question?
Just ask them this:
If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?
Now watch their faces as the cognitive dissonance sets in. They believe abortion to be murder. Murder deserves severe punishment. Thus, women who have illegal abortions should receive severe punishment — like life in prison or the death penalty. That’s the logical conclusion.
But they can’t accept this conclusion. They know it’s absurd and unfair — which means they know abortion is not really murder.
Here’s a must-watch video of anti-abortion protesters being asked this question:
It’s amazing they’ve never thought about the question before — they’ve been involved in the anti-abortion movement for years. What’s the point of spending all that time trying to make abortion illegal if you’re not even sure there should be any punishment for breaking the law?
Here’s the best exchange:
Q: Abortion should be illegal, did you say?
A: Yes, it should be illegal because it’s killing a human person.
Q: And what should happen to women who have illegal abortions?
A: … Just pray for them. I don’t think they should have to spend time in jail or anything.
Q: So if it’s illegal, you think there should be no punishment under the law?
A: No, I don’t think they should be punished, because the life has been taken. The crime has been done.
Q: [But isn't] that’s true with murder, too? Isn’t there a punishment for murder?
A: Yes, there’s a punishment for murder because that’s taking a life.
Q: So why shouldn’t there be a punishment for a woman who has an illegal abortion?
A: Oh… as the other [person] said, it’s kind of between her and God. She will get her punishment in the end.
Q: So why should it be illegal?
A: Because it’s the taking of a life.
(via)
Update 1/23/09:
First, a clarification. I’m not pro-abortion. I support the legalization of abortion. I do not like abortion nor do I usually counsel it. However, I do think it should be available for women who want it, especially if they were raped or have zero interest in caring for a child.
I would like abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. We can all work together on the rare part.
Similarly, I’m not pro-drugs. But I do support the legalization of drugs. I don’t recommend people use mind-altering drugs and would never use them myself. But I think it should be available for those who desire to use it. They will use them either way, so it might as well be regulated.
Second, I’m closing comments. I think over 950 comments is enough. Thanks to everyone who shared opinions without hatred or personal attacks. No thanks to those who did.
Update 1/24/09:
Alright, alright, comments are open again.
Just be nice or your comment will be deleted.
1230 Comments
You can accuse religious fanatics of many thinks, but using well-thought out argumentation isn’t one of them.
well, nobody can accuse you of proofreading.
Or capitalization.
Or of using good grammar. Or punctuation. Or syntax. Or words that are not real words.
Or ENGLISH!!!
On top of that, follow his link. Man he is popular, people are just flocking to his blog.
everyone that has replied to this is and arogant and dumb. you comment on is writing skills which dont even matter. you can read it and were no in an english class also you are all probably religious fanatics and are all offended and thats the best u could come back with being religion is soo far from true its like believin in santa and the last lady in the video proved that. she had nothing to say but she there cuz god wants her there to. thats the funny is shit i heard and these people beloive n there cause n been doin it for years and they never thought what the penalty would be or y would there a point to make it illegal then. cuz if its not it sanctions it thats is bullshit. these people n u have no logic and are brainwashed retards so go fuck youselfs cuz be cuz not using perfect grammar is genuis compared to ur thoughts on life. this is a made up langauge theres really not right way to spell shit anyone just made up by people as a form of commuication and if ur getting the message across ur doing it right
I have no idea what you were trying to say.
Thanks for using yourself as an example of what I think you were talking about in the first sentence, “everyone that has replied to this is and arogant and dumb.”.
what about china? what if we end up in the situation that we are allowed only one to two births? infanticide, as commonly used in this country, is common in china. so, is it ok to kill a fetus if enviornmental resources are diminishing? what then?
i would love to hear any thought and opinion in the matter. interesting to see what xtians have to say on the matter….
You know what’s really sad is the pomposity of this experiment and the lame response from the anti-abortion camp as well.
There’s only one thing clear: before an abortion it’s alive, afterward it’s dead.
How you want to proceed from that point on shows whether you’re an honest compassionate reasonable human being toward the correct point of view.
An embryo is not human anymore than a fertilized egg is a chicken. So life begins at conception. A human begins at implantation. Pro-choicers and pro-lifers need to get their act together. Pro-abortion (overpop hystericals, eco-apologists) and anti-abortion (bombers, vigilantes) groups are nuts. They add nothing to the discussion.
It’s an infant, it’s a fetus, who are to say it’s not a part of my body, who are you to say that lump is an individual. I have heard some ridiculous arguments defending abortion. Pro-choicers should stick to the anti-dark-alley-gynecology argument and rape/threat to life of mother.
As for pro-lifers, would you kill the mother with the drugs necesarry to keep alive a baby which would otherwise be miscarried? That’s a much more reasonable question for this article.
The question asked here was nothing but a pompous debate strategy not an honest discussion topic.
Well, I have heard some anti-abortionists say women should be prosecuted, even to the point of facing the death penalty. But then I have female evangelical friends who will admit that, when push comes to shove, they really do want to keep the legal option of having an abortion. They just are very careful to whom they admit that wish.
“But they can’t accept this conclusion. They know it’s absurd and unfair — which means they know abortion is not really murder.”
This a great post and a more than fair question, but I think the preceding conclusion is a jump. I think two things may be said. First a large proportion if not a majority pro-life people haven’t thought through their logic and then when put on the spot are unable to produce a coherent argument. But I’m don’t think its because they don’t think abortion is murder, but rather that they know they are already perceived as uncompassionate and any pronouncement of judgement would further that image. For better or worse they’re not ready to accept that extra weight on their position.
Ask yourselves this question though: what would you have thought if someone had quickly and unequovically answered the question with a judgement of the death penalty? Would you have applauded their logic or been abhorred at their honesty?
In many states, someone who murders a pregnant woman is charged with two murders, so this really isn’t a long stretch. Yes, you’ve shown the ignorance of some pro-life people, but you haven’t won any arguments.
I think one of the biggest problems with the whole debate about God is how both sides will point to a few select examples of people who are not as able to defend their beliefs, and set them up as a “straw man” representation of the whole movement. They treat their victory over one anecdotal person as the crushing defeat of the whole ideology.
It’s unfair to expect everyone on both sides to be expert debaters who are aware of every detail and argument of their ideology. We both have to resort to quoting our favorite thinkers and authors, so let’s have honest discussions about the classic questions and arguments, instead of throwing Dawkins at some unsuspecting theist.
My favorite book for this purpose is “The Question of God” by Armand Nicholi. Everyone should read it.
Amazing video. It’s incredible to think that they hadn’t even thought about that issue before they were asked.
“Cognitive dissonance” what a great phrase that is.
Here, let me help you out a bit. http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1064996
You can also refer them to http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html – so many anti-choice people have “religious objections” to abortion, but if they actually read their Old Testament, they might learn that God really doesn’t have a problem with killing infants.
Well, at least one of them grudgingly accepted that life in prison should be an option, and was against the death penalty in general. Points for being consistent? Not surprisingly, it was the youngest of the protesters who was the most coherent.
We spend far too much time finding ways to fight than finding a real solution. I think a better question to ask is abortion good for the mother? It certainly isn’t for the child, but studies have found it is awful for the mother’s body & mental health.
So instead of trying to find ways to “stump” protesters a better discussion would be how do we solve this problem?
The protesters on both sides of the issue seem so bent of beating each other up that they have forgotten about the women who are looking for help.
When we become so entrenched in an ideology that we lose intellectual honesty we have lost far more than an argument.
Hey! I’m a fairly regular reader of the blog and enjoy your thoughts. I love it when people think and observe and speak intelligently, whether I agree or not. For the record, I’m a Christian. For the record also, I’m not the “anti-everything” Christian. However, I do think abortion is murder. I do have particular beliefs by what the Bible says. Just wanted to introduce myself as this comment isn’t specifically about this blog entry.
On another note, I’ve been having a question roll around in my head for a while about you and your blog and tweets (I follow you on Twitter too).
Again, you make plenty of fantastic LOGICAL arguments throughout most of your statements (not all). I do literally enjoy it when you stump the Christian. SERIOUSLY! I’m not a fan of most Christians myself, and I’m even launching a church as a pastor soon. But to blindly believe without the ability to intelligently articulate your thinking or even speak a complete sentence to describe it, that’s embarrassing for me as a Christian. Of course, I regularly see the same on other fronts: Dems vs. Repubs, atheists, gays vs straights, war vs anti-war, global warming folks vs intelligent people, etc….
So, I DO appreciate you and would appreciate some dialogue from you, if possible. I’d love to actually talk over email from time to time if possible. That all being said, MY QUESTION:
In your transition from a Christian to atheist, what has changed in regard to how you live – physically, spiritually, emotionally? Are your days longer, shorter, harder, easier, friendlier, meaner, etc…? I don’t want to go more specific now, I’m curious how you might interpret my question.
Disclaimer: It’s not my intention to “convert” you or anyone else reading this. I can’t. I truly enjoy dialogue with people, regardless of what they believe. That’s what makes our perspective broader – exposure. Too many annoying Christians have a Sunday School view of life and that’s it. That’s why guys like you are entertaining to me, you THINK before you speak. ha ha. And that’s funny, although sad for my “team”.
Let me know what’s up. Thanks for your time reading this massive comment. Feel free to bog down my blog with a monster comment as well. ha. THANKS AGAIN!
Wow, truly amazing! I will have to remember this one!
Actually, this is kind of lame.
I oppose murder, and that means that I oppose abortion. Yes, the women who have the abortion should be tried — and so should the doctors. And that is how it was before 1973. Look it up. Doctors who performed this illegal act of killing a human being were tried for murder.
BTW, I have a stumper for you:
If abortion isn’t the killing of a human being, then if your mother or wife is pregnant with a child, and someone kills them (her?), is that person only tried for the murder of your mom or wife, and not the child she is carrying?
And another one:
Next time you see a pregnant friend, ask, “How’s the non-human tissue doing?”
Like when the non-human tissue leaves the womb, that is when the tissue becomes a living human?
You’ve got to agree, that’s unscientific, susperstitious and weird!
So if you think women who have an abortion should be tried what about men who leave women pregnant and fail to face their responsiablity to the women and unborn child. I thinkwe should keep it fair.
The argument that a child is only a number of cells are during the early stages of life. When those “cells” start to become a person is the issue of debate. Does that occur from conception – as pro lifers believe, or does that occur at a later stage. Obviously pro choice people are not implying that babies are just a bunch of cells for the entire time they are in the womb. You are taking this argument too far.
What’s so difficult to answer? If you believe abortion is illegal because it’s murder, then whoever commits illegal abortion should be tried for murder. People are too p.c. these days.
@Barry – “Would you have applauded their logic or been abhorred at their honesty?”
Both. Applaud their honesty even as I work to undermine and exclude their principles. I always prefer it when my opponents are willing to brand themselves as fanatics; it saves me the effort. But frankly, I doubt that even the hard-liners would support the death penalty.
I would agree with Barry in part, but I also think we’re seeing the usual disconnect between the abstract and the individual. It’s like the case of drug abuse: people can be very pro-enforcement against drug abusers in the abstract, but when the abuser turns out to be someone they can identify with the tone softens.
Ant-abortionists are much more vocal against clinics and doctors, but when it’s a young woman going through a rough time, they can’t always bring themselves to attack. I think that’s part of why the Operation Rescue types always work in groups: it’s easier to ignore the pangs of empathy when you have a group of supporters reaffirming your hostile attitude.
There have been a couple of articles about how anti-abortionists are almost as likely to get an abortions as the background population. It’s unacceptable when it’s someone else doing it, but when it’s one of our own … well, who are we to judge, and sometimes we have to make horrible decisions, etc.
I know this is an old blog entry, and maybe nobody is following it anymore, but I thought VorJack’s comment here rung true, especially regarding the mob mentality. People just do horrible things when they get into a mob mentality. I’ve seen it many times. It’s like we lose ourselves in the collective madness. People are far too quick to assume a position about an issue and forget we’re all people and we all suffer. It’s a lot harder to villify someone when you’re face-to-face with the suffering of another human being.
Barry,
I think the point is that when someone actually thinks through everything, the idea of killing a mother who has had an abortion becomes silly. When someone asks you a question that gives you pause, you SHOULD stop, think, and possibly reconsider you position. If you haven’t thought your position through to it’s logical conclusion, you run a serious risk making asinine statements. That’s not to say those who do think their positions through are always right either.
Secondly, why should any “pro-lifer” care about looking uncompassionate? We’re are talking about babies burning in hell after all. Who cares if some godless liberal thinks your uncompassionate?
Finally, if someone did say mothers should receive the death penalty, I wouldn’t think they were logical. I WOULD be aborred, and I would register my disgust.
Great post and video, Daniel. I’ve been experiencing a similar thing in a discussion with some Xians about homosexuality. Several people have told me that it’s wrong and they’ve quoted Bible verses to prove it. But I’ve repeatedly asked what they would advise a gay Christian to do. So far they’ve all refused to answer that question. The conclusion I’ve drawn from that is that they want to avoid the consequences of their belief, which is also the case with the people in this video.
Consider this.
You’re partner was pregnant and involved in an accident caused by a drunk driver. The result was your unborn child being killed.
What punishment would you see fit for the drunk driver?
I know there is a difference between homicide (the abortion in this case) and manslaughter (the car accident), but I’m certain their answer would not be to let the drunk driver off and be in their prayers. They would suggest a much stronger penalty, and in fact, this is the way courts handle the taking of an unborn child’s life (with the exception of abortions) today. This same logic should be applied and discussed here to make your post a bit more thoughtful and compelling.
@Samuel G – “Next time you see a pregnant friend, ask, “How’s the non-human tissue doing?””
I generally prefer obnoxious nicknames based on the likely size of the fetus: “So how’s the grub? What’s the little tadpole doing? What’s up with the salamander?” etc.
My favorite is around the point where the fetus’ urinary system starts to function – I think it’s around the 5 month mark – “So, how does it feel to have a little critter peeing inside of you?”
Oh yeah, I’m REAL popular around the office.
The abortion procedure is punishment enough for the woman, so it should be legal, but they are punished for it anyway.
Yeah, I agree with “Nabeel” up a few comments. I know this would work on some wishy-washy protester types, but the hard core ones, like here in Missouri or back where I lived in South Dakota (the “coat-hanger” state), anti-abortionists DO think of it as murder and would want to punish it as such.
@Stephen Webb:
Glad you’re enjoying the blog! You asked:
I’d say my life got harder at first — having to rebuild your intellectual foundation is difficult. It’s also difficult because you lose some friends, because they view you the same as an unbeliever. But things are getting easier, and I’d say things are very similar now, but with a better gusto for life. Intellectually I feel very free, now that I don’t have to adhere to any dogmas.
Hi all, without say whether I am pro- or anti-abortion, I think those interviewed above could have put forward a better argument as follows: If abortion is illegal, then the main punishment should be for those who commit abortions – those who assist with and promote them. Women who undergo abortions should be accountable, but the punishment should consider, for example, their emotional well-being at the time. Those who help or convinced them to undergo an abortion should also be accountable, for example, partners, parents, etc.
Death penalty is a murder too, but the executioner does not get punished either.
But according to God’s law the executioner will be punished possibly even with eternal damnation.
It is funny how brainwashed people just spit out what they are told without thinking things through.
To go to all that effort of getting signs made, coming up with chants and telling yourself you are doing God’s work without thinking “what should happen to girls who get abortions once it’s illegal?” is amazing.
If the baby you save from abortion turns out to be gay will you still fight for their rights???
wow! good one! you gave a good sucker punch. people are far too judgemental. why should anyone care what happens to the woman that has had abortions? they should worry about their own condomnation should there really be an afterlife. i know that most of the people that protest in rallies against abortion are commiting sin at that moment. it is only up to god to judge not us petty little meat puppets.
Sam G. is close.
I would argue, however, that the woman having an abortion is victimized along with the baby.
It is the doctor who should be prosecuted. Certainly Doctors should re-examine their oaths (”don’t perform abortions” was taken out when abortions became moneymakers) and wonder what they are doing.
But no, you are only going to stop stupid anti-abortionists with that question. Sam G’s questions equally would stop stupid pro-abortionists.
In an abortion, a doctor kills the child. The mother is probably an accessory or conspirator to the crime at worst. In many situations, it is quite possible that a mother is forced into an abortion in which case she may deserve no punishment at all. In any case, the murderer – the abortionist – should be fully punished under the law. The relative involvement of the mother is to be determined by the courts on a case-by-case basis. Abortion is murder and should be dealt with accordingly. This doesn’t presuppose the impossibility for compassion.
However, in the US, aiding and abetting a federal crime is equally punishable. Perhaps the law-of-the-land involving abortion is not the only unjust law in the US.
Let’s look at it legally. The woman is the murderer, since she is the one who wants to kill the fetus. She hires the doctor to perform the killing. The woman is guilty of premeditated murder and conspiracy to murder. The doctor is guilty of murder for hire and conspiracy for murder.
That’s the real result of making abortion illegal and making it legally murder. Then there’s the logistical problems of giving fetuses SSN’s, having funerals for miscarriages, investigating miscarriages to make sure they weren’t murderous abortions, restricting the right of women who are pregnant to travel so they won’t go out of the country to get an abortion like Irish women travel to the UK and as enacted in North Carolina, arresting women who appear to be doing things to harm the fetus such as smoking, drinking or doing drugs. Oh yeah and just to get to point across, make birth control illegal.
The anti-abortion fundamentalist attitude is that women are really JUNIOR adults who can’t be trusted to make important decisions, and should just be happy to be Breeders for Jesus and Happy Homemakers.
Thanks but I too have lost my appetite for that kind of demeaning and offensive attitude from christians.
Exactly.
Lets not forget, carrying a fetus to full term isn’t risk free for the mother.
I’m a “pro life” (hate that term) atheist left leaning father of one child. I’ve always leaned left politically, but only in the past 10 years or so have I come to believe that the left is on the wrong side of the abortion issue. It puzzles me how anyone could view the unborn as anything other than human beings. I believe unborn women should enjoy the same standing before the law and the born. When “pro choice” (hate that term even more) folk utter phrases like “horrible choice” much is revealed. If it’s not murder, just what exactly is horrible?
In my view, we need to start by fixing our society, and prove that we truly value children; health care, education, poverty, cultural decay as manifested through rampant greed, selfishness, and myopia, etc. etc.. When we do, bringing kids into the world may not seem quite as scary.
As for the stumper question; start with abortionists. This is a matter of principle. Just because there are no easy answers, doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to the murder of millions of the most innocent, those most in need of protection.
That’s just my two cents, and I look forward to thoughtful replies.
Thank you, Lance. My sentiments exactly. Whether pro-life or pro-choice, we can all agree that abortion isn’t a good thing. Nobody says, “Man, I’d really like to have an abortion. I think I’ll get pregnant so I can have one.” It is an invasive medical procedure, and like any invasive medical procedure, there is always a risk of complications and things going wrong for the woman. I’m against abortion, but I would love to see all the energy and emotion that that is put into protesting clinics and trying to make it illegal put into helping young women, preferably before they get pregnant, so that we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. If there was no demand for them, there would be no need for it to be illegal.
To All the people who brought up the Pregnant woman murder scenario:
please realise that i am pro life for scientific reasons. but allow me to play devils advocate. the pro choice people are pro CHOICE. meaning, if the woman chooses to have her pregnancy terminated, its not murder.
but if a woman has chosen to keep her baby, meaning she’s chosen to think about it as a human being, accept it as a human, and love it. if she does not choose to terminate her pregnancy, and she is murdered, than it is a double murder. because she chose Life.
~ Morrigan
(for the record, i’m a pro-Life Agnostic, but i dont think abortion should be illegal, just harder to get. and not a cure for stupidity.)
By the way, I don’t actually think abortion is a good idea. I don’t encourage it. But I think it should be legal, because I think the decision should be up to the mother.
Yeah, the rhetoric is just that. The other one that stumps them is when you ask why they’re not doing more to stop what according to them is institutionalized state sanctioned baby-killing.
For instance, ask them if they were living in Germany during the Holocaust and a law passed that allowed the legal killing of Jewish babies, would they just spend 40 years trying to use the political process and elect officials that would put a stop to it or would they feel morally obligated to stop that by any means necessary?
An unexamined part of the issue is whether execution is a just punishment for murder of any kind.
People who can point to some other person and say: “That person is better informed to answer your questions/im just a sheep, but that guy over there knows where we’re heading” – should they be out and about attacking other people’s choices – surely if ou cannot propperly justify your own position you should refrain from attacking someone else’s position. That always gets me.
synapticon,
I am not unsympathetic to your view. The one argument I hang to though (proffered by a theist) is that there is a symbiotic relationship between mother and fetus – a unique biologically closed society between only those two where one is host to the other. As such, those outside that relationship do not have moral say as to what happens within that closed biological society.
Curious – what is your opinion on birth control that could be abortificient? Would you outlaw the pill?
The problem is that when it comes to abortion, pro-lifers don’t see the woman as the “murderer”.
That’s what the doctor is for.
Admitting that the woman has actually come to this decision with a sound mind would implicate her with some of the guilt. So in order to justify that a murder was committed but the woman shouldn’t be punished, this logic appears.
The Doctor must have coerced her into it. She must have been pressured into having the abortion by her husband or her boyfriend or her father. No loving woman who is potentially already a mother could possibly “murder” their own fetus; she is just a consequence of male-dominated circumstance, the same as she would be if abortion were illegal.
That’s why you used to see people attacking clinics and killing doctors (and going after politicians), but not the actual women who seek out abortions. The women are innocent dupes. it’s the doctor (who somehow, ironically, is always male) who is to blame!
I’m pro-choice myself, but I’ve seen this argument enough times to know this is a pretty common answer of theirs.
Amazing.
“Life in prison for a woman who has an abortion illegally?”
How does a Christian say “fuck off”? God bless you.
Operating under the rules of logic (surprisingly enough) is not a common sense skill. I do not think that these people are stupid because they couldn’t adequately answer these questions.
What I think this video is doing, is demonstrating the importance of having a point of view, and a providing a practical means to achieving goals. If their goal was to end legalized abortions, then they burden is on them to provide a practical means to make that happen, in this video they failed in doing that.
But again, they’re not stupid people. Abortion is an extremely complex subject that’s very easy to disagree with.
Such prideful christians, I bet they were so excited that they were doing such a great thing by showing disgusting pictures of dead infants. I would bet money on it that at least half of them have had abortions. I wonder what their mighty god thinks of them.
It has been my experience in dealing with pro-lifers that the reason they can’t answer this question is that some of them truly believe that if abortion were illegal, women would just stop having them. End of story. I have had discussions with my best friend about this, and she had the same problem in determining punishment for the women b/c she is naive enough to think that making it illegal automatically stops women from having them. Not only is her belief naive, I believe it’s dangerous. Women will never stop having abortions; there will simply be more women dying from botched abortions.
Abortion is an unfortunate necessity in our culture where the right wing christians feel the need to limit the access to birth control and family planning for women, especially poor women. There is no other way until our culture embraces comprehensive teaching about our bodies and ways of preventing pregnancy, and starts teaching it in schools, since so many parents think if they close their eyes real tight, they won’t have to mention s.e.x. to their children.
No, nobody wants an abortion, but seriously sometimes it is the only option. I have had a friend who had to have an abortion because of being raped by their brother. No woman should be forced to bear a child they desperately don’t want.
I like your perspective. And how awful for your friend to have suffered that, at the hands of someone she’s supposed to be able to trust.
Morrigan,
Except what happens when a mother doesn’t want the baby, but before she can have the abortion, she is involved in an accident and loses the baby? Can she then claim she wanted the baby and get a huge settlement out of it (if it was a simple accident) and/or choose to prosecute (if it was drunk driving)? Or what if the woman and the baby are both killed in the accident? Who decides if the baby was wanted or not?
there is ALREADY A PUNISHMENT FOR ILLEGAL ABORTIONS. while women are given the choice to have abortions in almost every state abortions can only be performed by doctors. illegal abortions are, for example, when a women would punch her own stomach will the baby died, AND THERE IS A PUNISHMENT FOR IT. Abortion is wrong and if it was illegal they should either extend the current punishment for illegal abortions or consider it as premeditated murder.
What’s the punishment…?
Hah… that last one was the worst. The other ones at least admitted they didn’t think too much about it, but were more or less open to the question. But the last one showed her true colors; incapable of thinking for herself, believing only in dogma, and then doing the cross on her chest, as if to purify herself from conflicting thoughts. The kind of sheeple who cannot be reasoned with, no matter how wrong they are. She’s the kind of person who would want to make it illegal not to be a christian, if she could!
And if she pays someone to kill her husband, should she get a lesser sentence than the hit man, as she’s “only an accessory”?
An excellent question. More questions I’ve yet to hear a good answer to is this:
If life begins at conception, how do you legally deal with the fact that 30% or more of all conceptions end in miscarriage, often before the woman is even aware she’s pregnant?
Should every miscarriage be investigated for the possibility of manslaughter? Is the mother responsible for conceiving when too old and thus increasing the risk to the pregnancy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#Prevalence
What about all of the embryos that don’t implant or are discarded as a result of in vitro fertilization- should the process be banned entirely?
For me, the idea that life begins at conception, or very nearly after, is a non-starter. It’s as absurd as believing that the fetus deserves no protection whatsoever until it is born. Fuzzy lines in morality are hard! But this is a fuzzy issue and it’s why we allow abortion up to a point and leave it to the mother’s judgment and conscience before that.
And for the folks whose only rationale for banning it is what they believe the Bible says about it, I second the SAB link above, and want to specifically mention Numbers 5:11-31 where God is clearly ordering women with jealous and suspicious husbands to drink “bitter water” which will make her “womb drop” if she’s guilty- clearly a description of an herbally induced abortion.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/5.html
logic answer to that question would be in my opinion to offer no penalty for the women who get the abortion but to the person who gives the abortion. If the woman does it herself then punish her.
anyway that would remove the clinics that offer abortion services and maybe reduce the amount of abortions.
i my self am pro choice and think that the earth is already too crowded as it is.
ps. God doesnt exist.
I’m an “anti-abortionist” who is hardly stumped by your question.
In my view, abortion ends a life, and I would have no qualms about changing the law (including overturning Roe, etc.) such that the punishment for abortion would be on par with murder.
I think what you’ve discovered with your “stumping question” is not some flaw in the logic of the pro-life side, but rather the fact that most pro-lifers are compassionate.
I, and I think most pro-lifers, given the current set of laws have no desire to see those that have had abortion procedures jailed for life or executed. The reason is not that said punishment would be inappropriate in scale, but rather that these women who have had abortions were duped into believing they were just “removing a bunch of cells” rather than ending a human life. Their act was based on misinformation rather than malice.
That question wouldn’t stump me for a second. It should be treated as murder with premeditation.
“If life begins at conception, how do you legally deal with the fact that 30% or more of all conceptions end in miscarriage”
The same way I deal with the fact that 100% of people die eventually– nature takes its course.
BTW I’m an atheist.
Why is everybody so gung-ho on putting abortion into an existing category instead of its own? The reason the logical flaw identified here exists, and many of the “logic” problems in the comments, is false dichotomy that you have to decide whether abortion is murder or is ok. That’s like asking if speeding is like tax evasion or is ok. Abortion is an independent activity that should be judged on its own merits, not by analogy to other activities.
In fact, most of the anti-abortion arguments rely on overly simplistic semantic issues and not on reason. For example, whether a zygote or fetus is called a “human being” or “non-human tissue” is completely irrelevant. All that does is try to bring in non-relevant connotations and emotions.
The question of abortion rests entirely on its own merits, not on what category or name you give things. You need to answer questions such as:
1. What is it about killing an adult, child, or baby human wrong that makes it wrong.
2. Under what conditions, if any, is the above ok?
3. What is it about killing bugs, small animals (e.g., rodents), large animals that makes it ok or not? What about pets? Does the method matter, or is it the killing alone?
4. What does a “right to life” mean, and what properties does anything need to get it. For example, a cancer tumour has human cells and genes and may have more cells than a zygote or fetus. Neither can survive on their own without a host body. What property does the fetus have that gives it a right to life that the cancer tumor does not. (Hint: You can’t claim one is human and one is not. They are both made of human cells. The fetus is simply a more ordered structure.)
5. Does sentience or self-awareness have anything to do with it? How?
6. Does potential have anything to with it? How? And where are the limits to “potential”. It can’t be enough on its own, otherwise anything that gets in the way of a hypothetical new human would be bad. (For instance, a woman turning down a man’s offer of sex would be committing “murder” since it has the potential to create a new human life.) What needs to go along with potential?
There are many more questions along these lines. The problem is that too many people try to oversimplify it and say these things are irrelevant. They are not. Simply believing something is wrong isn’t enough, because there are also people who believe it is ok. There has to be a legitimately arguable reason.
You people are all so emotional about this debate. We discussed this issue in philosophy class, and the red herring slogans that abortionists and anti-abortionists use just cloud the issue. The real issue is that of fetal personhood – is a fetus a person who is presumptively wrong to kill? Since there is not really any convincing philosophical answer to this question, one must decide whether or not it is safer to err on the side of the fetus (e.g. it is probably a human) or is it safer to err on the side of the mother (e.g. the fetus isn’t a human). Anyways, enough with this “if abortion is illegal/legal” silliness. Grow up people and try and look at this objectively.
Viewpoints aside, this is irrational reasoning. Not just on the anti abortionists side, but also on this website. Its sad to see 2 such ignorant and irrational sides argue… Please read a book on logic or at least the wikipedia page before you try and sound smart.
If it was illegal, the consequence should be the same as the degrees and definitions of murder taking into consideration mitigating circumstances.
I also think the church should be partnering with parents and totally be talking about sex and sex education. Seriously, do you think exposure to years in a sexually pervasive culture can be dealt with by a 45 minute “talk” with your teen or pre-teen? There needs to be open communication about sexuality — not just sex acts but about the preciousness of the body, modesty, boundaries (especially to help deter predators), self-respect, consequences. Celibacy is the only sure form of pregnancy & disease control but being successfully celibate in this world requires a hell of a lot more conversation than “abstinence only” at the age of 12. Waiting to talk about this with a girl who is already pregnant is um, TOO LATE!!!!!! At that point the young mom needs an amazing amount of support–emotionally & financially.
I’m sorry, what was your question? ;)
This is a great discussion. @VorJack, I love your humor! I’ll have to remember the peeing one.
Your premise is absurd. You suggest, paradoxically, that anti-abortion activists who have compassion for desperate mothers must therefore not truly believe that abortion is murder. Not only is the logical leap vast, but you seem to suggest that recognizing the complexity of the question and the pressures under which these mothers-to-be often find themselves is the result of a LACK of thought, though it is in fact your oversimplification that fails to apply reason or consider all (or even multiple) relevant premises.
I think Scott Kurtz makes the point pretty well. It’s not the mother they’ll punish, it’s the Doctors who perform the abortion.
Exactly like not punishing people for drinking alcohol, just for its manufacture and supply.
“Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of medical equipment within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for abortive purposes is hereby prohibited.”
This hardly wins any arguments – just because you stump someone for a moment doesn’t make the fact that a life has been taken any less true or relevant.
Apply this same sort of argument to other crimes.
I’m sure you are smart enough to realize that this is merely an argument spun up to try to embarrass pro-lifers, as opposed to actually having a valid point.
I agree with Rob that some areas of moral logic are fuzzy. If human life and subsequently human rights start at conception then anyone who knowingly uses a form of birth control that inhibits a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall is committing murder and should be punished just like any other willful murderer even though nature (God) does the same thing routinely. Locally logical but also cruel and therefore unconvincing. The deeper truth to me is that nature (God) is not all that circumspect with embryos. Perhaps the Supreme Court got it about right???
A question for the Christians. Are the untold zillions of naturally aborted embryos in possession of a soul and eternal life? If so, how do you know?
On a related tangent. Since gay marriage is now illegal in Cali, shouldn’t anyone who enters into a same sex union be condemned to death as the Bible commands (at least does so for men)?
Anti-abortionists are a logical consequence of the extreme position that an abortion is just a medical procedure, and not the destruction of a life or at least (and quite logically) the destruction of a potential life. It is easier to get an abortion than it is to buy a handgun and just owning a handgun does not imply anything. It is rather sad that abortion is considered a method of birth control when so many other methods are available. Beyond that, the decision to accept the risk of having a child in most instances (absent rape) is before the act in which it is conceived. Furthermore, it is absolutely ridiculous that people in the U.S. that wish to adopt a baby are almost always pushed toward U.S. babies with issues (birth defects, crack babies, etc) or International adoption. If the legal system could stop giving so much rights to the birth mother (even after a contract is signed) people in the U.S. could adopt unwanted yet healthy children and mothers could be compensated and have medical costs covered.
This similar to the I.D. or creationist response to people on the side of the Theory of Evolution/Darwinism. If one takes the extreme position that the ToE proves there is no God (rather than no necessity for a God) then people taking the opposite position will rise up/come forward (e.g. there is a God, and therefore the ToE is wrong).
I just find it ridiculous that so many people think they definitively know what is best or what is right.
Griff
Doesn’t the pro-life logic say that Joseph Stalin is a better man than Ronald Reagan?
After all, Reagan did nothing concrete to fight abortion while in office. Indeed, as America’s abortion laws currently depend on the Supreme Court, Reagan could be said to be objectively pro-choice as he appointed two pro-choice Justices, Kennedy and O’Connor, and only one pro-life, Scalia. Actions speak louder than words, after all. Thus, Reagan logically shares the blame for all the abortions that happened in the United States during his reign. This number is roughly 12 million.
Stalin, on the other hand, famously banned abortion from Soviet Union. Thus, we can’t blame him for any abortions that happened during his reign, as he actually did something about it. Of course, Stalin killed a number of non-fetal people, though it’s hard to put an estimate on how many – the reliable numbers range from 10 to 20 million. Let’s say 15 million. Stalin, though, ruled for a longer period than Reagan – 31 years to Reagan’s eight. Thus, the slaughter of innocent babies for each of Reagan’s years was far higher than the murder of kulaks, dissenting Party members and Ukrainians for each of Stalin’s years. Furthermore, we must consider that many of Stalin’s victims were, in fact, dirty Communists.
Women will always get abortions if it is legal or illegal.
If you punish the doctors for giving abortions, young women will end up getting messy abortions in back alleys (like pre 1973). No matter what, someone is going to die. We should not argue for or against abortion but how we can PREVENT women from having unplanned pregnancies. Birth control should be free in this country and available to all women from puberty and up. Take religion out of sex education and focus on rational sex education. Ironically most of the people that are against abortions are also for abstinence sex education. Its like giving someone a loaded gun and hope that they will not shoot themselves, and when they do you punish them.
I do not understand why we cannot be more pro-active.
Sigh. What disgusts me the most about that question is the way they champion protecting the fetus over the woman. Suddenly, this child is worth more than an adult woman. And they will do anything for the fetus, but what do they care about the woman? They haven’t even considered the question, what happens to the woman. And a lot of them would let the woman die, rather than chance killing the fetus. And they would rather coat hanger and ammonia injects take place than again, risking the fetus. It’s okay for the woman to die, it’s okay for the woman to be trapped into a life with an infant at 10 (btw.. the youngest woman to get pregnant, ever, was 3 – by her father, no less.) It’s okay to force a woman to end their life, not through death, but by giving up work, school, everything, to raise a child they did not want, could not afford to raise, or were unable to raise. Children who are MR or downs need 24 hour care for their entire lives. By saying women MUST have the child, you condemn them to a life practically of a slave to that child, to that teen, to that adult. Forever. There is no escape. And you make women who are raped, keep those children they did not plan for and will always see the person who raped them in their child. Make them lay on operating tables dying of blood loss, until the doctors are certain the child is dead before performing an abortion that should have been done hours before. That’s what sickens me about the anit-abortion movement. The sheer disregard they have for women and for their lives. Both their physical life and the way they live. I’d be tempted to ask them, if there was a train and it was going to hit either a woman or an infinite, and you could only save one, which would you pick? Because by forcing women to have children, you pretty much have run them over with a train.
Life began exactly once, about 2-3 billion years ago. Trying to define where life ’starts’ is meaningless.
What you guys are really talking about is where personhood starts.
As a personal aside:
I think abortion should be the very last option. But if my wife is raped and gets pregnant, I wouldn’t think twice about driving her to the clinic to end it (assuming that was her choice). No one will be able to convince me that a clump of cells the size of a period is more important than her well being. Not when that same clump of cells is ditched by the woman’s body about 30% of the time for no apparent reason at all.
And the religious argument that a ’soul’ is created the moment of fertilization just makes me laugh. The population of heaven will overwhelmingly be spontaneously aborted fetuses.
Angel 1
“Yeah, I got fertilized but never implanted. So, here I am.”
Angel 2
“Wow, that sucks, man. I got implanted, but only got to about a thousand cells or so before I got sloughed off during menstruation.”
Personally I say we should all just start living our lives and not worry about how other people live there own unless it is affecting us in a negative manor wouldn’t all you? Just saying… being that not doing that is what’s caused every single problem we’ve had in the history of humanity
Most people with opinions get an opinion without thinking the whole issue out. When it is a religous based opinion, it is more so.
When abortion is illegal, the wealthy will still take their daughters to private doctors and clinics, and the rest of the woman fall victim to coat hangers, well intentioned midwives, and quacks. The only way to end abortion is to end the need for abortion, which I doubt will ever happen completely.
What I want to know is how many of those protesters are holding signs that say, “Let me adopt your unwanted baby.” and “Let me help you through this difficult time.” I have never seen it, (but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened.) If you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem. It is easy to condemn others. Lets see these “good” people actually do something positive instead of talking about it.
A follow up comment.
First, if you are looking for a question to make pro-life logic squirm, ask what should be done in cases of incest and rape – particularly rape. If a fetus is a life, then clearly the injustice of a woman having to carry to child to term is outweighed by the injustice of killing the fetus, many pro-lifers want exceptions to allow abortion in these cases.
On the other hand, I think the question to make pro-abortion folks squirm is the following: “You often speak of abortion being safe, legal, and rare. If abortion doesn’t end a life, why rare?”
Also, @Rob:
A. The Numbers 5 argument is specious. See http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-abortioninthebible.html
B. “Should every miscarriage be investigated for the possibility of manslaughter? Is the mother responsible for conceiving when too old and thus increasing the risk to the pregnancy?” To both: Of course not.
In the case of the former, it’s the same reason that the state doesn’t investigate for murder every time there is a naturally caused death.
In the case of the later, it’s the same reason that we don’t outlaw the slew of other things just because they carry some risk.
The most pertinent feeling, or argument, repeated time and again from the people who want to make abortion illegal by default is probably this:
“It puzzles me how anyone could view the unborn as anything other than human beings.”
The problem with this feeling is the fact that abortion is typically not performed in the ninth month of pregnancy, or anywhere near that time. Immediately after conception, the “unborn” is a single cell with the potential of becoming a human being. I don’t think (although I might be wrong) that many people would argue that removing this single cell from the female body is murder.
Immediately before birth, the “unborn” is essentially a fully-formed human child. I don’t think that anyone, even the most staunch pro-choice person, would claim that an abortion at this point is *not* logically the same as murder.
The question, then, is this: At what point does the fetus go from a group of cells to a human being? Rational people will not discuss whether abortion is murder or choice; they will discuss at which specific point in time abortion should become illegal.
Additionally, each side should acknowledge that this is not a simple question. There are no easy answers. An abortion is never something anyone wants to happen, but at the same time, history has shown that making abortions illegal does not stop them from being performed; making abortions illegal doesn’t stop women from having abortions, it simple endangers the women who do decide to have abortions.
Pro-choice people don’t *want* abortions to happen. Pro-life people don’t *want* to endanger women. There should be room for some kind of common ground.
Your question does nothing to promote healing and unity. Women DESERVE better than abortion.
Really the issue always boils down to “When does that blob of cells become a kid?”
I’d be quite happy if we arrived at a simple rule: No abortions past some designated mark, say four months. But there should also be a complimentary measure: no extreme measures to save kids born prior to that mark. That’d be a start. Exceptions would have to be allowed for medical reasons, and rape or incest cases.
I mean, if you need 120 days to decide whether you want to be a mum, you’re probably overthinking the situation.
Like most “pro-choicers” I dislike abortion. But I see it as an unpleasant necessity. Particularly as long as religious folk are in charge of the machinery of sex ed, and willing to allow pharmacists and physicians to deny timely and appropriate treatment for birth control or unwanted pregnancies based on their cultural prejudices.
Hmm. Interesting… I am not against abortion, by the way.
The thing is, a lot of medical procedures do not happen. (I’m thinking of things like the removal of limbs for body dysmorphia)
The penalties would apply to the abortionist not the woman if abortion was illegal.
if there’s one thing that this clip shows, it’s that the protesters are mostly acting on gut feeling. that’s why they don’t have any real arguments, but only pictures that aim for maximum emotional effect. constantly saying that abortion is killing serves the same purpose. and when confronted with the logical consequence of their points, their gut feeling takes over again.
those who suggest that women aren’t culpable because they’re misinformed: you seem to know they’re misinformed, so let’s see the evidence. show us proof that life starts at conception. that tissue that has been growing for 10 days has personality. because that’s the real debate. not whether a picture of an aborted fetus makes you sad and angry or not.
these women are not compassionate. they think what’s good for them is good for everybody. compassion, as the word says, has to do with being supportive, whatever somebody else chooses to do. if you don’t support what they do, don’t call yourself compassionate.
I’m on the fence about this video.
On one hand, the person asking the questions is of course trying to put them in the corner, and asking them questions that they don’t necessarily have to have a position on in order to feel that abortion is wrong.
On the other hand, the fact that they are out in public with SHOCK TACTICS such as blown up pictures of bloody aborted fetuses shows that they are very much of the oppinion that they should shoot first and ask questions later in order to get their poorly thought out point across, in which case it would do them some good to be asked and to ask themselves some more questions about what they are doing.
I think the exchange with the old woman was the best, but you left out the best part in the quote above.
The man made a good point by asking if her idea for a punishment is to be judged by God, then why should it be illegal?
Q: Isn’t that a question between a woman and her god?
A: It doesn’t seem like it’s being done that way…
Q: Is that your judgement or God’s judgement?
A: Both
I think this exchange reveals that the anti-abortionist argument is more based on their personal morals than anything else. Considering the instances when God of the Bible treats life with little respect, I don’t think they can say that they get there morals that pertain to human life from the Bible.
I’m an agnostic person that believes abortion should be at least very difficult to get. It’s ridiculous that we ask “how’s the baby doing?” when the woman wants to keep it and suddenly “it’s a fetus” when convenient to kill it. There should be nothing easy about starting a life and then deciding to kill it.
I also very much agree with the person above that said: “I think what you’ve discovered with your “stumping question” is not some flaw in the logic of the pro-life side, but rather the fact that most pro-lifers are compassionate.
I, and I think most pro-lifers, given the current set of laws have no desire to see those that have had abortion procedures jailed for life or executed. The reason is not that said punishment would be inappropriate in scale, but rather that these women who have had abortions were duped into believing they were just “removing a bunch of cells” rather than ending a human life. Their act was based on misinformation rather than malice.”
Knowing something needs to be stopped and instantly having the solution to how to punish violators are quite different issues. Yes…some of the interviews are laughable…but that’s the result of putting anyone on the spot about a complex issue.
Clearly women who have illegal abortions should be raped until they become pregnant again in order to have the kid.
I will preface this by explaining my own views on Abortion.
I am a Libertarian, politically speaking. I put a high value on individual liberty and abhor the involvement of government in the lives of its citizenry.
I am also a Catholic. I believe that live begins at conception (which is not a uniquely Christian or Theistic perspective) and as a consequence, I consider the intended termination of pregnancy tantamount to murder.
However I am against the outlawing of abortion for two reasons.
Firstly such laws merely cause the act to be driven underground, in back alleys or spare rooms with primitive tools, unskilled physicians and very often considerable danger for the mother-to-be. They do not prevent abortion, they merely endanger more lives.
Secondly, I cannot in good conscience accept the level of invasion of personal privacy necessary to police such laws. A state which outlaws abortion takes an egregious, intrusive step into the lives of its citizenry in order to see that its laws have effect. This is, in my mind, unconscionable.
That said, the argument proffered here is fallacious. It begs the question:
If Abortions are Murder
And Murders are to be punished severely in civilized society
Then should not a person who has an Abortion be punished severely
Therefore if a person who has an Abortion cannot be punished then Abortion is not Murder.
Begging the Question fits the following format:
Apples are good for you
Therefore if you eat a truckload of apples, you will be healthy
Now, to explain why it begs the question, I’ll expound upon the principles of an illiberal anti-abortionist (I use the actual meaning of the word liberal here, not the mind-boggling double-speak which passes for its use in American political discourse – a lot of American ‘liberals’ are some of the most illiberal people imaginable).
Abortion, the termination of another life, is a crime. Ergo it deserves punishment in the same manner as other unlawful acts of taking a life in our society.
Punishment, as per the western justice system has two primary purposes:
1) To offer Restitution to the victim of a crime or their estate
and
2) To safeguard the public against further such acts of criminality.
So firstly, Restitution. Well, the victim is dead, the victim’s estate are those who killed him and as a consequence there is simply no one with justifiable claim for Restitution.
Secondly, safeguarding the public. Well, the nature of the crime is such that the only person against whom it can again be perpetrated is a hypothetical foetus who does not currently exist. The only means by which one could prevent the repeated perpetration of this crime involve sterilization (surely a greater violence against the hypothetical future-foetus given that it entirely negates the possibility of his coming into being) or ensuring that the next child conceived by the perpetrator is carried to term. Both these actions represent so heinous an invasion and contravention of individual liberty as to fall foul of the Human Right to avoid strange and unusual punishment. (Including the right of the same ilk vested in American Citizens by the Bill of Rights).
In short, the crime cannot be punished with any degree of regard to principles of natural justice or fairness. The justice system is not a hammer of retribution.
As such, those who oppose legal abortion tend to focus upon medical practitioners who can very easily be punished with the intent of safeguarding the public from future criminality.
The fact that such I consider such punishment to be not only unlawful and egregiously ineffective but also, wholly counterproductive is neither here nor there. It demonstrates the following:
Simply because one party to the an illegal act cannot be punished within the bounds of what we consider to be natural justice, it does not follow that the act is not illegal. There exist other parties, for whom punishment is practical in this instance (yet its ethical nature is not contingent upon this fact as will be shown).
There exists one further scenario: The mother-to-be commits the act of abortion entirely on her own. Here is where the ultimate limitation of abortion legislation occurs. There is no party to this crime who is capable of being punished within the framework of natural justice.
Although I don’t agree with it, anti-abortion legislation can criminalize the abortion as carried out by a party other than the mother-to-be.
It cannot punish the mother-to-be within the boundaries of our justice system but it does not follow that considering Abortion to be an evil as heinous as murder is illogical – it merely demonstrates that we have no way of punishing that party and still maintaining the frameworks of our justice system.
One can assert that it is precisely as unethical as murder but one cannot make its commission wholly illegal within the constraints of our society, merely ancillary acts.
And it is those ancillary acts, which proposed legislation usually targets.
*sigh* please excuse the spelling/grammatical errors. Just caught one and there’s no edit button.
They’re discussing this at Myers site and someone posted this about Nicaragua.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/oct/08/health.lifeandhealth
One of the side effects of prosecuting abortions is avoidance of any medical care that could possibly be construed as incriminating a doctor in an abortion but would otherwise extend or help the life of the mother. IOW, witch hunts.
Several people have used variations on the phrase “life begins at conception / birth”. This, obviously, is completely false. Life began about four billion years ago, and has continued in an unbroken chain ever since. Eggs and sperm are alive before conception.
The question is, when does humanness begin? When does someone begin to enjoy the rights that come with being human? That is a different question, and as others have mentioned, a fuzzy one. I think the current compromise built by Roe vs Wade is about right, but I understand that rational people can disagree.
One question worth asking is this: If abortion is classified as murder, should we go down the Brazilian route of arresting women who have miscarriages and subjecting them to invasive exams, so we can tell if they should be charged with murder or manslaughter?
If abortion is outlawed, and people should not be encouraged to adopt “less desirable” babies, what should happen to them? State asylums? Should they just be left with parents unwilling or unable to care for them?
An aside, but:
…then one is a moron. No-one who has actually thought about the issue takes that position.
I can’t imagine that women who have abortions are thrilled with themselves. I don’t know how true it is but I have heard that most women are pressured into having an abortion.
Pressured by boyfriends who just wanted to have sex and pressured by parents who don’t want to raise another child or the parents don’t want their child to “ruin” their life with a child, which kind of sends the wrong message to their child.
If it was illegal then of course there should be a punishment. As a Christian I believe it to be more important to be there for the woman once she begins to go through the grieving process.
It is legal to kill one’s baby so long as it doesn’t have air in their lungs. It is not my job to judge the woman who decides to do this. Biblically I am not called to judge but rather to love.
When a life is taken a women will inevitably feel sorrow. There are no such thing as unbaby showers. When life is taken it is not a time of celebration. I would imagine that most women will have feelings of guilt and I think it is the job of Christians to offer love and forgiveness to this person, not judgment.
Brent – whilst remembering “the peeing one” hope that the pregant recipient of your wit isn’t well-read. Amniotic fluid IS fetal urine, and everyones’ urine (fetal or otherwise) is sterile. A smart pregnant woman might reply, “I feel darn good about it – all that fluid helps keep her umbilical cord free and uncompressed.”
Anyway – I very much enjoyed this video – for the abortion debate as much as for the fact that it sums up neatly the only reason that christianity still exists: that people believed what their parents told them and never seriously questioned it.
Another question I’m fond of (as a pro-choice nurse) is why the believers never get down on god for aborting babies. Someone has a miscarriage and it’s “god’s will.” But a doctor suggests an early induction to save the mother’s life and it’s a crime.
Eric, why in the world would it be God’s will that a baby is miscarried??? That is just bad theology.
Oh and by the way Eric, it is not a crime for the doctor to suggests aborting the baby. You probably meant that in a different way, right?
“I can’t imagine that women who have abortions are thrilled with themselves.”
Let me help you with that:
http://www.imnotsorry.net/
If abortion is murder, then coffee is manslaughter
http://tinyurl.com/8zr6ja
So what about “The Pill”? It sometimes causes blastocysts to fail to implant… Murder, or not?
I wonder what these people think of birth control.
I mean, really think of it. I know some of them out there think birth control is a form of abortion (and they want to talk about people being not informed).
So what is their solution anyway? Just make it illegal and hope it’ll disappear? I suppose they will never go down an alley in the poorest parts of a city and see what an illegal abortion is. So I suppose indeed, to them it will just disappear, because they will continue to shelter themselves from reality.
And some of them I’ve meet, think that if a woman gets pregnant outside of marriage (for whatever reason) they deserve whatever happens to them.
And even those in marriage, they deserve what happens to them too. Their job is to produce babies, and so what if they die doing it? At least the child lived.
The simple truth is, women die in childbirth and women die having too many kids. And yet, no one gets charged with murder if the woman dies, but they want to charge the woman with murder if she lives at the sacrifice of the child?
It’s okay for women to have 14 kids, get pregnant again (because it’s expected of them) and die. It’s not okay for them to be having the 14th child, the doctors tell her, you will die if you have another child, let us tie your tubs, or use birth control, or do something. And they say, their husband will get mad, or god will get mad, or whatever. And then show up, 9 months later with the 15th and die.
I cannot think any women would want to die like this, I can’t think they willingly make the choice to have another child, not when armed with that information. I cannot believe that anyone would want women to die like this, and that they don’t tell their family, if I have another child, I will die. And yet it happens in this country. In this country where we have ways to prevent these deaths. In a country where women are supposed to have equal rights.
But no, we want to take those rights away. We want to force them to have children. We want to keep birth control pills off insurance, but put vigra on it. We want to make birth control illegal. Women will have equal rights, sure, but not for having children. That will be up to their husbands, to the state, to votes, to everyone expect themselves.
They are expected to die for the cause. They are expected to give up their lives, their education, for the cause. And people wonder, why haven’t we cured cancer. The pro-life like to say because we aborted those people. Frankly, I like to wonder if it’s because we didn’t force them into having children, prevent them from getting educations and jobs. How many smart women have we lost to the world and their contrubitions, because their role in life was to bear children and nothing more?
What becomes of the woman, is the great question I think that needs to be asked. Becomes of all our women, with everything we do that concerns them.
I am not pro-life, I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro medicine. I am pro woman’s health. I am pro edcuation.
They want to talk about how abortions are dangerous and how they cause emotional strain, I assure you, they aren’t as dangerous nor as straining as having a child is. Least of all a child that women did not want, for whatever reason, to start with.
You’ve ignored the possibility of only prosecuting the doctor and not the woman.
Vox
wintermute
Good point. That would have been another question for the protestors. Sam Harris brings this up when discussing abortion.
All cells are alive, and we commit a holocaust each time we scratch our noses. The problem with the argument of the anti-abortionists, as well as the anti-stem cell research people, is that they believe that there is a soul based on no evidence. At what point does this “soul” enter the bundle of cells that potentially will become a human?
This is amazing. Thanks for posting it! I’ll have to come back and read the rest of the blog later
Daniel said: “By the way, I don’t actually think abortion is a good idea. I don’t encourage it. But I think it should be legal, because I think the decision should be up to the mother.”
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
This is actually quite simple. You don’t make it illegal to GET an abortion you make it illegal to PERFORM an abortion. Duh!
John Swaine:
Can you see that the arguments you use against punishing abortion as murder even tho you believe it is murder could be applied equally to murder for hire?
“Firstly such laws merely cause the act (of murder for hire) to be driven underground….”
“Secondly, I cannot in good conscience accept the level of invasion of personal privacy necessary to police such laws (as murder for hire).
It’s interesting to me that you are both a civil libertarian and voluntarily a member of a monolithic authoritarian org.
Emotionally, the right to life movement has invested in the conception=human rights argument. As the internal logic of this conviction follows, it will indeed cause great suffering.
Each woman makes her choice with regards to her health. Period. If you believe you can dictate what goes on in another person’s body, you’re anti-personal freedom, even anti-American.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Whatever feeling you may have, or views you may hold on what constitutes a person, there’s a pretty damn clear dividing line. When you’re outside, you’re a person.
It all boils down to this: if you don’t want an abortion, don’t effing get one. In the meantime, keep your fundamentalism, or fascism, or whatever mania you use to justify oppressing others off women’s bodies.
and an aside:
if conception = life, to a pro-lifer, what about the sperm and egg? they’re certainly not dead, are they?
David and Amanda – I am simply repeating the beliefs and arguments of pro-lifers. I agree absolutely that the “god’s will” argument is bad theology – but I’ve heard that a lot from the same group of people featured in the video.
I am very impressed with this discussion so far – very good points on both sides – and no one seems to have flown off the handle yet – you know, we atheists are known for that :)
Bah.
We all know actions, even similar actions, don’t happen on a level playing field.
There are stories that emerge every so often that make us cringe in horror and revulsion that one we share our human-ness with has the capability of doing such things.
There are people who desire innocent life simply to plunge it into the worst this world has to offer, rape, torture, and death. “How could this happen?” we ask, and feel tainted by the knowledge, because these have polluted our very existence by theirs.
But then there are others, perhaps a battered wife or child who sought revenge, or a rookie cop who forgot his training when he hit the streets, but regardless of specifics, we’ve all read of a situation somewhere where you couldn’t help but be sympathetic to the perpetrator of what we must admit is still a crime.
You shouldn’t pretend to be ignorant of these complexities by your crude, paint-all logic. None of us can play innocent in this society, because these are the extremes our Western world is fascinated by and saturated with! Look at our media of all sorts: movies, dramas, stories, and the honest-to-gosh news; we point everything we have at anything perceived to push our moral borders in one direction or another, and it’s all ultimately thanks to different circumstances for the same class of actions.
I would argue that with many women who have sought abortion as a horrible end to what was a nasty situation to begin with, we have both sympathy for the person while still condemning the action and pushing for alternatives.
Daniel said: “By the way, I don’t actually think abortion is a good idea. I don’t encourage it. But I think it should be legal, because I think the decision should be up to the mother.”
Mother? How about woman. Human. That verbiage is basically the anti-personal-freedom side’s canon.
and what about fathers? Do they get punished? What if they’re absent? What about the woman’s parents? The landlord where a clinic is? What about the patients of punished doctors? are they given free medical care til they can find a new doctor? what if a patient dies? is the arresting officer charged?
reductio ad absurdum, sure. it’s a ridiculous idea, so it should be mocked.
“They know it’s absurd and unfair — which means they know abortion is not really murder.”
I disagree that is a right conclusion. In my opinion, it merely demonstrates that they have compassion for the mother, not that they do not believe abortion is murder of a human being.
Instead, ask this: “If abortion was illegal, what should be done with those who perform illegal abortions?”
Some anti-choice citizens believe that abortion is an act of violence perpetrated on the woman and the child.
At this opportunity for a new beginning, let us strive to curtail the rhetoric and divisiveness so we can move forward.
Let us stop seeing those who disagree with us as enemies, but rather as good people we have yet to convince.
I’m sure a pro-lifer would say that someone who PERFORMS an illegal abortion ought to be jailed, though. No doubt. This doesn’t really clear anything up.
You know, sometimes women perform their own abortions with chemical abortifactants. Should these women be punished in the same way as the evil doctors?
Has anyone asked this question of Bill O’Reilly yet?
The answer is simple:
First take into account that we, the antiabortionists, do not believe in abortion because we love and respect human life. Therefore to expect us to demand jail time or capital punishment against anybody is just ridiculous.
Instead of that, what about to sterilize the perpetrators?
This is not that great a question. It’s only hard for most anti-abortionists to answer because it has never been illegal in their lifetimes.
If you has asked me this question, I would, without hesitation, say that they should be tried and sentenced as every other premeditated murderer.
Wow, all those comments in response to a straw man!
Please remember: all generalizations are false, including this one (and the one that started this post).
Anybody who has gone through high school biology will be able to tell you when an egg and sperm turn into a separate homo sapiens: when they combine. Then you have a lump of stuff inside the mother’s body with a completely unique DNA sequence which (if it is are allowed to be born) it will have until it dies of old age.
The sticky wicket is rather, when does it become a person entitled to a full set of human rights and legal protections?
Someone who is not a homicidal maniac should try to err on the side of not murdering people and say “probably sometime before the baby is born” and that is the current state of abortion regulation in most of the country.
If you say we should be able to kill children without fear of prosecution simply because they have not been born yet, why stop at birth? They only get more inexpensive and inconvenient the longer they are allowed to live, so why prosecute people for killing, say, a toddler?
A child 5 months before birth depends no less on her mother than a child 5 months after birth. Keeping one alive outside a womb is certainly more expensive and difficult than the other, but expense does not stop us keeping very aged people alive.
I guess what I am driving at is this: any time you set a cutoff date for when you can kill an child, it is arbitrary. You are allowing people to die based on an arbitrary timeline, because we *can not* know when they become “People” of their own. Bringing up the fact that the child is currently inside a womb is a fine example of “poisoning the well” in the debate.
2 more points:
Killing someone (aside from yourself, that’s another debate altogether) is bad because the life you take is not your own. It was given by God to that person and, last I checked, nobody had a license from him to take life away.
There are good reasons to kill someone, and the strongest reasons are based on the circumstance where person A is about to kill person B. Be it prevention of murder in the course of a burglary, or prevention of a mother’s death if a pregnancy were carried to term, the argument is the same: preservation of life against being ended by another person.
********
I agree with the assertion that a great many people have never thought about their position on prosecuting women who have illegal abortions; I bet they are spread about equally on both sides of the abortion debate. There are also a large number of drivers who never think twice about using cell phones. I am not equivocating, I am saying people are generally thoughtless, going about their lives in Condition White, never thinking beyond the ends of their noses. You can fill a documentary video full of interviews with such people and never prove the point that anti-abortionists/pro-lifers are a bunch of unthinking boobs.
What about people that do drugs illegally, or drink and drive illegally, or murder a born person illegally? I’m open to good arguments, but I don’t think this is one of them.
Your argument is weak. If the procedure of having an abortion was outlawed, that doesn’t mean that the law would equate it to murder–it would just be illegal.
It’s more likely that people performing the abortion would face legal issues, not the women having them. And it’s highly unlikely those charges would be anywhere close to murder charges.
I get where you are coming from, but you’re off a bit in my opinion.
I totally misread your post….forget my previous comment.
Yep….you got em
Downright hilarious. Kudos to you sir. if you can’t make your argument, you shouldn’t be arguing at all.
Abortion is WRONG. You are denying a person of the right to life. What if your mother had aborted you? You never would have had the chance to be a human being. Abortion is sick and twisted and it’s worse than murder!
If my mother had aborted me i cant say i’d be around to complain about it. Here’s a question, if heaven is so great why don’t we abort all children and just skip the whole messy life thing?
That’s an awful lot of opinionated assertions with nothing concrete to back them up…
Not having unprotected sex every time your refractory period is up is WRONG! You are denying those sperm the right to life. What if your father had jerked off instead? You never would have had the chance to be a human being.
Question 6
Aren’t pro-lifers inconsistent when they say that abortion is tantamount to murder, but then shrink from advocating the prosecution and punishment of the millions of women who have gotten abortions?
Reply to Question 6
This is not necessarily inconsistent. There are various ways in which the two views alluded to might be held consistently:
1. Someone might think that no woman every freely and without coercion chooses to have an abortion, just as some people maintain that suicide is never a freely chosen act. If this is the case, the woman’s responsibility for procuring the abortion is considerably mitigated;
2. Someone might hold that a woman who gets an abortion does something seriously wrong, and is responsible for it, but that the act itself carries with it its own penalty, since she loses her child in the abortion. It might be thought that any further penalty is unnecessary;
3. Someone might hold that, although many abortions merit punishment, still, the state’s decision of whether to punish or not should be made with an eye to the common good, and the common good would not be served by punishing women who procure abortions.
Why? Because if any were punished then all would have to be; but it would be too harsh to punish all–the cure would be as bad as the ailment. So none should be punished; rather, the abortionist should be punished as being a sort of initiator of the abortion.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/20qqabor.html
Can we at least agree that you’re not a “person” if you don’t have any measurable brain activity? After all, it’s not illegal to turn of a brain-dead person’s life-support. In fact, brain-death is the legal definition of “dead”. No brain activity, and you’re not a person any longer. Why should it be different at the other end?
Some people are sure they do have exactly that licence. How do you know that they’re wrong? Cuteness aside, how do you check to see if such a licence has been issued?
You don’t adhere to dogmas you say? To me, it’s like the color black saying “I have no color, therefore I am not one of you” but most consider black a color indeed.
The absence of a God is your religion, if we must label them as much. There is as much evidence of the absence of God, as there is evidence of a God. I do not “get” atheists that make a mission out of playing “gotcha” with other religions. Why not just go out and be “free” as you say you are.
You are not truly free until you let go of these things you hold onto. Let them go, go live your life, and let others live theirs…then you can be free.
The bottom line is, you do not know, nor does any Christian, what built this place, universe, no one. We pretend, and we all have beliefs, but they’re all based either on speculation, or history, right?
I suppose when we die, we may be enlightened, or…perhaps that will be the end of things… In the end, it doesn’t matter….what will be, will be.
Find peace in yourself, and let others find their peace.
I enjoyed this post a lot. It’s been a while since I’ve thought about this issue.
Like the old saw about the boy who murders both his parents, and then pleads for clemency, as he’s recently become an orphan, no?
OK, not had time to read through all the above comment so sorry if I have repeated a previous point.
Can I state for the record that I am pro-choice first off!
If I was anti-abortion then my response may be that abortions should be illegal because it is the taking of a life.
However the law could be targeted not at the mother but at the abortionist. Therefore they would be the one to be charged with a crime – whether this is murder or not is a moot point for pedantic students of theoretical law to discuss.
Therefore the mother is not guilty of murder but she may be guilty of something else, e.g. not assisting in the prevention of murder.
Contrast this with a different scenario; two men have an argument with a third. The 1st man shoots the 3rd man. The 2nd man does nothing to help the 3rd man live but has not directly killed the 3rd man. What his legal position is I don’t know but I can imagine that he would receive some sort of suspended sentence or at least a criminal record.
Does that make sense? If it a sound enough argument then please do not tell any pro-lifers!
A total non-sequitur. And you accuse the pro-lifers of not being able to think clearly?
Punishment under the law depends on culpability, not just the objective actions which has occured. As we are constantly reminded by pro-choicers, women who choose abortion usually find themselves under tremendous pressure and confusion. That should certainly be taken into account when considering punishments.
Considering that a majority of women who get abortions end up with depression and other psychological problems — because they know in their heart they have killed their child — I would advocate mandatory counseling, not jail. Jail time for the doctors and providers, not for the already suffering mothers.
This is just a rhetorical “stopped beating your wife yet?” trick, not an honest attempt to find the truth.
First, thanks to Vox for the shoutout for my site.
Secondly, it still amazes me that the majority of antis think a twenty-minute surgical procedure (two/three days for those going the medical route) is ever so much more horrible than nine months of the most problem-free pregnancy and childbirth. I don’t care how smoothly everything goes, pregnancy is MUCH harder on your body and parenthood is not exactly a trip to the park. The antis thrive on misinformation, which is why I ask the contributors to my site to provide details on their procedures. Your average anti has no idea what happens during an abortion. The biggest mistake that’s been made is making abortion about children, not women, and the antis have been very successful about planting the “killing a baby” idea to replace the “helping the woman” idea.
And FWIW, of course the fetus is human. Then again, the same could be said of a cancer cell.
I just watched the video….that’s fantastic!
The premise of your question alone is short sighted. I am non religous yes I am against abortion. The simple answer is more then likely a charge of manslaughter. Cases already show this to be the right answer. Example: in many states if a drunk runs into another car and the women in said car was with child then and said child dies as a result, no matter what term, that person is charged with manslaughter… How can that be? Why not answer that one. Problem with you liberals is you claim to be open minded yet condem all who do not share your flawed logic.
Your arrogance or ignorance is really tacky I may add. We just had a daughter a week ago and it was unplanned. Now I am glad to know there are people like you who would rather see her in a red bio-hazard bag.
To make it more relevant to the debate, change it so that Man 2 enters into a written contract, under which he will pay Man 1 to kill Man 3. Do you still think Man 2 is innocent of any wrongdoing?
Or what if Man 1 sells drugs to Man 2 that both parties know Man 2 will use to poison and kill Man 1? Is Man 2 innocent under that scenario, too?
Or do doctors just sneak up on women when they’re not looking and perform surprise abortions? Because that’s already totally illegal.
“If abortion isn’t the killing of a human being, then if your mother or wife is pregnant with a child, and someone kills them (her?), is that person only tried for the murder of your mom or wife, and not the child she is carrying?”
The difference from a woman choosing to have an abortion and a woman being killed and having her baby killed, is the woman had a choice to do the former. Yeah, it’s trialed as murder on both accounts, because that’s the way the law sees it. Abortion is legal because a woman should have the right to choose, and it counts as a double murder because no one else has the right to make that decision for her.
Man, you really are pretty naive. What happens if you ask me that question and I say, “Yes. I think there should be a penalty for a woman who has an illegal abortion”?
In the scenario you give, you are assuming that abortion is illegal. If it’s illegal, then the crime is having the abortion itself, period. It’s not necessarily whether or not you murdered an unborn child; it’s that you broke a law.
Is this really something that’s front-page worthy on Wordpress? Nice try. Agreeing with so many here: no search for real truth. This is childish.
It reminds me of the “I know you are, but what am I?” comeback.
Sorry, that should be “to poison and kill Man 3″. Apologies for any confusion.
If we let society decide, we’ll probably end up stoning the women on the street where they stand…like some Afghani villages when adultery is committed, for example. But hey, God is good all the time right???
I am saddened by the loss of your faith in God, though I am not here to argue the existence of God.
I would like to make a statement for the “anti-abortionists” – In total disagreement with the very first comment:
“You can accuse religious fanatics of many thinks, but using well-thought out argumentation isn’t one of them.”
The statement is true if you remove “religious” from the statement. It matters not if you are “religious” and therefore have no well-thought-out argument. Fanatics have no well-thought-out arguments. That is foundational to the meaning of “fanatical”, isn’t it?
I also disagree with the conclusion of the post. I am one who is pro-life and though I have not spent a great deal of time considering a punishment for those who have participated in “illegal abortions”, I would support life in prison, etc. along with any other form of murder. If, in the case of a young woman/child who is forced into an “illegal abortion”, it would be my opinion that the adult involved would also be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I don’t know where I’d stand on the side of capital punishment. I’m not entirely sure where I stand on capital punishment under our current judicial system anyhow.
Let’s try a little substitution:
In the scenario you give, you are assuming that theft is illegal. If it’s illegal, then the crime is the theft itself, period. It’s not necessarily whether or not you took something that didn’t belong to you; it’s that you broke a law.
At best, you’re quibbling over semantics. At worst, this is utterly meaningless.
It’s not that hard of a question, nor does it “stump” all pro-lifers.
I actually posted on this in July here:
http://defendingcontending.com/2008/07/17/what-is-so-hard-about-this-question/
And my answer is simple:
If abortion is made illegal tomorrow, then those who choose to exterminate their own flesh and blood should suffer the same consequences as Andrea Yates, Susan Smith and every other woman or man who kills the most innocent and defenseless class among us.
Regardless of whether the murders are perpetrated to “win a new boyfriend,” to “ease our financial standing,” or even in obedience to the “voices in your head,” the law is the law is the law.
You see, it’s not that hard of a question after all.
- The Pilgrim
Absence of brain activity is one definition of death, but not one I give much credit after hearing reports of people in a Persistent Vegetative State suddenly waking up again. It is another arbitrary standard to get around our ignorance of what is actually going on when we want to Do Something.
Some people saying they have a license is a far cry from actually having one. Doing something and pretending it is authorized does not make it right. Legislating it to be legal also does not make it right.
It is murder. I think it should be punishable by life in prison or the death penalty just like any other murder.
Wow, you seem to be quite confident in yourself. I personally am pro-life, and I have an answer for you. The women who have illegal abortions should be prosecuted, along with the doctors that perform the abortions. No offense, but it seems to me that pro-abortionists, are the ones thinking illogically. There are many states in which a person can be convicted of two murders for murdering a pregnant woman. Here is my point. It seems the only difference between a human being, and a glob of tissue, is weather or not it is wanted. If a woman wants to carry a child to term, the murderer can be convicted. However, if the woman finds the situation inconvenient and does not want the child, she can murder the child herself and it is considered a ‘choice.’ If the basis human value, is whether or not one is ‘wanted,’ our nation is heading down a scary path…. reminding me of Hitler, Stalin and others who decided a certain race was ‘unwanted,’ and therefore, should be destroyed.
thanks for this post. very interesting. i can’t believe they haven’t even thought of the conclusion of making abortion illegal.
Tell the truth: How many anti-abortionists have you stumped with that question? First things first, is abortion legal? Now, is it legal because nobody knows what to do with women who have an abortion? Or is it legal because even if it were really murder, yet the right to choose is greater than the crime? Or is it legal because it’s got nothing to do with any crime, nor has it with the freedom to choose–it’s just there, like walking, eating, sleeping.
People in a PVS have brain activity, so this is hardly relevant.
You made the claim that (”the last time you checked”) God had not issued any licences to kill. I just asked how you know this, who you checked with, and what evidence you have that all the people who claim to have been explicitly instructed by God to kill people are wrong.
You’re correct that claiming that God told you something doesn’t automatically make it true, but I’d be surprised if you’re claiming that it automatically makes it false. How do you decide?
Very interesting!
I have always asked anti-abortionists how many of the unwanted children, forced to be delivered, would they be adopting. The answer is usually none. They want the child to be born, but they wash their hands of any further social responsibility.
What a fantastic video.
Thanks,
Jeremy
I think the question asked on the video is unfairly framed.
If it were asked by replacing “abortion” with ” abortion of a baby that was crowning”, then I think there would be many that would say “yeah send them and the doctor to jail”.
If you take out the lunatic religious groups, abortion comes down to “when should it be ok?” more than “is it ok?”
It is the TIMING of the abortion that causes people problems.
The abortion debate always reminds me of the debate on the age of consent.
Most people agree there needs to be some kind of line drawn, but any line you draw, is going to have to be arbitrary by someone’s standards.
But still there needs to be a line drawn, to protect those who can not protect themselves.
I feel I’ve been stereo-typed. I’m anti-abortion, but I know I wouldn’t respond as you claim. My answer would be to provide counseling for the woman who had the illegal abortion. They will have gone through a traumatic experience, perhaps made more so by it being illegal. They don’t need punishment. I know a few women who have had abortions, and they tend to punish themselves enough. What they need is help in coping with the decision that they have made.
@viratas:
Congrats on the baby!
BTW, I don’t think any of us here like abortion. I don’t like it and there are only rare situations where I would advise it. But because of that, I think it should be legal and safe. Yes, and rare.
I never checked, it was facetious. And almost as silly as someone claiming to have a license to kill issued by God.
Two years imprisonment.
It’s not hard to make a liberal look retarded, which they do on a daily basis. gg.
I thought the video was very telling and I thoroughly enjoyed watching them squirm. But I also think abortion should be cheap, readily available, and performed in hospitals instead of isolated clinics that are nothing more than targets for lunatic protesters.
One of the questions about illegal abortion that has always bothered me is, what do we do with a woman who professes a desire to get an abortion? Do we call the police and lock her in jail until she comes to term? Are we guilty of conspiracy to commit murder if we don’t? Does the state take the child away? I mean, she considered murdering her child, right? Can the state compel you to have children, only to take them away? That’s and incredibly frightening thing to contemplate.
Other things to consider: in order to indict doctors, it would be necessary to examine the medical records of patients and make them publicly available. In cases where medical records were not proof enough, would women suspected of having abortions be forced to undergo medical examinations? What sort of search and seizure requirements would there be for such a thing? Could the government monitor medical records they way they can monitor financial records?
What about cases of rape? What if you can’t prove you’ve been raped? Could the state compel women to carry to term because they can’t prove that a rape occurred? How would that impinge on a woman’s right to privacy, health, liberty or autonomy?
These are disquieting questions. Which is probably why abortion is generally ignored in places where it is illegal. Most people are not comfortable forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term and the invasive, draconian measures that would be required to prosecute are usually not particularly popular.
It is easier to simply turn a blind eye to it and pat yourself on the back for defending innocent babies and the morality of females. Here’s an interesting discussion of abortion in Brazil, where abortion is illegal. (It is also the third most prevalent cause for maternal death, which tells us a great deal about the difference between what people profess to believe and their actions.)
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/07/28/in-brazil-decriminalization-abortion-gains-new-urgency
No, seriously. How do you know what God tells people? Why is it silly to think that he might tell people to kill? I mean, the OT is chock full of precedent. And, even in the NT, there’s Luke 19:27.
If someone tells you “God told me to do X”, how do you decide if God really told them? Do you just assume that God never tells anyone anything? Or do you just compare it to your own moral compass, and assume that God would never tell anyone to do anything that you personally disagree with?
The mother didn’t take the life as much as she allowed the life to be taken, therefore, it would seem to me the punishment would be handed out to the Dr. or other practitioner performing the illegal abortion, thus eliminating abortions by eliminating (locking up) those who perform them.
I’m not advocating for that, mind you, as much as noting the flaw in your original question. The woman is NOT taking the life, a Dr. is.
So perhaps the better question is: What punishment would you give to the mother who willfully allowed her child to be killed?
By loading the question with inaccuracy, you set the respondent up for failure. If we are ever to have peace on hot-button issues such as this, it will first require open communication, on both sides, with valid points, respect, listening, and understanding, but if the purpose of the exercise is simply to make another look like a fool, has anyone really won anything? Perhaps in the smug nature of it all we have done nothing more than enrage our opponent?
Abortion is a volatile topic. Wisdom, understanding, and love is required for a healthy discussion or debate.
Brilliant. These people use God as an excuse not to use their brains. Now THAT is retarded.
I’m prochoice. A woman’s body is her body. I do NOT believe in using abortion as a means of birth control, but if the mother was raped or is addicted to horrible drugs and knows she can’t take care of the child to the best of her ability, it would be murder to carry on would it not?
Here is a the wikipedia entry for abortion in Chile, where it is illegal even in cases of rape or to save the mother’s life. I don’t know about you all, but this doesn’t even remotely resemble anything like what most of us would consider a sound public policy. Not suprisingly, abortion is the leading cause of maternal death there.
Take particular note of the part about how hospital staff interrogate women who seek help after botched abortions, and that this is primarily how women who have had abortions are caught. If you seek treatment for a botched abortion, it is likely you will spend the rest of your life in prison. Could you even imagine what it would be like to make that choice?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Chile
I think it’s funny how anyone at all would try to throw religious arguments into the deal when it is far and few between that any of you even understand the religion you follow in the first place. “I’m willing to admit to you that there is a god as long as you’re wiling to admit to me that you know not what god is.” How many of you even know the word that “god” was translated from? It was a word meaning that, there was this (everything we do understand) and there was that (everything that we don’t understand.) The fact of the matter is, there are a lot of things that you and I and the next person just don’t understand. In order to get a better understanding you need to look at everything in life from all perspectives. I’m not saying that I understand so don’t even try to argue with me on that point. That is just it I don’t and either do any of you, we can only understand what we can measure with our senses and even then it is all about your perspective. There isn’t anyone in here that has a right to tell another human being what they should or should not do only “god” has that right and if you think you’re going to get answers from him in a book then you my friend are a fool. Whether or not you believe that they spoke to god or not the fact is, all the books on this planet were still written by men, mortal men with as much room for error as you and I. You know even the bible tells you that the only real answers are found within, that means sitting in silence, relaxed and meditating on what it is you want to learn. And for those of you who say “it’s easy to sit and talk about being good but try getting up and doing something about it”… like what? What is anyone on this post able to do to just quickly fix a problem like abortion? I mean come on let’s get realistic here, everyone on this planet lives a different life, has had different things happen to them and ultimately could have an infinite number of reasons to have an abortion in the first place. One of the main reasons women end up having abortions is that the world is so screwed up right now a lot of us really can’t afford to have any more children. The ONLY way ANY of the problems we have are going to change is if we change ourselves. That means being the best person you can be, giving life everything that you have, doing everything in your power to affect those around you in a positive way and making the best of every situation. My question is when did we all forget this??? I bet all our 4 and 5 year old kids still get it…
The above circular argument is truly ridiculous. One can be against abortion without calling abortion “murder.” An act need not be considered murder (”unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought”) to be considered unethical.
We have all kinds of legal codes punishing men, women, and children who take human lives in an unethical way, but who we judge have not committed murder. For example: Manslaughter, Involuntary manslaughter, Vehicular homicide, and Criminally negligent manslaughter.
So I can freely admit that abortion is almost never murder and still maintain it should be illegal.
Furthermore, we have laws for which there is no real punishment. For example, it is illegal to commit suicide. No one would think of suggesting that a suicide (or even an attempted suicide) should be punished.
If I express a desire to commit suicide, I can be placed in a mental hospital against my will until such time as I am no longer suicidal. However, if I attempt suicide and survive, I will not be punished in any way at all. The point is to have measures in place to keep people from doing things, not just to punish them once they’ve done it.
A few things to know about me:
-I absolutely believe abortion is murder.
-I would support jail time for women who chose abortions, doctors who performed them, and/or husbands or boyfriends who pressured women into getting an abortion. I would probably say a life sentence is, however excessive, and the death penalty…well, doesn’t that kind of contradict the whole idea of pro-life?
-I feel that in exceptional cases, like endangerment of the life of the mother, abortion could be a viable option and should not be criminalized. In cases of rape or incest, the jury still seems to be out on whether a woman experiences more psychological harm carrying such a child to term, or aborting it, so I can’t really give an opinion on this yet.
-I was raised Catholic, but am now agnostic, and religion is not a big part of my life.
-I have zero problem with contraception, and am more liberal on many other subjects, including homosexuality and even zoophilia in some cases (I’d be happy to argue that, but that’s a whole other ball game). I consider myself moral without being religious. I voted for Obama, but don’t consider myself easily fitting into any one political philosophy.
Debate on! :)
I really hope you all wake up soon…
Right, it should clearly be considered vehicular manslaughter.
If abortion is illegal, then what part of your definition of “murder” does it fail to meet? Is the victim not a “person”? Does the mother not act with “malice aforethought” (that is, does she not deliberately intend to have an abortion)? Is abortion not actually a “killing”? Which category would you put it into?
Suicide is not illegal in any state in America. In those places where it is (or was) illegal (England until 1961, India, Italy, for example), it’s not uncommon for failed suicides to be punished under the law. So it’s clearly not as unthinkable as you think.
Unbelievable. I’ve never seen such stark cognitive dissonance before. Simply fascinating.
Clever question.
I’m a staunch pro-lifer who’d like to know why it has to be an exclusively “either/or” question. Consider the “both/and” option.
Abortion is the killing of a human being (girls, ever been pregnant with a frog?). However, the answer is *not* to throw women in jail.
The answer is true compassion: help them, support them (financially at every opportunity), and adopt their children if they find that they have no interest in parenthood. How is it that murder is the answer? Just because you don’t see the body being cut into pieces doesn’t mean it’s not happening.
The emotional toll of abortion on our nation’s women (and her men) is a shameful embarrassment for every thinking person in this country. To chop up the unborn and throw them into the trash? THIS is the best we can do for someone in a crisis situation?
Try again. With real love and compassion this time.
(And, yes, I have given personally, financially, etc–my money is where my mouth is)
In nefworldwide’s world, it’s simply inconceivable that a woman could rationally decide to end her pregnancy and take action to effect that goal.
Sweet zombie jeebus.
There are a few rational mistakes in this point worth point out.
First, assuming that abortion were made illegal and because it was determined to be morally wrong, merely because some religious people don’t know the appropriate punishment for an illegal abortion doesn’t confirm that there are no appropriate punishments for illegal abortion. We aren’t obligated to punish all instances of murder in the exact same fashion, in the same way that we aren’t obligated to punish all instances of stealing in the exact same fashion. As it turns out, we are allowed to make relevant distinctions for the sake of punishment, and the death of an actually existing, as opposed to potentially existing, life is such a relevant distinction.
Further, I see no reason why it is “absurd or unfair” to imprison a woman (and a complicit mate) for an illegal abortion. We needn’t imprison her for life – perhaps one or two years is sufficient for the purpose of deterring future such actions. (I suppose one could conjecture that it is “unfair” to the woman, when the man is just as deserving. But this is not the case. Her biological situation in determining moral culpability is no more relevant than my psychological situation. Those are simply the facts. It would be unfair if we treated relevant KINDS differently.)
Great question. But it’s really a straw man. Here’s why:
Yes, the choice to have the abortion is (mostly) the woman’s. (I’m not going to go into the whole idea that women have abortion often because they feel pressured into it by the *men* in their lives–that’s too much rant to fit into a comment.) Whether she acknowledges it or not, a woman in this situation is a victim and she will bear emotional scars from this event for the rest of her life.
So, who is the one who victimizes the woman? The doctor who performs the execution of the child. It is the doctor who has the advanced degrees, the certifications and the power to save life or kill. It is also the doctor who violates the Hippocratic oath: “Do no harm.” When abortion again becomes illegal, these doctors are the ones who must pay the penalty, if they perform illegal abortions. (Keep in mind, “ex post facto” and “habius corpus” will come into play for doctors who currently practice this barbarism, but who stop once it ceases to be lucrative and politically correct.)
A Christian response: love the injured woman. And protect more women and children from being brutalized and killed.
I believe that abortion is murder and I believe that if it were to be made illegal than the punishment should fit the crime of murder. Whatever the punishment is for premeditated murder, then that is what it should be for having an abortion. I also think you did a great job on your video for two reasons. 1) From a production stand point I thought it was simple, to the point and well done. 2) It is a wake up call for so many in the church to get educated on the issues. If we are going to talk about something then we had better know what we are talking about.
“If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.” -House, M.D.
It is incredible that they could not produce the standard anti-abortion punishment stance: punish the doctors and technicians that illegally provide abortions, not the women. Unbelievable, really.
that doesn’t stump me at all of course people are going to do bad things. Hey its legal do what you want, in my opinion if you are willing to kill a baby then that’s something you should be able to do, just remember you’ll forever be a murderer
@ tnameat
mark: Hey its legal do what you want, in my opinion if you are willing to kill a baby then that’s something you should be able to do, just remember you’ll forever be a murderer
mark: Would this also apply to god, when he drowned all of those babies during the the flood?
Let’s start with declaration of interest:
* I don’t believe in God, though I used to.
* I’m not in favour of abortion but do not believe it should be illegal.
The point is, this video is not about either of these points.
This video is about the delusion that if you make something illegal it will stop.
We’ve had examples of this in the UK:
1) Some nutter with a handgun shot some schoolkids (can you imagine such barbarity?) so the government banned handguns. We don’t have an olympic handgun team any more but ont he bright side it’s now impossible for criminals and nutters to get handguns because they’re illegal, right?
2) A minority with a class-war axe to grind campaigned for many years to outlaw the traditional rural pest-control procedure of fox hunting and a few years ago were successful. Now it’s illegal, it doesn’t happen any more, right?
This is the problem here: people are taking up resources and time- and not only their own – in the totally deluded belief that changing the law back will change human behaviour.
Should fewer abortions take place? I think so. But trying to contain demand by restricting supply never works. The change will come by better education and hygiene, by removing social stigma from single mothers, by more effective deterrence for rapists, by a change in popular culture that moves away from the Live Fast Die Young ethos that seems to permeate it and by a thousand other social changes.
They may feel that by making a change in the law they would be actually doing something, but in fact the short cut (the wide and easy road) always makes things worse. It makes you feel powerful for a moment, but that’s all. And making lobby groups feel powerful is not the proper purpose of any legislature.
The route I’m suggesting, longer and narrower and harder and twistier and with no obvious connection between what you do and the improvements that spring from it; that is the route that will actually bring about real, lasting, positive change.
@ tnameat
Sorry I made a mistake in my last message
” Hey its legal do what you want, in my opinion if you are willing to kill a baby then that’s something you should be able to do, just remember you’ll forever be a murderer”
mark:mark: Would this also apply to god, when he drowned all of those babies during the the flood?
If you had asked an abolitionist in the 1700’s (excepting the radical militant kind) what should be done with slave owners, you might have gotten a similar response. They simply wanted slaves to be free. We can look back and suggest that the slave owners probably deserved punishment.
In the same way, IF abortion were banned (if the unborn were emancipated from death?) then in 100 years people may look back and say that abortionist did deserve punishment. In the moment it is difficult to so quickly condemn our friends and neighbors to punishment for something that has been condoned by our society for many years.
Here’s a different case study. What if the Supreme Court made a decision that babies were not cognizant, living beings until they were able to answer yes or no questions? (”Do you want me to feed you?”)
And by this decision they made infanticide a choice for parents to make until some subjective point of development. I think that is comparable to how some cases are handled at the end of life. Would this be acceptable to Americans? And why? Lord, I hope not.
How many unwanted, uncared for, beaten, & whatever else exist in this world already? Why are we so worried about…
Ok, let me clarify, I believe if a woman is to have an abortion it should be done within the first few weeks, & that’s it. These late-term abortions are sickening to me & should only be allowed if the woman has some serious health issues & decides she doesn’t want to risk her life. I wish all of these protesters would worry more about the millions of unwanted kids already on this planet before they worry about bringing another unwanted, & probably uncared for, to be beaten or murdered. (I’m sure you all have heard about the Casey Anthony story & her daughter Caylee. She didn’t want the baby, actually wanted to give her up for adoption & was forced to keep her. Now we all know what happened.)
Please worry about the actual children already here & not the cell(s) that would be removed from someone who is not fit to be a mother. What would the child’s life be like? Thank you…
Why do people get abortions in this country?
Could it possibly be because we have no decent sex education in America? Could it possibly be because many people are too impoverished?
I am by no means “for” abortion. I can’t think of anyone who is.
I want to reduce abortion as much as possible, but I see no point in outlawing it when we still have other paralyzing social problems in America which will still cause people to get abortions.
Most “pro-lifers” object to competant, comprehensive sex education for children. Most “pro-lifers” are their own worst nightmare, enabling a whole new generation of women seeking abortions every time they fail to properly educate their children about sex.
Abstinence-only sex education is one of the biggest debacles I have ever encountered. We will always have abortion in this country, whether it is illegal or not, until we have better sex education, access to birth control, and more serious methods of eliminating poverty.
Also, I agree that there are many complicated moral boundaries in this issue. When does a fetus reach personhood is probably the main issue of importance once all the other social considerations are resolved. I think the best we could do may just be an arbitrary marker. However, I think we should err on the side of the fetus’ viability in drawing this line.
Alas, the first things we need to do are increase access to REAL sex education and make it more bearable to raise children in America before we can even start in earnest on this abortion issue.
Whether or not one person couldn’t answer this question is moot. Human life is Sacred, regardless of how one person answers a question. I don’t know what should be done with women who have illegal abortions. It’s not my job to know. I’ll stick to the simple fact that Life is Sacred, and should be prized above all things.
Jordan.
This is a touchy and emotional subject. Your title is divisive and lacks any and all common sense. However you ask a very important question, if abortion is illegal should the mother be punished? Is a fair question and it is shameful to say the least that the people opposing the murder of a child in the womb (abortion) could not answer correctly. But your title is divisive and disrespectful. You will call it abortion We call it Murder. Now here is my answer before the right of the people was stolen by the government via the Supreme Court in 1973-74 and instead of the people deciding the matter in their respecting states, not only was murder in the womb (abortion) illegal, woman who committed this horrendous act were punished. I oppose Murder in the womb and I strongly believe that the woman needs to be punished. Does she deserve death no punish her do not take her life because then, those of us who oppose the murder of the baby in the womb are no different than those that are ok with the act in essence making me a hypocrite.
I deal with this question extensively in my book Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (Cambridge University Press, 2007). Here’s an excerpt (endnotes omitted):
According to abortion-choice supporters, if abortion is made illegal, then many women will be prosecuted, convicted, and/or sentenced for murder (a capital offense in some states), because the changed law will entail that abortion in almost every circumstance entails the unjustified and premeditated killing of an innocent human person (the unborn). Abortion-choice activists argue that such a situation will unnecessarily cause emotional and familial harm to women who are already in a difficult situation. Such laws, if they are instituted, will lack compassion. But, according to the abortion-choice supporter, if the prolifer is to remain consistent with her position that the unborn are human persons, then she must institute such compassion-lacking laws. On the other hand, if the prolifer does not insitute such laws, then it is highly doubtful that she really believes that the unborn are human persons. In any event, the prolife position appears to be inconsistent.
There are several problems with this argument. First, if this argument is correct about the prolifer’s inconsistency, it does not prove that the unborn are not human persons or that abortion is not a great moral evil. It simply reveals that prolifers are unwilling to “bite the bullet” and consistently apply their position. The fact that prolifers may possess this character flaw does not mean that their arguments for the unborn’s full humanity are flawed.
Second, this argument ignores the pre-legalization laws and penalties for illegal abortion and possible reasons why they were instituted. Although it is clear that these laws considered the unborn human persons, in most states women were granted immunity from prosecution and in other states the penalties were very light. As I noted in chapter 2, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade employed these latter two facts, and did not properly assess the former, to conclude that state anti-abortion statutes were not intended to protect the unborn’s life but only to protect maternal health, and that this was not consistent with the view offered by the state of Texas that the unborn is a human person under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. The problem with the Court’s conclusion is that it did not take into consideration the possible reasons why the statutes granted women immunity and light sentences, especially in light of the fact that in other places the law considered the unborn persons. Legal scholar James Witherspoon suggests three reasons: (1) legislators might have thought of the aborting woman as a desperate victim; (2) the paternalism of the era, which limited women’s civil rights but might have considered the aborting woman more of a victim rather than a perpetrator; and (3) the legislators might have granted her immunity (or a light penalty) for the reason of prosecuting and insuring a conviction for the crime, since all the witnesses (the abortionist, any assistants, and the woman) would likely also be perpetrators of the crime, the woman possibly being the only victim among them. Witherspoon explains these reasons in greater detail:
Thus, it seems likely that by prudently balancing the unborn’s personhood, the evil of abortion, the desperation of the woman, and the need for evidence in order to insure a conviction, jurists and legislators in the past believed that the best way to prevent abortions from occurring and at the same time uphold the sanctity of human life was to criminalize abortion, prosecute the abortionist, grant immunity or a light penalty to the woman, and show her compassion by recognizing that she is the second victim of abortion.
Consequently, if abortion is made illegal because the law comes to recognize the unborn as intrinsically valuable human persons, legislatures, while crafting laws and penalties, and courts, while making judgments as to sentencing, will have to take into consideration the following facts. (1) Unborn human beings are full-fledged members of the human community and to kill them with no justification is unjustified homicide. (2) Because of a general lack of understanding of the true nature of the unborn child–likely due to decades of cultural saturation by abortion-choice rhetoric and little serious philosophical reflection on the prolife position by the general public–most citizens who procure abortions do so out of well-meaning ignorance. (3) The woman who will seek and obtain an illegal abortion is really a second victim. Women who seek illegal abortions will probably do so out of desperation. Not realizing at the time of the abortion that the procedure kills a real human being, some of these women suffer from depression and guilt feelings after finding out the true nature of the unborn. And because both those who may encourage these women to seek an illegal abortion (family and friends), as well as the abortionist who will be paid for performing this deed, have no intention of discouraging her, it is likely that the pregnant woman will not be fully informed of the unborn’s nature (e.g., “You’re not carrying a baby, it’s a `product of conception,’ `blob of tissue,’ `a bunch of cells,’ etc.”). (4) Even if his intention may be to help the woman, the illegal abortionist will not be ignorant of the demands and purpose of the law and the nature of the being that the abortion kills. However, because juries may be reluctant to sentence such a physician to decades in prison let alone the death penalty, a lighter penalty may be easier to secure. (5) The government has an interest in preventing unjustified and premeditated killing of human beings, whether born or unborn, who live within its jurisdiction. Legislators and jurists that intend to pass and enforce laws and penalties prohibiting almost all abortions, if they are to be just, fair, and compassionate, must take into consideration these five points, as the legislators and jurists of the past did prior to the legalization of abortion. There is no doubt, therefore, that the law will reflect these sentiments if abortion is made illegal again.
Third, given my second response to this argument, those who defend it seem to embrace a simplistic view of the purpose of criminal law and the penalties for violating it. For sometimes the purpose of a penalty is to provide an incentive to a polity for the realization of the best possible circumstances for eliminatation of the prohibited act and protection for its victim, precisely because the act in question and the violation of its victim so morally trangresses what is good. For example, in some states it is a capital offense to kill a police officer in the line of duty but not an ordinary citizen on the job, but this does not mean that the ordinary citizen has less value as a person than the police officer. Consequently, precisely because prohibiting the act of abortion advances the public good–because abortion entails in most cases the unjustified killing of an unborn human being–a prudent legislature will take into consideration all the variables and types of individuals ordinarily involved in the act in order to protect as many unborn human beings as possible.
The question is not what should be done with women who have abortions, but what should be done to make sure women don’t feel abandoned and alone when expecting a baby. That’s the main reason abortions happen.
This is to markbey
mark: Would this also apply to god, when he drowned all of those babies during the the flood?
You need to do more research on this subject before you open your mouth and make a fool of yourself. There were many reason why The Master and Creator had to flood the earth and yes all those people Die. There was a reason why that happen.
The reason why the flood happen read Genesis ch. 6 on the NKJV read it all and then google Nephilim, Gregoria, Sumerian, Anunaki.
Also read Romans 1:21-23
Just helping Mark
This is my reply to Markbey
Just wanted to add, I am pro life, but I agree that changing laws won’t help anything. We need more support for women in difficult positions in this society. And a greater respect for life. Both of those things, if taken seriously, can lessen abortions and save lives.
How silly and naive is this?
That would be like asking people what they think about driving drunk, and then asking if they have any relatives that are alcoholics.
By asking a loaded question, ANYONE is bound to react the same way; with a good amount of confusion for being put on the spot like this.
IF the anti-abortionists HAD spoken truthfully, saying yes, the woman deserves jail time, because … she BROKE THE LAW, then what would have been the reaction of the person asking the question? Would he or she have fired off another, loaded bomb, to further back the person into a corner?
Why am I never around when sh*t like this occurs?
I think they should be severely punished, and I’m not even what you would call fundamentalist. Yes you can’t fix the baby with punishment. Neither can a murderer’s crime.
Let’s stump the abortion idiots with one question : a human nervous system becomes operational and takes control of the muscles on the 18th day of pregnancy (any embryologist will tell you it is perfectly possible to give the exact minute the brain starts up in an embryo). Whatever any atheist could consider a soul, or the ability to feel pain, panic, they’re all present before even the third week of pregnancy.
In other words, an 18 days old feutus is every bit as human, has the same learning functions as any other human being. It may not look like one, but the (according to atheists) differing characteristic, a learning, functioning and even dreaming brain is there – at least 1.5 weeks before a VERY observant woman would know she’s pregnant. 6 weeks before even a gynacologist would advise to do a pregnancy test to check for a pregnancy (ie more than 1 period missed).
So in reality there isn’t a single abortion that isn’t killing a being that feels (a lot) of pain. It just can’t be done. So if you can kill a living, breathing (even if not using lungs yet), thinking and dreaming human baby, while it screams in pain, why can’t I kill you ? Painfully of course : by slowly cutting you to pieces.
After all, abortion, in the general sense (without medical need) is killing for convenience. And I just really think your face is stinking up the room. So let’s do some aesthetic killing. For my convenience.
What is wrong with that ? Should I be punished for that ? It won’t bring back your ugly face, which can only be called a fortunate fact of the world.
I would dare everyone here : look to a movie made of an actual abortion at even 6-7 weeks. You will notice something : the baby FIGHTS the scissors and the knives. Every aborted baby fights for his life for at least several minutes. They grab the scissors, which only results in their hands getting cut off. They panic, and they start shaking all over. They move as wild and as hard as they can. They panic, you almost think they’re crying. But the metal keeps coming at them.
That is what an abortion is. And some people here are no doubt members of peta and don’t see the irony.
Don’t kill babies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvshMADC7s0& (watch it, I dare you, you will not be pro-abortion after this movie unless you’re not human)
And docters : the oath of hippocrates, the basic condition to learning the profession of medicine clearly and literally states that nothing you learn may be used to help a woman abort a baby. In addition to breaking the law, you are breaking the trust of the people who taught you medicine, you are breaking a contract, and going back on an oath. Any docter that performs an abortion deserves to die. And that’s merciful : they really deserve the fate of the babies they slowly cut to pieces. To panic, wildly screaming while scissors move in and cut deeper into them. That’s what they deserve.
Abortion = convenience killing. Nothing else.
Including my own Blog on the subject:
http://rightsandcompassion.wordpress.com/
If fetuses are “humans” then why is the anti-abortion crowd not calling for a funeral service to be held every time a woman has a miscarriage? After all, a person died, according to their definition. Have you ever heard of any such thing? Not me.
It is not reasonable to convict the mother of an aborted child of murder since she didn’t actually commit the murder, Perhaps conspiracy to commit or some lesser form of manslaughter. The point is it isn’t up to anyone to decide to end a life. It wasn’t given by you nor is it up to you to end. That is just ethical even beyond anything religious. When there are so many people that want kids why would you kill one for your own selfish gain. In most cases it is preventable so take the necessary steps not to get pregnant.
Peter is right, there should be more attention and reference given when a fetus dies. That is a mistake of the anti-abortionist crowd. There are plenty of people in the world who don’t get the care they deserve, sadly. However, that does not make fetuses inhuman.
I am ANTI-ABORTION and I am not stumped in the slightest by this question.
Abortion is murder and those who commit murder should be charged with murder.
Where’s the confusion?
If you think there is no difference between an INNOCENT baby being killed and a GUILTY mother being punished (in whatever manner the court decides is appropriate) because she killed her INNOCENT baby then you are crazy and are at least as dumb as the people you are trying to make fun of.
You do realize that there is no statute of limitations for murder? That if abortion was declared murder and illegal in the US that *every woman* who obtained an abortion could be jailed or executed? What if that was your grandmother or sister? Still believe in it if it is someone you know and love?
How about this sort of interview to trap prochoicers in their own rhetoric:
Questioner: If you knew that a group of people were doing things that could result in women’s deaths, do you think those people should themselves be prosecuted by law enforcement?
Answer: Yes, of course.
Questioner: So, you’re saying that prolife citizens should be thrown in jail, since according to your rhetoric, what they are doing–trying to make abortion illegal–will result in women’s deaths?
Answer: aaaaaaaaaaaa
Here’s another question: “What’s your first memory?” or “Can you tell me about your time in the womb?”
Andruz, I don’t remember my first day of Preschool. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Or that I’m inhuman. I was simply too young to remember it.
This should not be about winning an argument but about saving a life. There are many good people who would love to raise a child and they can’t, why not give it up for adoption?
I think it takes a lot of strength to give a baby up for adoption, it’s not an easy thing to carry a baby to term you know you’re giving away. That’s what makes it such a special, wonderful thing to do.
Abortion is an easy way out.
To the person who wrote this Blog, you say you were once a very passionate Christian and now seem to have gone to the other extreme. It’s your own business of course and I don’t want to butt in, but there is also the option of balance. I am a Christian but also a very frequent skeptic. ;)
Aside from the civil law err in offering only offering one action as punishment, the death penalty, again I see the core problem with people trying to discuss what is perceived and understood through faith or scientific reason. Science is not against religion. Nor is religion an antagonist of science. They are two different disciplines used to experience two different aspects of human place in the universe. If both were made into people, neither would recognize the existence of the other when passing on the street. Each using two completely different methods of gathering and discerning information. Religious people are incorrect when trying to use faith to explain scientific matters just as science minded people are wrong in using what they think is science to discuss faith. Too often, I see “educated people” abusing the core of science – the scientific method – in making claims against religion. For a true scientist, something must be tested; something objective or observable. When people make claims that science disproves something of religion. Science has stopped being Science and has become that person’s Religion.
I’m certain the author of this message realizes that ‘unreasonable faith’ is in fact, “superfluously redundant”. The core of Faith is to draw a conclusion through subjective experience and resides outside and independent of objective trial. Just as Science resides outside and independent of subjective bias. Do you, the reader, use the disciplines correctly or do you use them incorrectly like using Grammar to explain Mathematics; “at” is a preposition because 5-3=2?
I’d have no problem with an answer – throw them in gaol, just like any other murderer.
I dont think Abortion should be Illigal but cant but admire some of those anti abortion folk taking time out from there lives to repesent a cause that they believe in.
Cant you see they just want less featuses to be aborted who they see as already living children. They dont want woman to be put in jail for it.
This line of questioning does not discredit there stance in the slightest.
You have to admit that last one knew what she was talking about, and had a valid reply.
actually, i HAVE thought about this issue.
and i haven’t completely thought it through, but if the law finally acknowledges this act as murder, the woman who chose to have her unborn child terminated should receive the consequences of her decision.
and ultimately, the cost will be or has been paid.
thank you for the thought-provoking post! =)
“They know it’s absurd and unfair”
Don’t lump us all together by making general accusations about how we think. Life in prison or even the death penalty is not absurd or unfair for a woman who has an illegal abortion. It’s a life, whether you think so or not and severe consequences should be the price that has to be paid for taking it. Maybe if jail or the death penalty were the consequences for this heinous act, people would think twice before acting. Maybe more women would seek other ways of dealing with their stupidity – like giving the baby up for adoption to the millions of families in America who unfortunately cannot have children of their own.
What is absurd and unfair is that millions of people in this great country are willing to believe that man developed from some mucus off a beach somewhere billions of years ago, but won’t accept that a child in the womb for fewer than twelve weeks isn’t a person even though fingers, toes, and facial expressions are present.
SMILE, YOUR MOM CHOSE LIFE!
Btw, I’m pro life and anti death penalty. Such people do exist. ;)
We were all fetuses once. For us to stand back and thank goodness we’re no longer elligable for death is very sad. This issue affects us all.
@Francis Beckwith:
Hey thanks for your comment! Though we disagree, I respect your work.
@Peter:
Excellent point!
Justahostess made a good point, we believe in evolution, the idea that humans orginated from non humans (which I do). Yet we then turn around and say fetuses aren’t human (when they are simply humans in the early stages of life).
Hi.
Woman who has had an abortion here, and very thankful not to be in jail. I was very pro-abortion until I had one and had no idea the pain and grief that would come afterwards.
But not a day goes by when I don’t think about the decision I made. I wish I’d made a more courageous one.I thought abortion was the easy way out. It was for the short term. Not for the long term. I ended up studying women’s health at uni, and I worked in hospitals. I realised abortion is terminating not just ‘life’ but human life.
But I’m not going to get out my placard, and start protesting to make abortion illegal. Because to be honest I don’t want to go back to the days of women dying from backstreet abortions they’ve sought in desperation.
I believe God gave us free will. Choices to make. I’d rather educate and give information – here’s the facts – here’s ALL your options and it’s up to you to make the choice you want to make. And I’ll be there for you – no matter what happens. I might not agree with all the choices you make, but I’ll still listen, I’ll still be your friend. I can’t judge, because I’m not perfect, I’ve made make mistakes and so have you and every other person in this world.
I wish ‘the church’ (and I speak to myself as much as I do to anyone else) would stop messing up the gospel and.
No wonder Gandhi said ‘I like your Christ, but I don’t like your Christians’.
The pro-lifers seem to fall into three different catagories in their response to the videographer:
1. Abortion is a taking of human life and is therefore murder. This group scares me but they do get points for a high degree of internal consistency of argument — just like the taliban. They fail to acknowledge they have picked an arbitrary developmental point — an egg has a sperm pop into it and that is when it gets full human rights based on what?
2. Abortion is the premeditated taking of human life but should not be punished or very lightly punished. What part of murder don’t you understand?
3. Abortion may or may not be the taking of a human life but is unethical and should therefore be illegal. If one cannot or does not account a blastocyst as a full human being then how can you equate it’s rights to that of the carrier?
We are asking for logical consistency based on an adequate knowledge of biology. That is all.
I’d be all for sending them to prison. Breaking the law is breaking the law. I have no sympathy for them.
I’m a Christian. I don’t think abortion should be illegal. This is my opinion.
I don’t think rape victims should be sent to prison.
The Taliban wants to destroy life. Pro-lifers want to save it.
And the pro abortion stance does not hold up under biology at all. People turn summersalts just to justify it. Sorry but you can’t have everything you want in life.
To both pro lifers and pro choicers, we should be volunteering at women’s shelters to make sure abortions don’t happen in the first place. Not arguing about whether or not the baby should be killed. Let’s stop it before it even needs to happen.
How to stump pro-abortions who ask the question: what happens to the mother? Point out to them that prior to — hmm — 1973? — abortion WAS illegal.
What happened to the mother? Usually she had the baby. Many of you writing are here for that very reason — because great Grandmama had the baby.
But what makes you think that women all want to kill their children? (Prior to modern times, that is?)
As to women who had illegal abortions, I suspect that many of them regretted their actions when they realized fully what they had done and what they had lost.
That’s a complex question, but does not negate abortion’s ethical consequences. Should mothers who kill their unborn children go to jail? Well, if they kill their already-born kids we send them to prison.
Sorry, you didn’t get this pro-lifer.
El Salvador actively imprisons women who get abortions. Doctors are expected to rat out their patients. Just in case anyone is curious what such a system would be like. (In summary: nasty.)
That’s true Ann’s New Friend, most people end up having their babies I imagine. I don’t understand this obsession with death in our culture (fighting for abortion and euthanasia rights).
Peter wrote:
“If fetuses are “humans” then why is the anti-abortion crowd not calling for a funeral service to be held every time a woman has a miscarriage? After all, a person died, according to their definition. Have you ever heard of any such thing? Not me.”
Um, yes. My sister lost her baby at 8 months. I saw Ethan in the hospital and I went to his funeral. One of the few times I’ve cried as an adult. It was a long time before my sister was the same again, if she even is now.
In India and China, women have abortions because the baby is a girl. What does that have to do with women’s rights?
Question-I-thority,
So if I have a consistent, central ideology I’m as bad as the Taliban???
Abortion is murder. Period. Therefore, if it was illegal, which it should be, it should carry the same sentance as any pre-meditated murder.
Just because you found a group of yahoos who don’t think things trhough, does not mean that all pro-lifers are that way.
The only thing that has been proven is that not everyone thinks for themselves.
I am sure I can find pro-abortionist who are the same way.
What strange reasoning Daniel Florien’s is.
Even if some people have difficulty countenancing severe sentences to women who illegally abort, that does NOT mean that “they know abortion is not really murder.” There is no logical relationship between the two.
Just think: There are many people (including me) who are against capital punishment even for murderers, but we still nevertheless “know” that they did commit murder.
Great Post. I believe women should have the right but there are certain stipulations to that. This is obviously a complicated issue, so many super pro-lifers will look past the joke and the lightheartedness that I saw in th post. A woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body. For all those religious, bible toting people it should be known that God always gives people free will and yes, a choice. He never forced anyone to do anything. If there are consequences, that should be between the woman and Him. Abortion is a tough decision to make, there should be other explored alternatives before choosing to abort.
Eowyn wrote:
Just think: There are many people (including me) who are against capital punishment even for murderers, but we still nevertheless “know” that they did commit murder.
Thank you! That’s exactly right. :)
Here’s an idea, for every illegal abortion commited the mother who aboted the baby must dedicate 30 hours a week unpaid in an abortion clinic (until they’re all closed down) and 30 hours a week in a orphanage for one month. it may not be the ultimate answer but it will lend support to otherwise ailing welfare depraved entities and may just free up funds that governement pays out for these establishments.
Free will doesn’t mean nothing you choose to do is wrong. There are consequences.
And it’s not just between the person and God. That is why we have laws in our society.
As I said, people turn summersalts just to justify the prochoice position.
Hi,I am one of those anti-abortion people.I was not given a chance to answer your question,so thanks for the chance now.If abortion was illegal,then it stands to reason there would be some punishment,such as time in jail.I personally am sorry to say of all the women,and girls,that I’ve come across in need of help following an abortion, they were already serving a sentence.That sentence is the knowledge that the”choice”once made can never be reversed.Many are damaged for the rest of their lives.All the while being told,they have only,made a “choice”concerning their body.
I have a dare for you, if you really think that there is not life in the womb,that feels,and has a right to life.Then please go find a tape called “The Silent Scream”,watch it.If you can stand to sit through it,still thinking the same way,I fear you are beyond help.I really hope your not.
Cheryl
Haha the video is classic
Also recommending:
http://sophiesdilemma.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/sophies-dilemmadont-make-them-choose/
Perhaps the person performing the abortion – the one actually taking the life, and for profit, no less – ought to be the one to face charges. I would include those women who abort themselves.
The criminal behavior has always been that of the abortionist who was performing the illegal abortion. Your argument is wrong in it’s premise. The procedure was banned from the list of acceptable medical procedures.
yes they should go to jail. you murder a baby, go to jail. quite simple.
@herald7: Glad to hear you’re also a skeptic sometimes. I have indeed gone to the other extreme. Maybe I’ll balance out, who knows. But I long and strive for truth, and being a skeptic is the only way I know how to find it. Thus I promote it. If I can find something better, I’ll repent promote that!
Many women regret their abortions later. That is what they feel in their conscience. And then some (not all) pro choicers come along and say say it’s just pro life propaganda. Their feelings are just trivialized because it doesn’t go along with the pro choice agenda.
As an opponent of abortion, the answer is quite simple. I’m disappointed these people couldn’t answer the tough, yet simple question.
If abortion is murder than yes, it should be illegal. Women committing abortion should be punished as murders. Simple logic, I follow it and wholeheartedly believe it is the correct answer. I am disappointed in those demonstrators.
I think that most anti-abortionists like this are volunteers who have their hearts into what they’re doing but don’t take the time to put their heads into their actions.
I’m anti-abortion and I believe that this should be treated as seriously as murder. Both the person performing the abortion and the woman having the abortion should be indicted in each case. This is why we have a governing body.
First up, to avoid confusion, I’m an atheist and Ornithologist. I also have a profound respect for life – who wouldn’t when you know that each organism is getting its one and only shot? This respect for life is one of the cornerstones of my life and morality.
As soon as fertilization takes place, life begins. Is a single-celled amoeba alive? Yes, it’s very simple, but it’s alive.
I only believe that abortion should take place under extreme circumstances such as protecting the life of the mother, probably if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest and only on demand when it can be demonstrated that the woman used appropriate birth control and it failed (as it does sometimes) or if it can be demonstrated that the child would have severe disability or a disability which the parent was unable to deal with either emotionally or in terms of providing adequate care.
I believe that birth control should be universally available and abortion should not be available outside of the above circumstances and that women who go ahead and have abortions should probably do serious time according to the circumstances sorted out in a court of law.
@Daniel Florien:
@herald7: Glad to hear you’re also a skeptic sometimes. I have indeed gone to the other extreme. Maybe I’ll balance out, who knows. But I long and strive for truth, and being a skeptic is the only way I know how to find it. Thus I promote it. If I can find something better, I’ll repent promote that!
Thanks for the reply! Again I don’t mean to pass judgements. Life is journey and we go from one thing to another a lot. As long as we don’t stop learning or searching, that’s what matters. :)
I’d like to think I hold both pro choicers and pro lifers accountable when they are wrong. It’s not good to belong too much to one group. If you decide you’re just “pro choice” or “pro life” it means you’ve stop thinking.
What matters ultimately to me is the welfare of both the mother and baby. :)
Well, I am a Christian and am going to take a crack at this one…
As a citizen, God has not placed me in the position of a governing authority or judge, therefore I cannot pronounce punishment on those who break any law in our country. I do not have a legal or spiritual right to do so. Now, if you asked me “what should be the punishment for someone who takes money illegally from others in a ponzi scheme”? my answer would be: they are subject to the laws of the land and should be punished according to legal statutes as determined in a court of law and by judge and jury. Therefore, the answer to your question is, “If abortion was illegal in this country, then the persons who break this law should be punished according to the statutes determined by our governing authorities – same as any other case”.
It is not up to Christians to determine the punishment of lawbreakers (unless they happen to be a judge, lawmaker, or on a jury). Christians are clearly told that we are not to judge. Why? because, unlike God, we are not holy. We do not know all things. Only God knows the circumstances under which a woman would choose to have an abortion. Only God knows that woman’s heart. Neither I, nor any other Christian can know those things fully, so we cannot be in a position to pronounce judgement. Any Christian who does is subject to God’s judement himself. I think you’re asking whether if, as a Christian, I think severe punishment is due those who perform or have abortions. Biblically speaking, I do not have the right to decide punishment for any lawbreaker (unless I’m on a jury). If it were illegal, I think that our legal system would make provision for cases of rape and incest, and I think there would also be gradations of punishment, as there are in murder/manslaughter cases. I don’t think there would be one blanket ruling that would be handed down (i.e. if you have an abortion, you automatically get the death penalty, and I don’t think our courts would ever make the death penalty a consequence for abortion.) If I were on the jury in an illegal abortion case, how I could judge would be pre-determined for me; I could not come up with a random punishment that was not on the books. So, it is really a moot point to discuss what I think the punishment for having/performing an illegal abortion should be. According to Scripture, only God (and those He has placed in positions of authority) have the right to decide these things.
As an evangelical Christian, capable of giving logical, well thought out responses, let me answer this way:
If abortion were illegal, then 1) the number of women receiving them would go down drastically. The vast majority of doctors simply would not take the risk of performing an illegal medical practice. If you could find such a doctor, the cost would be high, and obviously NOT covered by any medical or insurance plan.
2) It is the abortion doctor that should be punished severely for performing illegal abortions, not the women that receive them. An illegal abortion would be performed without the regulation of authorized medical procedures, and put the mother at great risk. These risks to life and health would discourage women seeking abortion more than legal action. A doctor that would endanger a mother’s life (as well as murder an infant) while breaking the law to do so deserves a stiff prison sentence, fine, etc.
Abortion is killing, whether it’s legal to do or not. My wife is 11 weeks pregnant. I’ve seen the ultrasound; our baby is a person.
I can’t agree that we as Christians have no responsibility to promote and enforce justice in society. That’s why God put us here. We’re not always right and we should be careful before passing judgements. But doing nothing is just as bad.
They deserve jail time.
Do something illegal, and that’s what you get. And seeing as how you’ve taken a human life, which, yes, is illegal, jail time is only logical. But no death penalty. I don’t believe in that, no matter what the crime.
I recognize that people won’t think this as well, but you shouldn’t be having sex unless you’re married. The child should be put into a family that wants it, which there are more and more every day, especially same sex couples. Unfortunately, people are making it difficult for same sex couples, which makes not a bit of sense because love is love, no matter what’s between your legs. Which also brings me to gay marriage. By definition, marriage is not about a man and a woman, it is in fact the union of two people. There should be none of this voting for gay marriage, it should simply be legal. It’s a basic human right, and besides, why should our government be able to decide against the dictionary of all things, and allow religion into this?
Really, America’s screwed.
Umm, pro life means respect for ALL life. That means no discrimination or prejudice based on race here.
To those of you responding to my comment on the taliban. I stand by it. The abortion-is-murder-throw-em-in-jail crowd will also be internally consistent when they condemn people to long prison terms for using such things as morning after pills since using such is aborting fertilized embryos. By the way, why aren’t you pushing jail time for that???
To the broad picture, there is no precise answer to when a proto-human becomes a full human being. Attempts to force complex issues into black and white moralities is talibanish.
Billy Graham’s Prayer For Our Nation
THIS MAN SURE HAS A GOOD VIEW OF WHAT’S HAPPENING TO OUR COUNTRY!
‘Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, ‘Woe to those who call evil good,’ but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable. We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor’s possessions and called it ambition. We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment. Search us, Oh God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and Set us free. Amen!’
Maybe someone will hear the cry of wisdom’s voice in all of this before its too late…maybe not.
Question-I-thority:
Why aren’t you pushing for the right of an innocent life to exist (whether you think it’s human or not)?
There is a precise answer to the beginnings of life. Just as the Earth revolves around the Sun. The Church once protested that. Now pro choicers are protesting science when they fight for abortion.
Great question!
If you do not want to pay the time do not commit the crime.
If it was illegal it would be the same as murder. Murder is the crime of killing another person with premeditation. They would be punished justly.
There are consequences to every action and just because it is an unpunished crime in the eyes of man it is still a criminal in the eyes of God.
Forgivness is offered to those who repent of sin, but the consequences of their actions may remain. Innocent blood has been shed and it cries out to God for vengeance. If humans do not exercise justice, God eventually will.
Ex-christians make the fundamental mistake of putting Deity and that Deity’s laws on trial which betrays their unmitigated enhancement of their own conscience which will never escape the teaching they have received. They can of corse cauterize that intuition. They will always be fighting against the God they have rejected despite their assertion of atheism or agnosticism.
Desiring to be your own god is always the issue and changing the rules is childish at any age.
It makes sense. If abortion is illegal, like I think it should be, of course people should be put in jail. What do you think should be done to murderers? It’s not extreme at all. You break a law, there are consequences. But more importantly, how can you even begin to argue that it’s a baby once it is delivered and has rights, but is not a baby in the womb. It’s so absurd to consider the baby in the womb as not deserving of life. Why are so many women filled with guilt over having an abortion? It’s obvious that it is murder. Otherwise why are you so defensive of people saying it’s murder? Call it like it is, abortion is murder. I feel so bad over the lies that have been fed to women that abortion is acceptable. No one ever tells them of the terrible guilt that women have for the rest of their lives over it. Anyone that says that they do not feel guilty over an abortion is obviously not speaking the truth. There’s no way someone could kill someone and not feel some type of remorse unless they were some dehumanized psycho serial killer.
It is an scientific fact that the embryo is a distinct member of the human species. If you read an embryology text book you will see that.
I am tired of the anti-science, anti-intellectual left pushing it’s thoughtless, irrational ideology of mushing definitions and Orwellian rewriting of science and language. The synonym for “human” is “person”. You are allowed to have your own opinions –NOT your own facts.
At the end of the day there is no difference between a Pro-Choicer and an SS Guard.
@thesouldoctor,
Very true indeed. Great words.
Well played. Biologically, there should be no reason to outlaw abortion, in my view, since the potential life inside could in no way survive apart from its mother during the time frame in which abortion is legal. You’re not killing a baby, you’re removing cells that could potentially form a baby if left to grow.
(I’m also a former Christian; it’s nice to be liberated, eh?)
“Well, I am a Christian and am going to take a crack at this one…
As a citizen, God has not placed me in the position of a governing authority or judge, therefore I cannot pronounce punishment on those who break any law in our country.”
Cop out. Too chickenshit to give an opinion.
“If abortion was illegal in this country, then the persons who break this law should be punished according to the statutes determined by our governing authorities – same as any other case”
You Fail at American Govt.
Where do you think the laws in the country come from?
The answer to your question is really simple. Althought abortion IS murder it should be penalized as the murder of an adult or infant because:
1. There is still a slight probability that the fetus wouldn´t have been born even if the abortion didn´t took place.
2. Society has invested much less in a fetus than in an independently living human being.
Your logic is horrible!
Murder is an unjustified killing. Abortion is murder. The death penalty is not.
The punishment for murder should be the death penalty, which is not like murder (the unjustified killing of a baby). Murder is the unjust taking of life. The death penalty is the just taking of life.
One receives the death penalty because they earned it (usually). That is not the same as murder.
It is unjustifiable to kill a baby for no reason (murder).
It is justifiable to punish someone for murder (death penalty)
I have to ask this to a few people now. Good post!
i meant to say it SHOULDN´T be penalized as the murder of an adult or infant because:
1. There is still a slight probability that the fetus wouldn´t have been born even if the abortion didn´t took place.
2. Society has invested much less in a fetus than in an independently living human being.
Also, if you used to be a Christian then you never were.
I agree with Brian for the most part, but the term “justified killing” seems to me a somewhat questionable too.
The women pay the price by having to live with their decision. The abortionists should be prosecuted.
I think that a woman who have abortions should be arrested. Period.
Your conclusion is just “brilliant”. Keep walking.
Rafael Motta
At the very least the post was interesting. I love logic!
Perhaps we should all sit back and now and thank our lucky stars none of us were aborted and are free to post our comments on a Blog online. We were lucky. No need to think of others that weren’t apparently…
This is pretty compelling. (Name calling isn’t.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c
Why do you think we would not demand both woman and doctor be tried for murder? It is as much a conspiracy to commit murder as if she paid someone to kill her husband/boyfriend. We prosecute those murderers all the time.
And just so you know. If the woman attempts it alone without medical assistance, she will be tried alone for murder or attempted murder depending on her success.
This isn’t that difficult…and when it is again criminalized it won’t be a problem.
A better question would be to ask pro choicers why is it against the law to buy and sell someone’s life but legal to buy their death. If you favor abortion you should favor both prostitution and the willful selling of oneself into legal bondage. It is, after all, their bodies to sell is it not? And if they can sell themselves why not their fully developed babies. Pro choice is pro slavery. Always has been. So who is behind the times?
Who says I am against willful prostitution? I’m not. I want it regulated, not outlawed. It’s those who call “immorality!” that want to outlaw it. I’ve no qualms against women who enter prostitution out of their own free will – I even know a few who did.
What I do have qualms against is a system where women are forced to procreate and then prostitute themselves to pay for the lives they were forced to carry.
Then again, you don’t care about lives once they exit the wombt. You’d rather protect a precious lump of non-sentient flesh rather than a living, breathing, thinking human being.
Yeah, what should be done with women who have abortions? It’s called a murder trial. How is that hard?
Here’s a question to the Pro-Abortion crowd:
1. Should a convicted murderer of a pregnant woman be charged with only one count of murder or multiple counts (based on how many children the woman was carrying at the time)?
And why not throw one to the Pro-Environmentalist crowd too:
2. If a pregnant woman is the only person occupying a vehicle, should she be allowed to drive in the “high occupancy” lane (the lane that requires at least 2 passengers in order to encourage carpooling)?
I don’t have any trouble answering the question. I believe murder is wrong and should be punished. I believe abortion is taking an innocent life (i.e. murder) and should be punished.
I entirely agree with Sidney here. The penalty for murder is life or the death penalty. Why should it be any different when its a baby?
Contrary to what many of us would like to believe, the world has never been a safe place for children (born or unborn). A people should be judged on how we treat our most innocent and helpless (born and unborn). I hate to think what the means in our case…
It depends, would having an abortion be illegal or would performing abortions be illegal?
I’m sorry, but this was poor logic. And by the way, it always amazes me that people who are against the death penalty are often pro-choice.
Have you ever seen an abortion? Say, a late-term abortion? The baby’s fully-formed body, all but the head, are pulled out. The little girl or boy’s legs are kicking, their tiny hands grasping, and then someone jabs a hole into the back fo their skull and sucks out the brains with a vacuum.
I don’t think many women are fully educated as to what they are doing when they have an abortion. The women don’t know the biology involved, and possibly don’t know that the even at the youngest age an abortion can be performed at, the baby has all of the major organs, a beating heart, and brain activity. No, the mothers often don’t know this, but the doctors sure as crap do. I’m all for locking up doctors who perform abortions.
Late term abortion are done with 2 different methods. You described the one that is less dangerous to the woman. The other one is where the fetus is hacked up inside the woman’s uterus, with possible damage to the woman occurring and the loss of future pregnancies. The one you described is the one most anti-abortionists use in their arguments and want outlawed. However most late term terminations have more to do with fetal abnormalities than “convenience”.
Kid, women don’t just decide “oh, I don’t want it anymore” when they’ve come thus far. They do it for a reason – probably because the fetus is so grossly malformed it won’t survive at all.
What you’re proposing with your melodramatic description (which doesn’t impress me at all) is that both woman and child deserve to die or live horrific lives forever because you want them to. No other reason.
Have you ever given your keyboard and mouth and protests a rest, gotten off your ass, done something compassionate and useful, and helped provide the sex education, the contraceptives, birth control and vasectomies (and did I say the education?) that would prevent the need for abortions?
Didn’t think so.
Ulterior motives, huh?
You seem to be unquestionably for punishing people, and you are unquestionably punitive. You don’t really care about “saving babies” or you would be doing the above things to prevent the need for the abortions you claim you don’t want. You don’t really want to help prevent abortions; you wouldn’t have anyone to punish for being sexual without squeezing out a baby. This is your ulterior motive.
It always amazes me that you can be so punitive toward people, and refuse to help them exercise their choices as adults by helping prevention; it takes hatred of women to be that way. And that you can then fool others and maybe yourself, and pretend to be pro-life.
Your post certainly is.
The video displays an extremely selective and non-representative sample. I’m sure you have seen the video of Obama supporters not being able to answer basic questions about the U.S. Does that mean everyone who voted for Obama is as dense as the sample represented on that video? Of course not. Same with this video of pro-lifers.
I also don’t think you have thought this through.
As others have pointed out, it is the doctor who is committing the murder in the eyes of most pro-life advocates/activists, not the woman.
And, as you probably know, it is these doctors who have been targeted and murdered by pro-life extremists, not the women getting the abortions.
Lastly, the tone of your blog reminds me of many coverts. Converts are often more zealous than those of us who have grown up in the faith. In this case, the faith being secularism, rationalism and skepticism.
All the best in your quest.
First of all, let me start by saying that i agree that most of these people are ridiculous and have not thought this through.
Also, I am very pro-choice.
That said, illegal medical procedures, in my understanding usually result in prosecution of the doctor. Hence it is illegal to perform and illegal procedure not to receive one.
So, I completely disagree with all of these people. But even more so, i find it hilarious that there is an answer to your question, they just aren’t informed enough to know what it is.
I am a Catholic. The fetus is a life. Thus abortion is murder.
The laws that govern murder in this country are dictated by civil authorities. Thus any illegal act and it’s punishment is determined by those authorities.
They will also be judged by God at the end of their life.
Totalmente de acuerdo con el post. Absolutely in agreement with the post. “They see only OVNIs and don´t realize they are humans.”
Saludos desde España.
Alison, I don’t believe in the death penalty, even for murderers. That is hardly hilarious…
Para todos aquellos catolicos que piensan que las mujeres que abortan serán juzgadas al morir, simplemente decirles que entonces el infierno debe estar lleno, incluso de católicos.
You’re a little too full of yourself- it’s not a difficult question. Yes- abortion is murder. If abortions are illegal, then anyone involved in the murder, including the mother, should be held accountable.
Good luck on your journey- I pray that you find your way home to the Lord.
Daniel,
As a pastor, I can tell you quite clearly that the law has already spoken on this. Forgive me if I didn’t read through the comments but early on, someone mentioned when a pregnant woman is killed, it is prosecuted as a double homicide. That’s secular law at work..not anything to do with Christianity.
I would turn the question you ask back at you had you approached me and asked if you wished to contradict the secular law of our country. If the law already says killing an unborn child is worthy of prosecution as a murder, would you be willing to extend grace to the person who committed the crime or should they be punished to the full extent of the law? If grace, then where does the type of grace that forgives the taking of a life come from? I think you know the answer.
Before I was a pastor, I was a news reporter for 15 years and won several awards. I know a ‘framed’ question when I read one. You’ve proven nothing.
This is a complex issue – a human child, even unborn, should have basic human rights; it is an unavoidable reality that those rights may impact the mother. A pregnant woman is human and has human rights; it is unavoidable that those human rights may impact the child she carries. There isn’t a simple solution here.
Let me give another example – my grandmother (human – therefore with human rights like basic care) had Alzheimer’s and could not care for herself. She would get confused, go outside and try to find her childhood home. The care of my grandmother had a big impact on my mother (also human – also having human rights). My mother’s health suffered as a result of her 24 hour a day responsibilities and my mother experienced a nearly complete loss of personal freedom for a period of time. In a nutshell, the basic care required by my grandmother significantly impacted my mother’s quality of life and health. However, my mother did not have a legal or moral right to terminate my grandmother’s life.
A uninsured homosexual dying of Aids is human is entitled basic human rights like care – they’re human, they have inherent value. This care may have an impact on community or hospital resources. Before we understood how the disease was passed, the care of these people may have presented a risk (impact) to the healthcare workers or other caregivers. Killing the person with Aids isn’t a legal or moral response to the very real impact. Once again, one persons human rights can have an effect on another human being without there being a simple solution.
Understanding the strain that the 24 hour chare of a profoundly retarded child creates does not, therefore, make abusing a retarded child acceptable or legal. Understanding the stress and financial strain a man experiences while trying to provide for a family does not make abusing a wife or child acceptable or legal.
What to do with a person who performs an abortion or what to do with a person who has an abortion, should abortion become illegal is a completely separate issue. It seems pretty obvious that things have gotten to a bad place when the death of another is the only solution to the struggle in front of you. The idea that one individual can choose the death of another without experiencing any type of accountability for the decision is ludicrous. Nations are accountable for their decisions to go to war, a police officer cannot take the life of person in the line of duty without facing a review, transplant committees weigh very heavily the decision to give one person – rather than another – a lifesaving organ transplant. Does the author of this blog really feel that it is logical to allow a woman (or pregnant man – I don’t mean to discriminate) to terminate the life of an unborn child without any accountability of any kind?
Accountability does not negate the responsibility of an orderly and compassionate society to put support networks in place to help those who are experiencing personal hardship as a result of respecting the right of another to exist. Compassion and accountability are not incompatible.
I have to go now. Daniel Florien, I will say again: BALANCE is the key. Being a total skeptic is no different from being a unquestioning religious zealot. In either case you have stopped thinking. But good luck, honestly. :)
People say “abortion is murder” to get you riled up and understand how serious they think it is. What they really mean is: “abortion is an abominable act, as detestable as murder, but of course with a completely different set of circumstances, and the punishment ought to be determined accordingly.” But try to fit that on a bumper sticker.
And naturally, the sign-waving idiots haven’t thought it through. Though that last lady got close to another good point before she cheesed out: Doling out punishment is not the sole purpose of a law. Laws affect funding, credentialing, academic research, and set precedents for other laws, regardless of who is actually punished for that law, and how.
So while this video does demonstrate that the anti-abortion movement is confused and illogical, it does nothing to stop them from fighting, however illogically, for what they believe. Religion = logic kryptonite.
Fun to watch anyway ;)
One more thing for now, lol. The pastor makes a good point. When a pregnant women is killed, it’s considered a double murder. Why is the law contradicting itself if it’s so sure it’s right? As I said, it takes a lot of effort to justify abortion.
Something to consider – Most women who get abortions do so because they are misled into believing that it is the best choice for thier lives.
Abortionists perform abortions to make money.
You can’t judge the two in the same manner.
To herald7 – speaking as one who was almost aborted – I thank my God every day for the wonderful life I live.
herald7
I didn’t say anything about the death penalty, or that it’s hilarious. My laughter is at people who fight for something without knowing the whole story.
I found this quite interesting. I don’t anyone really considers the options or the consequences of such a serious choice. Alot of people fall on god and their faith to base their moral decisions on. They can’t for one second blame their human reactions or logical thinking.
I’m not against abortions but I’m not fully with it either. I like to take consideration as to the reasons why someone would want to abort their baby.
Take rape for instance, would it be fair to force a woman to give birth to a child conceived after something so sick? What would the childs life be like after that? Wouldn’t the parent be of right mind to look after the child? Would it feel wanted or rejected?
What if carrying the child the full term meant the death of the mother and the child? If the mother chose to carry on and choosie death, isn’t this murder as well as suicide. Both sins in the eyes of god and his believers. Making the mother go full term even if it meant she’d die is almost as bad as not allowing a child to have a blood transfusion which could save their life.
If the reason was due to pre-marital sex and shunning from the family as per their disapproval; I do not believe this to be a good enough reason to abort a child. Nor be under-aged sex. Nor lacking in finances. All these are temporary and unimportant compared to the life growing in a woman’s womb.
I don’t think abortion should be made illegal, but I do think that there should be some rules as to how you qualify to have an abortion and something to be taught alongside sex education so that if there are any precautions aren’t made that the person made aware of all the options and what they entail.
There are other points I would consider abortion, or euthanasia, as a better option to life… such as short, painful or all sense of life can no longer be experienced. But, at the end of the day… it is the mother’s decision and not ours to dictate. If we do not fully understand or have knowledge of what leads a woman to chose such a thing then we should keep our noses out of their business.
(Oh, well except for all those people who commented that abortion DOES deserve the same penalty as murder. They really DO mean “abortion is murder”, and are of course immune to this whole debate before it begins.)
lucidmystery
Many people who are pro-choice are not pro late pregnancy abortion, this is a different issue.
It’s hard to answer the question, “what should the punishment be?” But it’s not too hard to see that a fetus is actually a person. You’ve created a false dichotomy. Murder is always wrong. How you conclude it’s not murder logically only allows the following:
- Babies in the womb aren’t humans because killing a human is wrong
- Killing humans is not wrong
With current legislation in the US regarding abortion (e.g. Roe, et. al), a baby is only valuable if the parents want him/her. He/she has no value as a human being if the parents don’t want him/her. Think that through a little bit. It’s insane.
Outside of religious belief, what is the logical argument for claiming that a fetus is its own being, deserving of its own rights? Isn’t is still biologically part of the mother, like a very complicated foot? Is there any rationale behind this OTHER than the so-called Word of God?
Of course not everybody who objects to abortion does so on religious grounds. This rather obvious fact doesn’t seem to register. Shame that!
Then how come the only argument I ever hear (or have read here) is just “it’s obvious” or “think about it”. What is the argument??
Right to Life and anti-abortion are different. Abortion in the first, second and third trimester are different. Partial-birth abortion is different than an abortion pill. Fanatics and conservatives are different.
This issue is unbelievably complicated and involves so many aspects of culture, law and religion. As evidenced by the number of comments here, this question doesn’t stump very many people at all.
Got some news for all the religious folks – there’s a new sheriff in town and abortion ain’t going away any time soon. Reason triumphed over ignorance and superstition on November 4 (thank “god”).
Living, breathing women and girls with emotions, hopes, ambitions, fears, and memories are incomparably more important than parasitic globs of cells living in their bodies that have NONE of these things.
And so what if abortion is a “gross” medical procedure? All medical procedures are gross, if you ask me. Watching a heart operation makes me not want to have a heart operation. Watching a tooth extraction makes me not want to have a tooth extracted. Watching an abortion makes me not want to have an abortion, but it doesn’t make me want to make it illegal.
God loves abortion – if he didn’t, he’d zap all the abortion clinics with lightning bolts (or something like that). If he could part the Red Sea, he could do that, couldn’t he, Christians? You guys don’t really think things through, do you?
Congratulations. 47,000. Nice traffic. I’ll contribute more to you in the coming days and months. Thanks for your response. And the response of some of your viewers on my blog as well. Can only image tomorrow’s topic/question. See you then.
As an aside, the medieval Catholic Church, which makes even the most strict fundamentalist Christian of this era look like the bastion of liberalness (is that a word? Whatever) didn’t have a problem with first-trimester abortions. It was only after the “quickening” (being able to feel the fetus move, usually around the fourth month) that they raised hell.
88% of abortions are performed within the first trimester.
Of those, 90% are performed in the first eight weeks.
To the antis–look into the eyes of a woman you love. Wife, mother, daughter. Tell them that their lives are worth less than an embyro. Tell them they should die so that their fetus can see life. Can’t do it, can you?
As an aside, the medieval Catholic Church, which makes even the most strict fundamentalist Christian of this era look like the bastion of liberalness (is that a word? Whatever) didn’t have a problem with first-trimester abortions. It was only after the “quickening” (being able to feel the fetus move, usually around the fourth month) that they raised hell.
88% of abortions are performed within the first trimester.
Of those, 90% are performed in the first eight weeks.
To the antis–look into the eyes of a woman you love. Wife, mother, daughter. Tell them that their lives are worth less than an embyro. Tell them they should die so that their fetus can see life. Can’t do it, can you?
Taking life without intending to is also punishable.
Maybe these anti-abortionists would like to charge women who have miscarriages with negligent homicide, too?
One inportant thing that most people forget in this argument was we faught to separate church and state so in no way should the laws be effected by anyones religion.
Austin Dacey’s “The Secular Conscience” (http://www.amazon.com/Secular-Conscience-Belief-Belongs-Public/dp/1591026040) has a very interesting question to put to those who claim the death of an embryo is equivalent to the death of a person after birth. It goes along these lines:
You are walking past an IVF clinic, and notice that it is on fire. You run inside, and see a fridge containing 40 embryos, and also a trapped 4-year old girl. You only have time to get either the girl or the fridge out of the building. Who do you save?
Let me clue you guys, you can’t solve this problem. Not through argument. You can’t explain this problem with a thousand intelligent questions. And not with a zinger from a Jr. High debate team.
Just logically, how is a fetus not a life? It can die in the womb meaning it a has a life to lose.
I’m not against abortion. I just think you sound so stupid saying that it’s not taking a life. Yes, it is taking a life. Should a women be able to kill her unborn baby? That has to be on her conscience.
You have to say that it is ending a life but that in the case of a life before leaving the womb, it’s o.k. A logical person can respect you for that.
That is the legal reality right now. It is a life and it is o.k. to take life at this very early stage.
OMG, this is so true. I am totally for abortion to be legal. That’s between the woman and her god. I need to start asking some people who say that abortion should be illegal. That’s making individual rights seem like they don’t exist. I mean it is their baby.
Your question is silly. A serious issue like this and you look for childish little catch-22 like gamesmanship to defend abortion? Please!
I am against abortion and think it should be illegal. However, my focus is on LIFE that is about to be snuffed out – not the woman – who’s life will go on. We all know there would be exceptions…rape, severe handicaps etc. And I know that drawing that line in the sand is tough. But my point is…PUT THE BABY UP FOR ADOPTION FOR LOVING PARENTS LIKE ME WHO CAN GIVE THEM A GOOD HOME.
As for the woman, her punishment is in knowing her child is somewhere in the world being raised and happy- or worse – just not knowing. Her punishment is in delivery of a baby that will not be hers and in the pain and punishment on her body – the former often being more permanently scarring than the later. That’s punishment enough I think. It’s awful punishment actually, I acknowledge that. Maybe too, the two who conceived the child need to pay a sum equal to what they would have paid for an abortion.
Look, the point the “right to free choice” folks seem to miss is that they had a choice…they made it. They chose intercourse and got pregnant. Now there is a real living fetus that would like to have a choice too. It does not get one because the “mother” feels it is HER choice – again! Sounds very selfish and not very Christian. Of course, if they are not Christian, they are really are not on the same page with me anyway. And that really is the RUB on this issue when you get down to it. You either choose yourself as the first voice you listen to or you choose God’s voice. God has spoken loud and clear on this issue.
They should go to jail. Here’s a stumper for abortionists: When does human life begin? Not sure? Then shouldn’t you give life the benefit of the doubt?
This post almost smacks of the same self-righteousness that some pro-lifers have. Most churches help women who have had abortions in the past, especially when guilt makes them feel depressed or suicidal.
I know of many pastors who have compassionately helped people deal with later-life loss and grief, enabling them come to terms with what the women have previously experienced.
No stump here. What should you do to someone who drives drunk and kills someone? Punish them. You don’t have to extract an eye for an eye. But a price should be paid.
Why are you naive enough to think we would think there shouldn’t be punishment for killing a baby? Or that somehow we’d be baffled by the issue?
Ask yourself this – why IS there abortion? With all the modern contraceptives available isn’t it just as irresponsible to cause an unwanted pregnancy as it is to drive drunk? Or is it an out of sight out of mind thing? You don’t have to look that child (that’s what it is, a human being – day one, from the getgo… no magic day when something goes poof and personage comes) before you snuff out its life.
What glory is there is destroying something as precious as a baby?
Your post is premissed on perhaps the stupidest, most ignorant and assinine pretext I’ve seen in a good long while. Stump indeed. Your are a fool.
Rob, you don’t know your biology. If you want to make a fetus akin to something it’s more akin to a parisite than a complicated foot. The egg is freed, fertilized, then attaches itself and feeds off of its host- the mother. From the moment its DNA mixes and its cells start to divide it is a separate, unique being. It’s not a bodypart. Separate even to the point that if the mother dies it will survive until its enviroment become untenable to support its own life. Likewise, if it dies before birth it will be absorbed by the host or expelled.
What’s that famous saying….”Keep your rosaries off of my ovaries?”
That seems to sum it up pretty well.
Interesting stump. What is logic anyway?
When a man kills a pregnant woman the courts do not charge him with a single murder. He is charged with a double homicide for the murder of the woman and her unborn child. So, if abortion were to be made illegal(which it should be) then I believe the woman should be held to the fullest extent of the law.
A silly question: Is it animal cruelty when you eat an egg for breakfast?
If abortions should be illegal then outlawing abortions would be ideal right? If it is murder then i’m sure that plenty of people would be happy to have abortions completely unavailable. But then how would they feel about reading a story in the paper about a woman who was raped not having the CHOICE to terminate the fetus? What if that was you? Having to look at yourself in the mirror everyday knowing that one day you will be the mother of something that was never meant to be…forced upon you.
But then again, they are advertising the Plan B pill more now so hey i guess that’s not murder.
see you should have went further. the question then becomes
If abortion is murder, do three people get the death penalty or life in prison for every abortion? (the woman, the man who got her pregnant, and the doctor who performed the procedure).
Why should a man be able to walk away when a woman gets the abortion. Then you’re going to have ALLLLLLLLLLLL sorts of cases between men and women basically accusing each other of being the main reason why the murder (abortion) was committed.
and last thing too. What happens when it becomes illegal and people don’t stop having sex. What would happen to adoption centers, the homeless rate in this country, the crime rate in this country. Populations grow exponentially, since it is usually lower class people that have abortions you can assume that if the kids were delivered that they would be in poor circumstances.
That than leads us to the conclusion that we would be MUTHA FRIGGING INDIA in about 25 years.
Oh wait, I think I can quote George Carlin too: “Pro-life is anti woman. That is just it. They don’t like them. If you’re preborn, you’re ok. If you’re pre-K then you’re fucked.”
Yeah, when all these pro-life people start handing out condoms and birth control and taking care of all the unwanted babies in the world
then let’s see them talk about abortion being murder.
If abortion were illegal, the doctor doing it should be prosecuted.
To that last comment by sheena, it is not a fetus, something that isnt real or alive or some inanimate object, it is alive, a living person. Its breathing when its inside the mother and when its aborted it isnt breathing. A murderers victim is breathing until the murderer kills him/her then it isnt. There is no difference.
@topfloorplz. I was with you until you started the “choose God’s voice” stuff.
If you want to follow god’s word on this: Thou shalt not kill. Then you’d better be ready to deliver god’s word on the punishment: death by stoning. (I’m a non-believer)
Otherwise your points are good, your logic sound and your statements mild and reasonable. I agree, especially on the matter of when the choice was made and the matter of adoption as an alternative.
yes the doctor should be prosecuted as well. To who ever said the man should be responsible is dumb. he didnt have the abortion it wasnt his choice, its the mothers choice
Well, that’s not quite right. That was part of the civil law for that time,it isn’t binding on Christians today, just as the ceremonial/sacrificial law from the old Testament isn’t binding on Christians because Jesus’ final sacrifice fulfilled it.
But does the child who would be born if left alone to develop deserve the death penalty because his or her father was a criminal?
…well, we’ve had 7.5 million of them here in our country since the beginning of the Iraq war. we don’t need to punish the women at all—they have already been “punished with a baby” some would argue (not me). I say we punish the doctors collecting piles of money and doing the deed, prison might be good with all of the other murderers. To murder a child is the worst kind after all. I know several folks who take care of these babies the guy before me writes about—how about him? If all you can do is point fingers at us “pro-lifers”, you are doing no better than the nut jobs on this side who do the same.
Zack are you kidding me? A guy can have sex with a girl, and then leave her to raise the kid all by herself without any help at all, and it’s not the guys fault? How many guys actually tell the girls that they WANT HER TO GET AN ABORTION. How often does that happen?
Cmon be realistic. No one likes abortion. No one likes the act in itself but there is something called being reasonable. If you believe in terrorism I’m sure you do not believe in bombing and war and killing. At best the religious right movement can justify the war by saying that war is the way to avoid bigger problems.
Well if you make abortion illegal, and you carry with it the same weight as murder, or even 10 years in prison you’re going to have serious social issues of who is responsible, either of the three parties involved.
You also have to take into account the very obvious problem of overpopulation as it has been documented that lower income people have more children than upper income people. This is true not just in America, but socio-economically speaking, throughout the entire world.
I hate the idea of abortion and I hate that it gives men and women the horrible idea that they can start having sex at the age of 13 or 14 with absolutely no worries. But realistically speaking, I don’t want us to turn into China or India within the next 50 years. The world is already overpopulated as it is.
There is NO WAY in the world that abortion can be made illegal, the woman can receive some sort of punishment, and the man will not be forced to receive the same punishment. If the law allows that when it’s forumlated, it won’t for very long.
The situation will become one where the male will have to prove that he never wanted the abortion in the first place and in many instances, will be forced to take the child under his own custody and hope for some sort of child support payments by the woman, JUST THE REVERSE OF WHAT’S HAPPENING NOW.
Simple. If abortion is deemed illegal, that requires the action of a legislative body comprised of the peoples’ representatives. Remember: democratic republic? Legislative bodies pass laws with attendant consequences for breaking the law. Offenders are arrested or cited and given a fair trial and sentenced according to the rules promulgated by the legislature as adjuciated by the courts. Last time I checked it’s called due process and the rule of law.
Now let me ask you a question: what will you say to God on judgment day when he asks you why you stood by and did nothing while 50 million babies were murdered?
either way. making abortion a crime will cause some people to stop having sex or have less sex. It will cause other people to have sex and just give up the babies for adoption, commit illegal abortions, or raise the children in low income settings which will only increase crime throughout our society.
This is a fact, it’s a grim fact, but it’s a fact. The only way to solve these problems is to deal with your children and be a good parent. Period. I’m 24 and I am celibate. By choice. I have had 2 gorgeous girlfriends in the last year alone and I’m still celibate. That is because my parents raised me with a certain moral fiber. If you want your children not to have an abortion or you want abortions to stop, unprotected sex has to drastically diminish, for unprotected sex to drastically diminish, most likely sex at all will have to diminish. That’s a result of parenting, not of making up laws to punish woman who have an abortion while we as a nation sit and watch bombs land in middle east provinces as if it’s some sort of action movie.
“Unreasonable” would be most of the arguments posited here. I’m going to speak from a strictly anti-abortion standpoint without referencing religion at all.
Let’s address the question of whether a fetus is a human life or not. Well, we’ve already established that the murder of a pregnant woman is often charged as a double homicide, so legally that question seems to have already been answered.
But let’s step back a minute. Let me ask some questions to pro-abortionists. Who here is claiming to KNOW, for certain, that a human fetus absolutely IS NOT a human life? Does anybody know, for sure, when it becomes a life? Logic dictates that the fetus obviously becomes a human at some point or another prior to actually being born. However, it seems like there is no consensus as to when that happens.
So, let me ask you (pro-abortion) people a question that will “stump” you. The FDA has said that peanut butter products have been contaminated with salmonella. Obviously, not every last product has been, but some have, and you don’t know how many. Do you (a) eat peanut butter products, or (b) exhibit caution, because you don’t want salmonella? Obviously, (b). When there is a serious risk to your health that can be avoided through caution, it makes sense to be cautious.
Why is the same logic not applied to HUMAN LIFE, which is inarguably valuable? Let’s look at the two possible cases.
Case 1. Fetuses currently being aborted are not human lives. Aborting them is morally or ethically neutral.
Case 2. Fetuses currently being aborted are human lives. Aborting them is morally equivalent to murder, which by definition is the taking of a human life, and morally wrong by any standard.
These are the only two possible cases. Fetuses cannot be human lives and NOT human lives simultaneously. They either are, or are not.
We DO NOT KNOW which case is correct. If case 1 is correct, then we are ethically ‘clear’. But if case 2 is correct, then we have taken the lives of countless humans.
Therefore, if we are interested in preserving human lives, it is logical to not take a leap of faith that Case 1 is correct, and rather to be cautious, lest Case 2 is correct.
Allen I want to ask you what you would say to God when he asks you why stood by and did nothing while 500 thousand people died in this country due to not having health insurance. Why almost 300,000 Iraqi’s died and you stood by and did nothing? Why was it Allen that you stood by an did nothing while there was a genocide in Darfur? Allen what would you say when God asks you why you stood by and did nothing while Palestine and Israel were bombing each other.
Self-Righteous douchebag
The flip side to this argument is that pro abortionists believe that since it’s the woman’s body, aka “property”, then no one has the right to tell her what to do with it. By that logic you then agree with honor killings. For those of you not familiar with honor killings, it’s the belief held by radical Muslim’s that a woman is the property of her father or husband. If the woman does something to dishonor her family, then they reserve the right to kill her. I would like to assume that many of us would find this practice to be ridiculous, however, how does this differ from the belief that an unborn baby is the property of the woman. I have used this argument many times with pro abortionists and they have never been able to respond. Both sides can argue many different things to prove their point.
We do not live in a society that lives by The Code of Hammurabi, eye for an eye. Rather, we live in a country where everyone has the right to a fair trial and sentenced by a jury. It’s the jury who will decide the punishment of the person. There are many people in this country who are found guilty of murder, some of them are put to death, and some receive life in prison while others only serve X number of years. The sentences handed down by a jury have never been black and white; therefore, it’s unreasonable to expect that a penalty for abortion has to be a certain outcome, should abortion ever become illegal.
Andrew congratulations, you have showed us all that a fetus maybe is a life, you don’t know yet, but you think we should be cautious, so that we protect our moral character.
So, now that we know that much Andrew, what should happen to a woman / a doctor/ and a man who work together to conceive a baby, and then have it aborted.
Andrew should we put a limit on how many babies someone can have to make sure that we don’t become drastically overpopulated? 50 million babies have been aborted in the US alone since Roe V Wade. If those 50 million babies all had an average of 2 babies (either by themselves or their children having babies) our population would be near 500 million right now, instead of the 350 million. Andrew, how exactly would we solve that problem as we have such high unemployment, and high levels of poverty???
Jo Colonna have you ever actually been on jury duty? The jury doesn’t make up the law. The Jury simply decides guilty or not guilty and the Judge assigns the punishment in accordance with the law. There is no PARTIAL PUNISHMENT in our justice system. There are variations of laws and punishments but there is no such thing as a partial punishment decided by the jury.
Secondly, let’s be clear. If you wish to try an abortion as illegal, it must be murder. You can’t wish wash your way through calling it something else now that you’ve come to the punishment stage.
So I’m glad to see that you would gladly imprison a woman, a doctor, and the child’s father for every single abortion (if you think the child’s father has nothing to do with it, you’re beyond uninformed when it comes to understanding how the law in this country works).
I don’t know how you can, with a straight face, make the claim that anti-abortionists (Defined most literally as people who don’t think abortion should be illegal) believe or don’t believe about what should happen to people who have illegal abortions.
I don’t think abortion should be legal because you’re killing a person. I disagree with how my position on the issue has been painted as ignorant, or uninformed about the actual specifics or trick definitions of what life and murder are. I am aware that I have never been in the position of a pregnant woman (Or, more realistically, the position of the man who got her pregnant) but that is because I care enough about the potential human life that might result from any sex I might be having.
I think abortion needs to be legally declared murder, and I think murderers should be punished. Capital punishment is an issue for another day, but killing someone is killing someone, be they a hundred and twenty years of age, or six weeks.
Here’s a person who says women should get 10 years in jail.
The questions you have asked are not relevant to finding the proper moral choice for whether we should or should not pursue abortion.
Your argument is that abortion is necessary to prevent overpopulation. Allow me to rephrase.
Premise: Abortion prevents overpopulation.
Premise: Overpopulation is undesirable.
Conclusion: Abortion should be legal.
Simple enough. But what if case 2 is true? Then your argument has just become:
Premise: Murder prevents overpopulation.
Premise: Overpopulation is undesirable.
Conclusion: Murder should be legal.
Or, rephrased again, “the ends justify the means.”
I could easily make a similar argument.
Premise: Most crime occurs in poor areas.
Premise: Crime is undesirable.
Conclusion: We should systematically kill everyone in a poor area to prevent most crime.
This is equally morally abhorrent. There are many, many things that society could do that would benefit it as a whole, at the expense of the rights of individuals. We could talk about that all day. But as soon as we do, we’re arguing that the ends justify the means – that doing awful things is OK, as long as there’s a net benefit at the end.
And whether you’re religious or not, there’s no arguing your way out of that.
miraqlis, Fair enough, you corrected me on the manner in which punishment is handed down, but you still failed to address my first point.
I didn’t intend to get involved in this but jayy honestly: “I mean it is their baby.” A child 2 months out of the womb is their baby, too.
Again, I’m not mad at abortionists. I know this sounds horrible but societies from the beginning of time have killed babies they didn’t want. It’s a sad fact.
This thread caught my interest because it was trying to use logic as some kind of “twist”. You can twist the facts but you can’t twist the process of logic. That’s why it’s the path to the truth.
A couple of cells start to grow and they continue to grow into a seven year old child unless their life is cut short by natural or unnatural means. Pro abortionists say a life doesn’t start until after birth. Well, the burden of proof in any logical debate would then be on them to prove that up. What is the proof that an early fetus is not a human life?
Ok, there is the term “a life”. We do know a fetus is alive. It is a alive because it can die.
The only logical abortion argument on legal grounds can be that a human fetus is not a legal, human life until a certain point. So you know when that is? A minute before it’s born? Five month before it’s born? You know that? Or do you have a motive to want to believe that?
A two month old is a bundle of cells on it’s way to being a taxpayer. Doesn’t resemble an adult at all. But will become one if it’s doesn’t die, right? That what gives a two month old it’s legal rights. A fetus of 100 cells is the same thing.
The only logical abortion argument on moral grounds could be that a fetus is alive but is not “a life”.
Just answer this one question. Isn’t the burden of proof on the abortionists here?
In analyzing why someone deviates from logic there is usually a motive. The motive for ending the life of the fetus is the convenience of the parents.
If you have a position that lacks a logical justification and a motive to ride that position out at all costs…. you are going to lose the argument and a trick question isn’t going to fix that.
It’s not “prove it’s a life to stop me”, it has to be “don’t kill unless you can prove it’s not a life”. Do you understand why? I sure hope so.
It’s amazing to read the comments of the pro-abort folks. It’s painfully obvious that hardly a soul here has spent much time ministering to post-abortive women and men. If you had, you’d know what abortion does to people, beyond the dumpster. And you’d loathe abortion for how it destroys them.
What surprises me most about this conversation is not how many people think women who have abortions should be punished. I’m sure that if I thought abortion was murder I would too.
What astonishes me more profoundly is the number of people who view women who have aborted as victims, not responsible for their actions: everyone who’s said that women are punished by the crushing burden of having had an abortion, or that their complicity is lessened by the fact that that “many” or “most” women who abort are pressured to do so.
I won’t deny that many women will feel badly after having aborted. However, it’s absurd to claim that all women will. There are no credible studies to indicate that women suffer more from post-abortion trauma than they do from post-partum depression. I have spoken with a number of women who say they do not regret having aborted at all, and that it was definitely the right decision for them. Please do not attempt to claim to know what other people feel about a given circumstance, or just assume that “of course” it’s natural for a woman to feel bad about the end of a pregnancy.
As to whether or not personal remorse is suitable punishment: I believe most people who drove drunk and killed people as a result feel terribly guilty and will have to live forever with the knowledge that they destroyed a life. This does not make them any less culpable or that they don’t therefore deserve legal punishment.
As to whether women are pressured: on this point, I have to admit a certain amount of sympathy. It’s certainly not beyond the pale for a woman who otherwise would not have terminated a pregnancy to do so because she felt compelled by, say, a male partner. However, I reject the idea that a woman would never do so for any other reason. There are also women who are in complete agreement with their partners about the necessity of an abortion; who abort against the wishes of their partners; who have no further contact with the men who they became pregnant by; and so on. Women may also feel compelled to abort because of other forms of pressure, like financial inability to have a healthy pregnancy and raise a child. Nevertheless, I believe it takes a great deal away from women to claim that they are never really responsible for deciding to abort.
Question: Did anyone ever consider the rights of the child?
Right now somewhere the Roe V. Wade child (who was not aborted and is still living) is probably very happy about our slow judicial system.
Even Norma McCorvey (THE “Jane Roe” of the Roe V. Wade case) is now mortally opposed to the idea. The whole deal was that it was inconvenient for her lifestyle (she was a lesbian, key word WAS) so she claimed she was raped. She now admits that was false.
Nevermind the mother’s convenience. Just because mom decided that it’s inconvenient to raise a child, she should get to murder it?
It IS a human being. And don’t give me the “it’s not fully developed” bit. Neither are awkward tweens entering puberty. Should we kill them too (some parents of pre-teens and teens might appreciate that right)?
“Yeah but a teen can take care of themselves.” Really? Well then how about infants who do happen to make it? They can’t care for themselves. In fact, about all they can do is eat, poop, pee, cry, and sleep. If no one provides for them, they die. Sounds like the same predicament the fetus is in to me. So they are neither developed, nor can they care for themselves… let’s put their heads on the chopping block too.
The fact is, I have never met a pro-choicer that can tell me when life begins. So what makes you think you have the right to play God and decide for the fetus when it is or isn’t developed enough to do away with?
You don’t want the baby? Fine, do with the baby what “Jane Roe” did. Give the child up for adoption.
That’s what amuses me about the whole term “Pro-choice.” Even if Roe V. Wade does get overturned and you don’t have the choice of abortion, you can still choose not to raise a child. You have the option of adoption. There are people out there that CAN’T have children. I’m sure they would appreciate your child. Ever heard the saying “one person’s trash is another person’s treasure?” Just because you have no moral decency (unless it comes to saving the whales and the planet, then you’re all over it) doesn’t mean others don’t either and that you should just discard a precious item simply because you don’t need or want it.
Punishment for abortion? Absolutely. Because that’s what you do to a murderer.
Just curious Daniel:
How do you determine which human lives are not worth living and should therefore be terminated?
For that is what abortion decides, as does ethnic cleansing, or government policies which allow humans to die of curable diseases, or which allow killing of enemies or prisoners of conscience.
You may feel you are now pro-choice and that who kills fetuses is not your business. But how did you determine that some of these lives which are terminated were not worth living? If you say abortion on demand is a fundamental human right, you are saying that any person, maybe more correctly any woman, can decide on some basis or none that the life in her womb is not worth existing. How exactly will 6 billion humans survive on the planet when each determines they have no responsibility for or no concern for any other human, for humanity or for the human race? On what basis do we decide to let any baby live?
And if it is OK for any of us to terminate any human embryo, fetus or baby, what is the criterion for deciding this is OK for humanity? And are there any circumstances in which it is not OK? Is it OK for the government (as is done in China) to determine which pregnancies will end? That is done for the good of the state. What would be the criteria for questioning that policy?
Are you saying that abortion on demand – no matter who demands it – is always right? Can the father demand that his offspring be terminated before birth? Why not? Can a women’s parents? or her other children? Can the state demand of its citizens that they can only have some babies but not others? Can the state in time of economic crisis decide that no one below a certain income level can have a baby? Why not?
I am just asking how well you have thought out your position.
I don’t care one way or the other as long as you just eat what you kill.
Here’s a good one. Not quite the same situation but similar. Suppose a building on fire with a baby inside and a refrigerator with 10,000 eggs or stemcells. Who or what do you try to save first?
Another question for the pro-abort folks:
Do you care that Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, driven by Eugenics, whose purpose was to lure African-Americans into contraception and abortion in order to eradicate “problem negroes”? (It makes me *sick* just to quote her.)
And now, in our nation’s awesome achievement of having elected our very first (and God willing, not the last) African-American president, we see that even President Obama is obviously ignorant of the roots of Planned Parenthood’s foundational mission.
Don’t believe me? http://www.youtube.com. Search on “Margaret Sanger Eugenics” or “Margaret Sanger interview” and see the footage for yourself.
If you think that Choice is based on women’s rights, you’ve been duped.
With all of the energy these antiabortionist spend, why don’t they better spend it by coming up with better and more effective ways for women to access free birth control. I realize it is the responsibility of the persons involved in the sex act to protect themselves, but guess what? they aren’t doing it as well as they should and if these people REALLY want to fight abortion, do so by coming up with better programs to prevent these unwanted pregnancies to start off with. Long wait times at health units are a big problem for women who don’t put much importance on birth control to start off with. We’ve got to lead these horses to water, otherwise they will not drink buddy.
great stuff. i’ve read a couple of other posts by you and am looking forward to reading more.
Not stumped at all. Various acts of murder recieve varying degrees of punishment. I actually think the doctors who perform the proceedure should recieve the higher degree of punishment. Saying abortion is not ending a human life is foolish. But so is saying there are no extenuating circumstances to take into consideration is equally foolish.
Good point Jennifer. It seems that little tidbit of history is often ignored.
Why does the pro-abortion crowd not consider the consequences of having abortion be legal? For instance, medical procedures are most safe when performed by a doctor who has lots of experience. You don’t want to have heart surgery with a doctor who has done them “now and then.”
So for abortion to be really safe you need a doctor who performs lots of them. Also, of course the doctor doesn’t just figure out how to do them, he has to be trained. That means a medical establishment dedicated to the performance of abortions. Also, it means a physician (someone who formerly took an oath to “do no harm”) who now routinely takes life — day in day out, the abortion doctor kills children.
This doctor sees the child he kills each time. And the aborted baby looks just like — well, a baby. What does it do to the doctor psychologically? What does it do to his soul? (Or do we not have souls these days?)
Most abortionists are men, too, according to available statistics. Ever consider why that might be so?
In other words, the whole industry of abortion — it is an industry like any other — changes the entire medical landscape and the landscape of our souls, one might add. And a whole movement has arisen dedicated to making sure that this industry devoted to killing children keeps running.
There are many alternatives to abortion, not the least among them being individual responsibility. People can accept themselves as moral agents. They can look upon sexuality as have a moral dimension and not just an “urge.”
People can recollect the possibilities of love. A man can look at a woman and respect her rather than seeing her as something to be merely acted upon. A woman can take herself and her own life as having unique worth. People can fall in love and be faithful to each other.
A popular song of the late 19th century was “I dream of Jeannie with the Light Brown Hair.” Some of our contemporary popular songs cannot be quoted in polite company. Are men and women losers or winners by these changes in the social order?
With abortion comes many unforeseen consequences. Mother Theresa said, if a mother can murder her own child, what is to stop us from all murdering each other?
Do you have an answer to HER question?
This is to easy.
First, why is it that you do not want to be called pro-abortion? Most want the title of pro-choice. Right? You actually got it right though when you called pro-life people anti-abortionist since those who are against life are pro-abortion.
If a true pro-life person had trouble answering your question, it would surprise me, because I have no problem what-so-ever answering. An abortionist commits the act, he or she should be charged. Very simple, the act of committing an abortion should be punished if to commit the abortion is illegal. Sometimes a woman might perform an abortion on herself, then she should be charged, but otherwise the so called “doctor” should be the one charged.
Now I have questions for you. I fully understand why pro-life people are against abortion, but why are pro-abortion people against women who are pro-life? What do you lose if I or any other woman chooses to allow our children to live and why do you not want counselling that tells women both sides before an abortion? You may want to say you are not against it, but I can show you plenty of evidence that proves otherwise.
Not only are you against a woman receiving counselling, you are against those who choose life. The hatred I hear in many of your comments is enough to convince me, even if I had not seen and heard how Sarah Palin and her daughter were treated.
Another question, why is it murder to kill a baby one minute after birth but not murder one minute before?
Wow, look at the comment storm of pro-life/choice talking points! The best part is that these folks have nothing to do with government now. Imagine John McDoodle and the Jesus Lady from Alaska being sworn in yesterday. Now there’s a four year anxiety attack. Good riddance to rotten nuts. This country is so far past you and you don’t even know it!
@Jennifer: Thanks for your comment. I think you misunderstand our position. We don’t like abortion. We want it to be done as little as possible. But we also see situations where it should be the choice of the mother. So while we don’t recommend it usually, we want it to be safe for those that make the decision.
Q: Abortion should be illegal, did you say?
A: Slavery was legal, and so is abortion. Slavery is now illegal, and so should abortion. “Abortion; Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.” We also know that birth ends a pregnancy, so this definition is illogical. Abortion ends the life of a human being. A fetus; little child in the latin.
Q: And what should happen to women who have illegal abortions?
A: According to the true definition of voluntary abortion, as stated above, what would happen to any other person that ended the life of a human being? Just because the human being is of a younger age, doesn’t negate the fact that she/he IS a human being.
Q: So if it’s illegal, you think there should be no punishment under the law?
A: There is already punishment under our democratic society. However, in a Republic, the minority is just as important as the majority. You cannot give the group what the individual possess. (this statement must be thought over thoroughly. You’ll get it.)
Q: But isn’t that true with murder, too? Isn’t there a punishment for murder?
A: Is there a punishment for murder? Yes.
And…?
Q: So why shouldn’t there be a punishment for a woman who has an illegal abortion?
A: there are punishments for people who take the life of another human being. But there are many variations of punishment to be decided by a jury of his/her peers.
Q: So why should it be illegal?
A: Because in a country of laws, we must protect the weakest and most innocent of our society. Those who cannot protect themselves.
Claim: Fetus do not feel pain before 12 weeks.
Fact: Some paraplegics don’t feel pain. Should we kill them? no. well… Some people think that they should be killed. Eugenics is the safe term they use. Hitler thought paraplegics and gays and old people, and jews should be killed too.
Claim: A fetus of 12 weeks cannot in any way be compared to a fully formed functioning person. At this stage only rudiments of the organ systems are present. The fetus is unable to sustain life outside the woman’s womb; it is incapable of conscious thought; it is incapable of essential breathing. It is instead an in utero fetus with the potential of becoming a child.
Fact: A human being of 12 weeks of age can be compared exactly to an older human being of 1 year, 12 years, 17 years, and any other age on a biological, chemical, and of course, on a DNA level. A one year old is unable to sustain her own life outside of her previous place of residence. Non-conscious thought is no reason to end the life of anyone, say, in a coma, or on breathing apparatus. And finally, two sexually active teenagers making out have a great chance of producing potential life. 23 human chromosomes from a male, and 23 human chromosomes from a female equivocates a human being, at any age.
Claim: Constitutionally, a fetus has no rights of personhood. Most legal precedent in English law attributes personhood to the live born.
Fact: Blacks didn’t have any rights of as human beings until the Dred Scott case. They were not considered to be human beings either. They had a nice made up name for them. What was that name that degraded blacks? hmm… Just because there is a law, does not make it morally or ethically just. All are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their creator. Created is not “being born” or “personhood” (is that a word?) The fact is that the human being is created from 23 human chromosomes from a male, and 23 human chromosomes from a female, makes it the most amazing creation on our planet.
These are irrefutable scientific facts.
Nice try.
I enjoyed destroying your illogical fallacies
As a Christian it bothers me when every person of faith is typecast as a religious fanatic. People of faith do in fact have the capacity to formulate ideas and arguments. I am pro-life and against needless abortions. When I say ‘needless’ I mean that safe sex has been driven down our throat from grade school on.Men and women that do have the knowledge and choose not to use these methods needlessly get pregnant.
To answer the original question, I do not think abortion will ever be illegal, but if it were, the blame and punishment should fall on the physician that performed the procedure. I think some form of counseling should be mandatory after the procedure to help the mother (and father) process the experience and get on with their lives.
Probation with an extensive educational and counselling component. Jesus came to save lives, not to destroy them. Salvation can involve discipline, but only a rehabilitative one, not a punitive one.
Of course our society will have to be revamped to once again have as its aim the rehabilitation of criminals.
Are women who abort criminals? No, just driven crazy by the pressures placed on them, usually.
Our society, according to St. Antony the Great, is really insane in its thinking and values and world view.
We need some major reconsideration of our values, generally speaking. And this will take time.
Give consideration to the Eastern Orthodox Church, which keeps the Scriptural legal metaphors in their proper perspective. I became one when I understood the way they interpret the Scriptures.
Your question is not easy, but it is answerable.
It’s not fair to generalize all people who think abortion is murder. I can give you a thousand answers, and I already have a few prepared, but there’s more than a good chance that you and maybe others will not take into consideration my point and turn my words against you.
I will keep you in my prayers. All lives are equal in the eyes of the Lord, no matter of race, age, gender, before birth or after.
“You can accuse religious fanatics of many thinks, but using well-thought out argumentation isn’t one of them.”
Well, i accuse them of quite a few things, but “thinks” is not one of them. lol
sry if someone else already pointed this out, i didnt read through all of the comments. too many :’P
Oh and that quote was by Adamus btw
you could possibly accuse the doctor who performed the abortion as the one who is the murderer. He/She is the one making the whole illegal process possible. So would you consider the Doctor the murderer and the pregnant woman the person witnessing the murder and not doing anything about it. I think that could possibly be a proper legal ramification for those actions if abortion were to be illegal.
I tried this trick when abortion protesters came to my campus. The people answered, without hesitation, that mothers who get abortions should be murdered.
Absolutely brilliant post!
A side note about Margaret Sanger: yes, she supported eugenics, as did many progressive people at one time. Does this mean planned parenthood is bad?
Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and most of the American Founding Fathers would be considered bigoted racists by modern standards. Does this mean that America has some kind of dark secret agenda to enslave black people?
Thank you, for posting this video…
Jennifer,
Sounds like you’re trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even if those were in fact, the original objectives of Planned Parenthood’s founder, which would be reprehensible indeed, it does not mean we should dismiss the usefulness of Planned Parenthood’s services today. They have saved many women from things such as cervical cancer, and through their outreach birth control education programs have, in fact, prevented more abortions than they have performed. And by the way, no one is pro-abortion. I think we would all like to see fewer cases where women find themselves in these predicaments, but histrionic sanctimonious fits are not the answer, no matter how much they feed one’s need to feel morally superior. We must be pragmatic, we must resist the urge to scapegoat and demonize. And why never any mention of the absentee fathers?
Didn’t this post start with a proposition of logic? “And what should happen to women who have illegal abortions?”
“why don’t they better spend it by coming up with better and more effective ways for women to access free birth control.” Whether or not the pro-life people do or don’t promote birth control has nothing to do with the subject.
Without a doubt, people who don’t want kids should make sure they don’t get pregnant. BUT is is the responsibility of other people to make sure those people who don’t want kids don’t get pregnant? ARE YOU FREAKIN’ KIDDIN’ ME? I am shocked that you would say that. That removal of personal responsibly and substitution of some kind of supervision and transfer of responsibility is not sustainable in any society. Why do we have moral guidelines in a society? Educating and supervising everybody IS SEPARATE from the question of whether it’s moral to terminate the life of a fetus and whether that deserves a punishment.
Jo Colonna – your comparison of abortion to honour killings is a rather weak one. The embryo is not seen as the woman’s property – if that was the case, it would be legal for her to sell it, for example – but a part of her body, like a foot or a cancer. There comes a point in the gestation period where an embryo deserves more rights – and this is a tricky and ongoing question for ethicists and medical professionals. Those who simply thunder THOU SHALT NOT KILL aren’t really adding a great deal to the argument.
The problem with a lot of anti-abortion arguments is that they seem to be about simply maximising life rather than minimising suffering. Why is life always automatically assumed to be superior to the alternative? I fell madly in love with my daughter when I first saw her as an embryo on a 12-week scan. Luckily for her and me, she was born healthy. However, if I had been told at 12 weeks that she was to be born so badly deformed that she would live a very short life comprised entirely of suffering (and this does happen), then ethically speaking, the only decision to be made would have been to abort. This would have broken the hearts of her mother and me for the rest of our lives. A law that would imprison us for doing that would be a crime against humanity.
Daniel, I hope it doesn’t shock you too much when I, an ardent anti-abortionist have no qualms about saying women who commit abortion should face the same penalty murderers face, death. They end a human life period, end of story. That is no different than the terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan setting in a road side bomb and then watch with a smile on their face as they end a life. No different than a serial killer who stalks his victim for days and then wraps the cords around the victims neck and watches the victim’s body go limp. For these the penalty should be death…the ancient code, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life. So please don’t let it get you down that I an evangelical christian have no problems with answering your tricky little question. By the way your work is almost entirely sophistry and while I may not be smart enough to prove you wrong I can easily recognize the 5 year old’s play ground tactic….”you’re wrong….oh yeah…if you think so then prove it.”
Samuel G -
You forgot to mention that when a woman has a miscarriage there shouldn’t be any sorrow- if it wasn’t a baby she really didn’t loose anything.
Sir,
With all due respect, I think that you are missing an important point. Your argument is made to attack the opposition with little regard to the seriousness of abortion, even objectively as a medical procedure. The fact that you diminish the issue of abortion to a clever logical snare is missing the point entirely. Sure, I think it would be nice if the only way to do things was the “logical way”. Ironically, it is not remotely reasonable to assume that. Mostly I hope your tirades in the future are a bit more sensitive to the issue at hand as you debate the opposition.
That is an absurd argument. Just because you may be able to stump a few anti-abortionists with this question does not mean that we don’t really believe that it is taking a life. That’s ridiculous. There are many anti-abortionists who could answer that question easily. Also, it is not our place to judge the women who have had abortions. It is our place to pray for them and for their souls. They will have to face God at the judgment day, and he will be the one to punish the sins, not us. However, I do believe that the doctors (murderers) who are performing the abortions (murders) should be arrested and tried for murder. Absolutely.
Have you ever seen an ultrasound? How on earth could anyone deny that it is a baby? A living, tiny creature that God himself has woven together inside the womb. A human being, just as much as you or I. Aren’t you glad your mother didn’t abort you?
wow amansman, I’m not sure what the baby Jesus would think of that little diatribe.
How about the American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are also killing people? Are they for the electric chair when they get home too? How about the executioner who’s going to kill all the women that so disgust you – are they not also bound by ‘a life for a life’ ?
@Amansman,
I’m not shocked at all, actually. Glad you’re at least consistent, even though I find your view crazy.
And I’m not trying to practice “sophistry.” You cite my practice of putting the burden of proof on the asserter as a “5 yr old’s playground tactic.” But you must agree that this must be done. That is, if I claim you’re actually an alien with a yellow nose and your name is Barlseyman, you’re going to ask me to prove it. And the burden of proof would be on me, because I’m the one making the assertion.
Christians assert Jesus did miracles and rose from the grave. Neat. But you can’t expect anyone rational to believe this without A LOT of evidence. These things don’t happen. If they did, then we need evidence. If there’s evidence, we’ll believe. Because it would be awesome if it were true! (As long as you’re a believer.)
You do this with every religion except your own. Muslims claim you are going to hell, that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, and Muhammad is the last real prophet from God and he ascended to heaven on a horse. Do you believe? Why not? Because you require evidence, that’s why!
I am shocked that they cannot answer it either. For me, my immediate response would be to try them for murder and sentence accordingly. I see no problem with that.
Great argument – and it might work among those who are only nominally in that camp… However, the dedicated religious fanatic is going to have an answer for everything, and it’s all going to be Scripture based, and doesn’t rely on reason, fact, or anything that even remotely resembles logic. Instead it relies solely on God’s word.
My views remain unchanged, I’m still anti-abortion, if that means that there should be a punishment for those who choose to perform that action then it’s a fine with me. It’s simply really.
The answer to your question is simple and doesn’t stump me for a moment.
Women who have illegal abortions should face some criminal action. Those that preform them should face sever criminal action. To say that most conservatives feel ok with the death penalty means that this always means that this is the best punishment for a crime is faulty on it’s face.
The premise of the question is based on a broad and most likely, knowingly, part of a conservative platform that is pro death penalty.
You can refuse to think life is not a life until it breaths it’s first breath but I think most would find it hard to sit through a funeral of a full term, wanted and well loved prior to birth, still born and still feel that that life wasn’t a life.
A baby is a fetus if it isn’t wanted, not a person or human life. A baby is a baby if it is wanted. This is pretty much the argument of the pro choice group.
You raise an excellent question. To their credit the people protesting had a compassionate side and clearly had not thought past the heartfelt protection of zygotes / embryos / babies. In much the same way, many people in the environmental movement might like to see the Kyoto Protocol signed by the US, but might not have considered how the US government should be punished if the Protocol’s rules were broken. Having said that, I would expect anyone who takes part in a public protest to at the very least have considered their issue from several angles, and strategically followed several what-if scenarios. That’s standard business practice in almost any movement; that’s how you plan your future. It’s unfortunate then that the the organizers of this event apparently didn’t keep their friendly and well-meaning volunteers very well informed.
I meant simple.
@Kevin, way up there near the top. you said
“but I would love to see all the energy and emotion that that is put into protesting clinics and trying to make it illegal put into helping young women, preferably before they get pregnant, so that we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.”
There are so many resources out there for those sorts of things. Not all anti-abortionists are stand on street corners damning doctors to hell for aborting babies. http://www.care-net.org/ is just one of the many resources for women to utilize. But it’s things like the Freedom of Choice Act that are bringing us down.
I am not for Abortion because of what it does to the child. The child has no choice in the matter, but this question would not stump me. Maybe this is a bad answer but I think that women who have an abortion will go through plenty without there being a strict judgement. There are the after effects of depression. There is aspects of it that harm the body. I had a conversation with a person recently who believe in pro-choice and I came out of the conversation with a better understanding of what they really believe, but the truth is we are in a society that doesn’t have to deal with the consequences of our actions. At least that is what we believe, but that is not what happens. Coming from someone who has not be able to have children, it is hard to hear that someone chose to take the life of the child because it wasn’t convienent for them. We are so worried about the women, we forget that there are two lives involved. (I know not every believes that life begins at the same time) At the moment a child can be aborted as it is being born, is that not a person to have some choice. Legally there probably isn’t anything you can do about it – but making it too easy is not the answer either. Now my tax dollars are going to go and support something that I am against – what about that aspect.
amansman – that is troubling. Would you personally kill with your own hands a 17 girl who has an abortion? In her imperfection.
Having an abortion is killing. No doubt. Who can argue that?
But the man who kills another man deserves forgiveness. An eye for an eye is not a true translation and not the path.
I think all that can be done is to uphold morals with our own words and example. This is a journey, we have not arrived at any perfection.
Have any of you scientifically-illiterate sanctimonious misogynists ever heard of spontaneous abortions? A very high proportion of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted without any deliberate intervention. God is the biggest abortionist on the planet. I recommend we hang him at high noon. Oh wait, that’s already been done.
Maybe you should have given them enough time to think about the question as you did. I’m sure you prepared these questions well in advance – maybe even a few days in advance. You make them look bad by catching them immediately, then forcefully getting to the next rehearsed question. I guarantee you would fold under the same conditions.
Ali,
“Have you ever seen an ultrasound?”
Yes, I have all my children’s ultrasounds on video.
“How on earth could anyone deny that it is a baby?”
Well, in the early ones they look – and are – nothing like a baby; more like tadpoles, incapable of emotion, joy, pain or anything else that makes us human.
“A living, tiny creature that God himself has woven together inside the womb.”
Actually, it got there through me having sex with my girlfriend. (Unless God has been sneaking into my house while I’ve been at work).
“A human being, just as much as you or I. ”
No – see above. (Also see posts above about the choice between rescuing embyos or a living child from a burning IVF clinic)
“Aren’t you glad your mother didn’t abort you?”
Extremely. However, there are a whole host of extremely unpleasant disabilites and illnesses (which your God also presumably would have lovingly woven into my embryo) which – if had been born with them – might have made me reverse that decision.
There should be a punishment. Life in prison, or death. You might stump an anti-abortionist on the issue of what should happen with women who have illegal abortions, but that isn’t the main issue. Its taking a human life. Period. The issue is to stop people from aborting innocent babies.
And frankly, I question how much of a heart you have. Do you not see the pictures in that video? Its terrible that babies would have to feel that pain. Focus on the important issue; of stopping murder.
But you think it’s ok to abort a perfectly healthy baby because it’s not convinient?
A death by natural causes is not one human life taking the life of another.
“In the early ones they look nothing like a baby”
Well, Lance, we all have to start somewhere. You were a tadpole too.
I suppose this seems like a brilliant post to those who support legalized abortion. And, to be sure, there are people who are against legalized abortion who have either not thought the question through enough to formulate a sound argument, or who respond in a somewhat callous way. And those people will become the poster child for all opponents of legalized abortion.
The fact that you may stump some people with this, or get illogical answers, does not in itself make this a silver bullet any more than someone not being able to explain an otherwise explainable theological point refutes that point. All you have done is locate ignorance.
In order to udnerstand why there is a compatibility in the position that abortion is murder and – as it now stands (or would likely stand soon after it would become illegal, should that day arrive) – that a mother should not be sent to prison for life, is firmly rooted in our legal system.
Today, our legal system has very wide gradations of severity of punishment for acts that are all considered murder. There will be different penalties depending on whether a person takes multiple lives, whether or not it was aggravated (accompanied with battery or rape), whether or not it was premeditated, whether or not there is a motivation that falls under “hate crime” legislation, whether it was committed during another felonious act, and so on. Even within these categories, there are gradations of both severity of prosecution and there is a range of potential sentences.
The reason for all these differences have to do with society’s view of the act. It is agreed by society that all the acts are murder. And yet, they are not treated in the same manner. Why? Numerous reasons. The reasons evolve over time as society sees fit. hate crimes are relatively new. A person’s mental state is considered, both from the perspective of guilt or innocence along with the sentence. Intent, knowledge, the reasonable person test, etc. are all components of the assessment. Of course, actual proof is necessary, as well. Character witnesses on both sides are used to try to paint the entire picture of what led to the crime. The way a person was raised may be used as evidence. And so on.
So, it is no surprise at all that the act of abortion can both be considered murder, while at the same time not require a call to have the mother incarcerated for life. As we currently stand, even if it were to become illegal, there has been a generation of women told and convinced that it is OK. There is a societal viewpoint that has affected the manner in which this act is viewed. There are bound to be personal considerations that speak to motive and intent, knowledge, consent, intelligence, state of mind, and all that.
So, thank you for your post, but this question simply is not the stumper. Listen, not every one is an intellectual thinker. Many people have their strengths in the emotional aspect of things. The exact same holds true for many pro-choice individuals with whom I have bantered with, who give the most irrational and perplexing of answers to otherwise logical questions.
I’m new to this blog. I saw the title on the home page of wordpress and burst into laughter. Are you serious? Is that supposed to be an argument? Do you know how many fallacies you’ve committed? Wow!
The answer is simple! The women should be given the same sentence that a man would be given for kicking her in the stomach, pushing her down the stairs, or drowning her (Scott Peterson) with the result of killing the baby!
That’s an easy one. Try again.
Good luck explaining that one to God on Judgment Day. It’ll suck to be you.
I have to agree with Steve…follow the logic of the law. If abortion is illegal (except in clear cases of rape), and a woman goes through with an illegal abortion, charge the woman with infanticide. Prison time should include counseling with a minister.
And I would like to add that it’s not like putting the unwanted child up for adoption is that difficult.
good stuff.
i agree that there was likely sincerity behind the intentions of these anti-abortion advocates, but their inability to come up with a satisfactory answer to the question points to a serious flaw in their contention that abortion is murder.
I’m on a righteous campaign to Save Our Sperm. Sperm are human and they are alive! WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF YOUR FATHER WACKED OFF INSTEAD OF “BEING WITH YOUR MOTHER”!!!? It just stands to reason that if an impregnated Egg is blessed then the Sperm is also HOLY. I say we must, we must save them all. People who masterbate could be commiting murder.
S.O.S is not associated with Unattached Embryos Deserve a Home. Those people are insane.
/sarcasm off
“Good luck explaining that one to God on Judgment Day. It’ll suck to be you.”
Ah, yes….the last resort—-intimidation. What a good reason to adopt a belief. How thoughtful, thanks for sharing.
douglaskev, how is the burden of proof on the people not have the abortions?
Not really a tough one-I’ve thought about the answer to that question many times. And as long as the abortion wasn’t because of rape or incest-that is, if the abortion was just cosmetic or elective, then the punishment should be the same as if you’d just gunned down a child in a nursery. Trial by jury and then either death penalty or life imprisonment.
But here’s a question for you: If abortion should be legal, shouldn’t gunning down children in a nursery also be legal?
What should happen to the deadbeat fathers who contributed to the need for these abortions in the first place? Should they be charged as accessories to murder?
I wonder if the entire reason for the invention of faith is to satisfy a human need to quickly and lazily presume to have filled gaps in understanding- like a child rearranging food on the plate to try to make it look eaten.
If that is the case, then it would seem natural that there would be a positive correlation between religious devotees, and people who fail to give issues sufficient thought.
This guy pretty much acts like the opposite of an extremist Christian. Just a bunch of butting heads accomplishing very little.
Abortion was outlawed in the 19th century because the procedure was unsafe — nothing to do with protecting a fetus. Prior to 1973, in those states where abortion was illegal, physicians were accused of performing an unsafe or unapproved operation. It was not regarded as an assault in most states, and certainly not even tantamount to murder.
There is great irony here: Abortion was outlawed because there was no safe medical procedure, and so to protect the mothers, the operation was illegal. Then, once safe procedures were developed, anti-abortionists sprang up and invented reasons it shouldn’t be legal, including inventing history that simply is not so.
Why not use the penalty imposed in the Old Testament? The person who caused the unwanted abortion must pay a fee to the father, who would have owned the child and had the right to put it to death on his own.
Fact is, we are a lot more moral these days about a lot of this stuff.
In most states, murder of a pregnant woman is, legally, one murder. A few states have added statutes making the death of a fetus a crime, but not a majority, and the laws are clumsy and largely untried.
It’s human tissue, but it’s not a viable human being. Why would you call it something it’s not?
Traditionally, it was regarded as nothing until “quickening,” when the mother could feel it move. Traditionally, because deaths in birth or before birth were so common, the fetus wasn’t regarded as a human until birth. Some cultures regarded a baby as not fully human until it had survived at least a year.
If you’re trying to make a case on modern medicine, acknowledge that you’re way out of the realm of traditional religion, please.
Emphasis on weird. Not logical, either, nor enlightening or persuasive.
Anti-choice people tend to do all sorts of unscientific, superstitious and weird things to rationalize their political and anti-woman views, in my experience.
WITHOUT man’s instinct we do not know how the infant breath inside the mother’s womb and how it slowly grows inside..
Therefore we do not know the appropriate explanation of How God processes the so called- life..
We must take care of it…
To the illegal abortionist women here on Earth..
they are worth of death penalty because of the
life they intentionally killed..
I AM WRITING…
the possibility that God will Do..
Ali,
(Assuming this question was for me:)
“But you think it’s ok to abort a perfectly healthy baby because it’s not convinient?”
Morally, absolutely not. That is a terrible reason to abort an embryo. It is also not OK to force someone to carry an embryo to term that they will just have to watch suffer and die when they are born, or might be a constant reminder of a rape or incest. In my opinion, a blanket criminalisation of abortion increases real human suffering, which is why I am against it. It is a very tricky legal, ethical and medical debate – and one which needs to continue – to which religious insistence on ’sacred life at all costs’ and that a freshly fertilized egg is just as human as you or I add very little of use.
(And indeed I was a tadpole, and fell in love with my little tadpoles as soon as I first saw them. That just makes me human, not the tadpole.)
Why can’t we make legal distinctions between an unviable fetus and a living human being? We’ve done it in law for 5,000 years, why stop now?
Children in a nursery are not living in the body of someone else, taking nourishment literally from the body of someone else.
Good heavens! Don’t you know the difference between an embryo and an infant?
DOnt legalized abortion…
be a Pro-life and life-lover..
Think and act for the goodness..
of your child…
I am strongly and actively a pro-choice believer, however I feel that this video strongly lacks the understanding of law. Making abortions illegal would punish the doctor not the patient, this would seriously end the availability and societal acceptance of the practice. It is an easy answer to the question and should be taken into account. I do not believe this should be done, but I also do not believe that the question being posed would stump an educated pro-lifer. The real question to ask would be in response to the claim the rape victims should be allowed abortions and thats it, has anyone ever considered how long a rape case takes to decide, the baby would be born or the abortion would happen late into the pregnancy.
interesting. and what would your response be to the fact that a fetus’ organs and fact start forming at 4 weeks. is this not life? if it is, then what is it called when you terminate it?
http://www.webmd.com/baby/slideshow-fetal-development
This post is pretty good. I will use this argument in future.
Anti-abortionists are soooo full of shit, generally. I usually ask how much their organisation does to support the babies after they are born. You know, because they care about the child’s welfare so much, obviously they’ll be helping that mother out with a whole pile of financial support to compensate her for the fact that she can’t afford to raise it? Yeah, like hell they will. Most of those orgaisations don’t do shit in that regard. But this argument is better.
Gotta say though, a lot of the rest of the stuff on here is kind of weak, man. You should concentrate more on the issues than can actually be solved in a social context, like abortion and homosexuality, and less on the whole ‘God is evil’ stuff. So, some people in a church died, and the founders are wanted criminals? You and your followers sound almost happy about that, and are turning it into a joke. But it’s a tragedy. If belief in God can give solace after such an event it’s a lot more than you have done here.
I dunno, honestly some of this reads like someone who has been wrong for a long time and is now kind of embarrassed and wants to ‘get in’ by saying all the right kind of things, loudly. But I think you can be better than that. Maybe you had better humility as a Christian?
Very good point you make here, about the cognitive dissonance. The only thing wrong here, is most people don’t believe in killing anyone at all, whether they are tiny, medium, black, white, disabled, etc., so when someone asks: What should happen to the girls getting abortion illegally, I would say “Nothing should happen to them at all. It will be up to God, not us.” Even I, as a Christian can admit that certain circumstances may warrant an abortion(rape, incest…), other than that, why would a woman want an abortion?
Instead of rallying in front of Abortion Clinics, or asking questions that are designed to stump people why don’t we get at the heart of whats really happening?
Irresponsibility.
We are a society that says: “If your lips are too big, get lipo! If your hips are too wide, lipo! If you don’t like your hair, dye it! If you don’t like your skin, bleach it/tan it,” And ultimately, if you want to continue having sex out of wedlock, and don’t want to mess that pretty little figure of yours-abort!”
People like quick fixes. If it isn’t working out, take it out.
Irresponsibility.
Great post, by the way.
An equally good question the other side must answer is this:
If life does not begin at conception, then when exactly does it begin?
If this cannot be legitimately answered (or is “below [our] pay-grade”), what we are basically saying is that we are not sure when life begins. In that case, what we are doing is the equivalent to walking into a room blindfolded and firing a gun, uncertain if we’ll kill anyone or not. Regardless of what may happen, it’s never in our best judgment to do so.
Regarding the question of what to do with women who have illegal abortions if Roe v. Wade is overturned:
We must first recognize that the numbers of abortions drastically change if it is made illegal. At this point, the US averages nearly 1.4 million abortions per year! Make abortion illegal, and our numbers drop dramatically. Currently, the government funds abortions and President Obama has vowed to sign the Freedom of Choice Act to largely increase funding and the ease with which women can have abortions.
If we remove the protection under law and government aid, most women will not choose a back alley abortion. But while this issue definitely deserves attention, it is hypocritical to not also direct our attention to those doing drugs in back alleys and other ‘back alley’ crimes. Then we will see that, in truth, the back alley argument is more of an emotional red herring.
The same is true of abortions in instances of rape or incest. Currently, these only make up 1% of the number of abortions each year. Should we outlaw pools because children can drown in them? Or outlaw cars because people can die in car accidents? To keep legalized abortion for the 1% and be consistent, we must outlaw every mode of travel available, swimming pools, stairs, cigarettes, alcohol, foods with high fat content, etc…
We need compassionate people willing to respond to women who need counsel in times of crisis. We need people willing to adopt. We need a system friendly to adoption. We need to value children, and stop seeing them as drains on our wallet and a tax on our time. We need better sex education that starts at home with mom and dad. We need mom and dad (especially dad!) in the home. We need to take a hard look at the eugenics issue that lies behind abortion (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood was an outspoken racist and eugenics proponent, which is part of the reason why most abortion clinics are found near inner-city black populations, and have claimed the lives of approximately half of all black children conceived since 1973).
This is a complex issue, but there are solutions that don’t involve ending lives of the unborn.
this is stupid. if i were an antiabortionist, i would just say that they should be imprisoned.
luckily, since im a lesbian, i dont have to worry about any of these items
The question of legality is what makes the definitions of life “baby” vs. tissue “embryo/fetus” so important. If, as I believe, the fetus is a child, then that child deserves the same legal protection as any other child in society.
You can see why it’s so important for the Pro-Choice community to win the arguement for defining individual life as something that begins post-birth. As long as the child remains a “tissue” belonging to the mother, then she has the right to remove it. But, if that tissue is actually a child, then the mother becomes essentially a killer by choosing another person’s death.
I’ve looked at sonograms of two kicking tissues growing in my wife…and I’ve seen babies both times!
Well, that is an interesting question, but I think it’s a red herring. What does this have to do with whether abortion is wrong or not? …Regardless, if it’s wrong, and it’s a crime, then yes, it should be punished… Why do you get joy out of ’stumping’ these people when this issue doesn’t even invalidate their claim?
ps: @ ‘Christian’ (we get it),
To answer in an absurdly long run-on sentence your head-shatteringly clever, rhetorical counter-question, which I’m sure you typed with an ear-to-ear grin, brimming with sinful pride in the genius of your Swiftian proposition, imagining the boundless frustration of the confounded heathens; no, because no sensible person would hold to the same level of culpability an individual who chooses to remove from her body a parasitic cellular blob feeding off of her, and an individual who kills to no personal benefit, multiple organisms which are appreciably, rather than genetically human, are capable of independently sustaining their own life, sensing pain, experiencing love and loss, possessing thought, and whose lives are presumably valued immeasurably by other humans. But thanks for providing a genuinely good case study for my previous comment, asshole.
Yes. Simple. There should be penalties for women who get abortions illegally as well as for the doctors who performed them. Ideally, severe punishment would be given, as with any murder. In our society, however, that just would not fly since society has been desensitized to the killing of the unborn.
Furthermore, simply being unable to answer that question does not make anyone’s point. It just makes the person being asked the question look bad because they can’t answer it at the moment. Some people can’t think on their feet anyway and probably even less so with a camera in their faces.
Abortion is *homicide*. Homicide is not treated uniformly by the law. Premeditation, intention, mental state, mitigating circumstances, etc., factor in to charge and sentence severity.
I’m no legal expert, so I don’t know what would be the ideal charge and/or sentence for a mother who procured an illegal abortion. I suspect in most cases there’d be sufficient mitigating circumstances to absolve mothers of most culpability and therefore give them minimal or suspended sentences. It seems reasonable to me, though, that most doctors in most circumstances would have full culpability, be charged with more serious crimes, and be subject to stronger sentences.
The answer to you question is very simple as I explain in my post @ http://revolutionaryouth.wordpress.com/ (or you can click on the banner below). I must say I do not understand why the people in the video could not answer you r question unless it is is simply the way you asked the question which I must say was clever, whether you intentionally asked it the way you did or not I do not know but either way there is a simple answer.
What arrogance, and gross stupidity to boot. You didn’t stump me, or anyone else who has arrived at their conclusions on the basis of faith AND reason (we Catholics like to apply both, much to the consternation of you atheists). Rather than put down the specs for you, just see Andrew’s response, above. I’ll be at the March tomorrow, with hundreds of thousands of folks just like me. If that gives you fits, then I’ve accomplished that much, at least.
Just read through the opinions here.
Alright most of you consider yourselves Pro-life. So what is the definition of Life to you? Does Life only mean Human Life? or All Life. If its only human life, I think its very selective and therefore to a degree hypocritical. If its all life, then we are all murders each time we eat food to sustain ourselves.
Imho, when we say “I believe” it usually means that we dont know that for a fact, its just our opinion, that others could say or do differently.
My two cents.
If abortion were illegal there would and should be consequences for those actions. There are many who think marajuana should be legal and that the punishment for being caught with marajuana should not be as severe as being caught with other illegal drugs. No matter what your stance on whether or not it should be legal it is illegal therefore consequences follow if you are caught! Women who have abortions oftentimes struggle with that decision for the duration of their lives, that is a punishment. But under the law, if it were illegal, some sort of sentencing would be appropriate. I am a pro life person….however, I try not to impose my beliefs on others. Basically, I am just answering a question that you posed.
Daniel,
In all honesty, I really don’t see how this is a “stumper” of an argument. I don’t mean to burst your proverbial bubble, but this question is really not that tough.
The vast majority of people involved in the pro-life movement like myself do not advocate criminal sanctions against mothers, mostly because their decision is often not an informed one (thus negating the mens rea requirement under the law). That said, criminal punishment should follow criminal behavior by doctors who violate the Hippocratic Oath and who knowingly (thus fulfilling the mens rea requirement) take the life of another.
Oh my ‘god’ I’ve still got more for “Christian”. Ok, did you really say “Trial by jury and then either death penalty or life imprisonment. ” I can’t believe I missed this the first time.
If I ever commit a crime, I hope its not in an area ruled by your ideas for law, where ‘trial by jury’ invariably results in conviction and one of two extremely severe punishments. Good grief, what a thing to say.
wow… way to make a broad statement about an entire group of people. I thought liberals were the business of working for everyone to be accepted. Except for anti-abortionists and conservatives.
Let’s start with the simple: That question doesn’t stump anti-abortionists. It just causes them to think more about their position. Which the pro-choice movement needs to do as well.
You’re starting from the presupposition that abortion isn’t wrong. Therefore any argument against abortion is inherently incorrect because you’ve already started from the position that abortion isn’t wrong. But don’t feel bad; most pro-lifers do the exact same thing. And furthermore, you’re establishing an argument against a position based on a hypothetical situation. That’s like starting an argument with the phrase “Suppose the sky was green…”
Is abortion the taking of a human life? Yes. Should we compound the situation by demanding that another life be taken? No. That’s asinine and ludacris. Two wrongs never make a right, but you’re not even addressing the issue behind the issue: Why would someone get an abortion? What issues pushed a woman to make a decision?
But here’s two questions to stump pro-choicers (sticking with your poorly chosen hypothetical situation argument):
“What would have happened if your mother had an abortion?”
“Why doesn’t the father have a say in the issue?”
But a more important question is why is Roe V. Wade still upheld when the lead plantiff never had an abortion and admitted that she lied while testifying about the cause of her pregnancy?
But that’s the kind of thing that will be shot down as conservative bull. So much for free speech and free thought.
This thread is absolutely fascinating, if only because so many of the participants show no sign of actually having thought about this issue to any great extent.
So, here are some questions for anyone who is willing to answer (and I hope that they will highlight just how difficult a topic this is):
1) What is life, and why do you place a higher value on one life, as opposed to another (both human and non-human)?
2) What is personhood, when does it begin, and why?
3) Why do so many pro-lifers care not a jot about the immeasurable human suffering and tens of thousands of preventable deaths, all around the world (note: morality transcends borders), and why don’t give up all of their disposable income to help to prevent this if they are so concerned for innocent life (I don’t buy that for a second, by the way – at least, not for 99% of people)? How do you justify this, morally?
4) Why do so many pro-lifers oppose measures that are scientifically and statistically known to dramatically cut down on the number of abortions – such as comprehensive sex education, freely available contraceptives, and serious help for women who have no-one to turn to, etc, etc?
I think that I will stop there. I ask these questions because there are no easy answers to this issue, and anyone who thinks that there are has simply not thought about it enough.
Very few people who support a woman’s right to autonomy over her own body are “comfortable” with abortion. However, most of us simply don’t see this magical cut-off point that some seem to believe exists. In fact, we know that, scientifically speaking, there isn’t one, and that the development of life is a continuous trajectory. There are, of course, certain points where we can say that another layer of personhood has been added, such as the development of the nervous system, or the neural connections that lead to brain function, etc.
That is why it is important to talk about sentience and personhood, and when you get in to that, you may come to realize that an adult chimpanzee is actually as worthy of protection (in many respects) as a human baby. And yes, I realize that that will horrify many people, but I’m not really interested in an emotional reaction.
Also, if death is classified as brain death – meaning that the heart can often still work perfectly – why does “life” not begin when the brain begins to function properly – without which, the baby would not be “alive”, in any meaningful sense of the word?
How about this question for the Abortionist.
How many generations does a woman destroy with one decisive act to terminate a life of an unborn child?
Watch as the same logical reasoning this post uses to dissay the anti-abortionists take on the same aspect for the pro-abortionists.
Honestly, I don’t think it is a crime if a woman uses abortion as a birth control. Quite honestly, that is what modern day abortion is.
Granted, if a woman’s life is in jeopardy or the child’s life is in jeopardy, then there are certain provisions allowable.
However, how many of the abortions that have occured in the USA were accomplished because the woman’s life was in danger?
You may argue that a woman has the right to decide what she ought to do with her body. But, if this is a valid logical argument, then why do psychologists and councilors, medical professions discourage the use of tobacco, drugs, alcohol, bulimec, annerexia, prostitution are all wrong and social ills? IF a woman truly has a right to do whatever she wants to do with her body, then why make suicide a crime (which it is because it is considered attempted murder) and women who survive suicide are placed in psych wards and undergo evaluation?
Sorry, but you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Yes, I believe that outside of an endangerment of life or the cause of incestial or rape, a woman does not have the right to deny the life of another human being.
Disagree with me all you want, but the truth is the truth and I will stand on what is just and right – an unborn child has just as much right to life as you and I have the right to life.
I think the men here gleefully suggesting draconian punishments for women who have abortions are attempting to hide a love affair with their own sperm behind a feigned concern for babies. And the women, too, exhibit reprehensible misogyny, having a vested interest in encouraging other women to stay pregnant, thereby limiting the competition. I guess unacknowledged genetic survival instincts do a number on a person’s character.
Gee, another abortion opponent who doesn’t have a clue what the decision in Roe v. Wade was about, or what it said.
Surprised?
Interesting post.
I think women have the right to choose. Obviously abortion is not to be taken lightly and a dozen factors play in, but it’s their body. I disagree with using abortion as a form of birth control, but I also disagree with women having to give birth. There are more than enough unwanted babies and children in the world, whether they have parents or not. Making abortion unreachable or illegal just means women will find other unsanitary and unsafe methods, like wire hangers.
Though far from Christian, I’m reading the Bible. It’s filled with stories of killing in G-d’s name, women and infants included.
Wow, this is smoking along. That’s what happens when you get on the front page of wordpress I guess.
@Andrew and others,
Funny how so many of the pro-life comments on here are just reverting back to the “When does the foetus become human?” issue, even though that’s not actually the topic raised.
No-one is really arguing the other side of that point, folks! The subject here is crime and punishment. If it’s illegal, what should happen to those who perpetrate it? It’s almost as though you’ve spent so much time thinking the other topic through, you’ve got nothing to say on anything else.
Saying “an equally important qestion the other side must answer” just sounds like hijacking the conversation over to the only thing youv’e really thought about. Politicians do it.
Or not…how about the man who was arrested for double homicide because he killed his pregnant wife?
What you *should* ask them is how they feel about the death penalty and war.
@timothy:
“But, if this is a valid logical argument, then why do psychologists and councilors, medical professions discourage the use of tobacco, drugs, alcohol, bulimec, annerexia, prostitution are all wrong and social ills? [ what the hell? ] … Sorry, but you can’t have your cake and eat it too.”
1.) Discourage and outlaw are not the same thing. Not relevant.
2.) Some of those things are outlawed for children because they are said to be incapable of making a good decision for themselves. Not applicable here.
3.) Yes, suicide is illegal, and lets take a moment to reflect on the absurdity of that.
Oh, I should have read further. Andrew continued:
Actually, abortions drop, per capita, in nations where abortions are legal. For whatever reason, abortions are more frequently done when the operation is made illegal.
Don’t let the facts bother you though. One thing a fetus is not, to an abortion opponent, is a real fact. They’re all hypothetical, off in Cloud Cuckooland.
Just a cuple of my thoughts on some things people have said in regards to this issue -
What the current laws are regarding the murder of a pregnant woman (whether it counts as 2 murders or not) is irrelevant – anti-abortionists may say “Well if it’s not a life then why is this law in place??” Laws are not FACTS. Laws are laws and they may be wrong and stupid, so first of all, don’t use “Well this is the law so it must be a life!!!” as an argument. It’s not valid.
With this issue, I believe that the punishment for murdering a pregnant woman should be MORE harsh than the punishment for murdering just a person – but LESS harsh than the punishment for 2 murders. This is because I believe that a foetus is not a human being yet, but it is the possibility of a future human being, and obviously in most cases the mother will consider it her baby, she will be emotionally attached to it, it would be especially devastating for the father/partner/loved ones of the woman to lose not only the woman, but her baby as well.
An unborn baby is not yet a fully-functioning human. It is alive, but I do not count it as a “human life” – just the POTENTIAL of one.
What makes us who we are? What makes us human beings? Certainly not just the physical parts of us that have human DNA. No sir. We are who we are – more of a person every day – because of what we learn, our thoughts, our emotions, our MEMORIES. When it comes down to the life of a mother or the life of her unborn baby/cluster of foetal cells… I would save the mother every time. She has friends, relatives, she has a place in the world. She has memories, a story to tell. She is a human being. A foetus is human physiologically, sure, but there is no person in there.
And we can see why it’s so important for the anti-woman community to win the argument for defining life as any human cell, no matter how impossible the chances it will turn into a viable, full-term baby. There’s no justification for opposing abortion if we get rational about it. So, damn the facts, damn the Bible, damn tradition, damn history, damn science — a fetus must be given the right to vote and run for Congress, even if it can’t be drafted or drink a beer.
Of course, since 40% to 60% of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, once we redefine abortion as murder, God will be seen as the bloodthirsty, mass murderer he really is, to abortion foes.
Sadly, I think many of them wouldn’t be bothered by that.
Even better proof that most people that are “pro-life” dont really believe abortion is murder is that they want it legal in cases of rape and incest. That proves that its really about sex. Very few people, like maybe 15%, want it illegal in all cases.
Also, murder is illegal because if it wasnt society would degenerate into anarchy. A civilized society couldnt exist without murder being illegal. Same for theft. You cant say that about abortion. In fact, you can argue the exact opposite (see Freakonomics).
When abortions were illegal in the past, women who procured abortions were generally considered second victims of the crime and generally not charged. Only a few reported cases from various jurisdictions involve women charged with crimes for procuring abortions.
I doubt that would change if abortion became illegal again.
Hear, hear, Ed!
And, I should add, I wouldn’t want that to change. If abortion became illegal, prosecuting those who procure abortions doesn’t solve much of anything.
Man, explaining my compassionate pro-life stance is really making me hungry. I think I’ll go grab a burger or chicken sandwich made from animals that I know damn well were tortured every miserable day of their mutated lives in ways that would make Hell cringe, just so I can save a little coin and continue to pretend that meat is necessary for good health.
Ahh, you hardliners. As if quantifying humanity were a mere reductive exercise.
Look, I hate abortion. I do think it’s murder. That said, I don’t blame the mothers–they are left to deal with a situation when the man can just move on. That’s not fair. But then again, despite our best intentions, you can’t legislate biological fairness.
I’m a guy who wouldn’t have a wife or two daughters if abortion were a defacto choice. My mother-in-law had a high risk pregnancy in the early 60’s and was told, emphatically, that my brilliant, gorgeous wife would be born severely retarded. My two daughters both came from the strongest birth mothers who–defying social stigma–entrusted my wife and I to care for their daughters. A lonely choice. My oldest daughter’s birth mom was even told “How can you give up your own flesh and blood? I could never. You should have had an abortion.”
I won’t begin to try to find sense in that statement because it defies logic. And yet it’s deeply human: issues like these confuse and confound us. If you’d drop the armor of ideology even for a second, you’d see that both sides have points, that there’s a human cost no matter what side you choose, and that an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy allows for no casual choices–every decision has ramifications. Perhaps less for society than for the individuals.
So fine, if you want to keep the abortion debate on the level of namecalling and fingerpointing, that’s your prerogative. But I’m not buying it. It’s woefully incomplete.
Yes, I think it is unfair to beat around rhetorics to confuse people. Not everyone has the best argumentation to back up their claims, but doesn’t make it wrong either.
@MyOpinion
very true, but isn’t breaking invalid arguments, and trying to build one that cannot be broken a crucial part of discovering truth?
@MyOpinion
Not everyone has the best argumentation to back up their claims, but doesn’t make it wrong either.
Yeah, it does make it wrong, if you try to make it law.
Our whole political and legal system is based on people putting forward arguments and the most sound, testable and persuasive arguments win out, and that becomes law and policy.
The problem with anti-abortion / anti-gay campaigning is that it tries to operate in the political and policy arena, and to have a major effect on people’s lives, but then when you ask many of the proponents to actually back up their arguments and frame them properly, they just go “I dunno, I just feel that way.”
You can make law out of “I just fell that way.”? How is anyone supposed to distinguish between what you feel and what I feel?
Emotive opinions are one thing. Trying to turn them into workable law or social policy is quite another.
“I’ll go grab a burger or chicken sandwich made from animals that I know damn well were tortured every miserable day of their mutated lives in ways that would make Hell cringe,”
How the hell did cruelty to animals and vegetarian crappo get brought into this?
@ Damian
You asked – 1) What is life, and why do you place a higher value on one life, as opposed to another (both human and non-human)?
—-I asked the same question above. I am both Pro-Life(for the Mother) and Pro-choice(for the woman). I think ALL life is LIFE. From observing life around me I understand that there will always be a Life giving out to give someone/thing else life, that’s the Natural order of things(of course, its only my way of looking at what I consider reality)
You asked – 2) What is personhood, when does it begin, and why?
—-Cant answer this in a manner that will make sense.. I would say Person hood is an illusion we create to make ourselves seem way superior or more significant than any other life form.
You asked – 3) Why do so many pro-lifers care not a jot about the immeasurable human suffering and tens of thousands of preventable deaths, all around the world (note: morality transcends borders), and why don’t give up all of their disposable income to help to prevent this if they are so concerned for innocent life (I don’t buy that for a second, by the way – at least, not for 99% of people)? How do you justify this, morally?
—– I cant justify it so I say if we can let others die of curable diseases, hunger, poverty, go to wars and commit genocide, kill people of a particular ethnicity for political clout- in the name of crusades, preserving our way of life or Jihad then abortion is a mere speck in comparison to lives lost. Why bother fighting for this speck when we let major things go.
You asked- 4) Why do so many pro-lifers oppose measures that are scientifically and statistically known to dramatically cut down on the number of abortions – such as comprehensive sex education, freely available contraceptives, and serious help for women who have no-one to turn to, etc, etc?
—–I haven’t understood it either.. also I cannot understand the abdication of responsibility when you decide to have the baby, either by giving away a Baby for adoption or ending up neglecting the baby, putting it in another’s care(like their parents or others in the community). Shouldn’t it be “you give birth, you be responsible” for its upbringing? Why should another be punished for your Mistakes?
I agree with the last paragraph. It makes sense to me.
You said – Also, if death is classified as brain death – meaning that the heart can often still work perfectly – why does “life” not begin when the brain begins to function properly – without which, the baby would not be “alive”, in any meaningful sense of the word?
——Recent experiments on resuscitation techniques have shown that we really don’t know the boundary of death or for that matter, of life.
I think no matter how we argue, most of us will stick to our opinions, no one will end up being the “Convert” so it would be best to agree to disagree.
Interesting post, I especially enjoyed hearing the different responses.
As a Catholic, I am pro-life and against the death penalty.
It is unfair to accuse those who cannot quickly answer your question concerning punishment for an illegal abortion as ignorant or foolish. It is a difficult question. Though we sentence murderers to life in prison or perhaps even the death penalty, abortion is not a normal murder scenario, and needs to be treated differently.
When it comes to abortion, nothing is clear cut and easy to explain. The compassionate answer is not the easiest to come to. I know that I myself would feel that women who had an abortion would need to be punished to some degree, but I would say most of all they would need to be educated in order to understand the horrific reality of what happens in an abortion, and that it truly is taking a life.
In a murder trial one would evaluate the level of a criminal’s appropriate punishment based on their mental state, and similarily one must take into account that many women having abortions may not understand the seriousness of their crime.
I think if women truly understood what happens in an abortion, if they saw the images of tiny limbs being torn apart, abortion numbers would drop dramatically.
But in the end, it’s not about pointing fingers, it’s about creating a society in which abortion is not needed, in which women never feel the need to consider such an option, through responsible use of sex, better care and support for pregnant teens, and better developed adoptions services.
Here’s a question for you. If it’s okay to kill a baby in the womb, why is it not okay to kill your two year old?
re: Christian:
“Here’s a question for you. If it’s okay to kill a baby in the womb, why is it not okay to kill your two year old?”
Many reasons. First, see my above comment re: what makes us People. A two year old life is much more of a real person than a foetus.
Secondly, a baby in the womb is in the body of a woman. She has to carry it around inside her, feed it, etcetera. It is part of her, and therefore she should be allowed to do with it what she likes.
It should be a woman’s choice whether she wants to have a baby or not. No exceptions.
@ christian,
Because in the womb the baby is literally a physical parasite living inside another person’s body.
Absolutely appalling – anti-abortionist who thinks death penalty is probably suitable.
I am anti abortion and I can answer that question
Through their asses in jail
or charge them with First Degree Murder.
Kill them for doing that.
kudos to you
fanatics really peeve me
i’m not for or against abortion
because that’s between a woman and her body
(and God) that whole grandma exchange was classic
i actually want to ask this question to anti-abortionists now
later
Charge them with murder, not really all that hard of a question to answer
I’m pro-life and believer that abortion is murder. The person that commits the abortion should be charged with the crime of murder, and the woman having the abortion is an accomplice so would incur lesser charges.
And what about the man who gets a woman pregnant and then abandons her, Daniel? I don’t hear anyone bringing up the issue of deadbeat dads here.
Send them to jail…
Has anyone ever gone to a funeral for a miscarried baby?
Why aren’t such things done? If the parents and the religious groups involved truly felt that the child was a baby, why wouldn’t they have a funeral?
@aboutaboyinindia
was that a haiku?
@ aor
The sad thing is, this is done. Idiot religious fanatics hold services & vigils for the poor murdered babies (i.e. clusters of cells that nobody wanted anyway.) It’s pathetic and a waste of time. There are so many more important issues (and grown people dying!) which these people could be putting their time, effort & money towards!
I think George Carlin sums it up best:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=george+carlin&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#q=george%20carlin%20prolife%20is%20anti%20woman&hl=en&emb=0
Good post.
All of you should read the book called Freakonomics by Stephen Dubner and Steven Levit.
This book describes the relation between legalizing the abortions and reduction in fall of crime.
Link to their blog:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/
Though, not directly related to the post, just felt its good read and hence posted it.
“When is a fetus a just a collection of cells, and when is it a baby?”
The answer to that is;
*When the mother decides it is is a baby.* Untill the *mother*– not you, Mr bystander, not your minister, not the cop down the street– The moment the mother knows she’s carrying her child, that’s when the fetus becomes a *baby.* That could happen the moment she sees that blue spot happen on the pee strip. It could happen the first time she loses her breakfast. It might take as long as the first sensation of movement, and here’s the thing, it might, just remotely possibly, never happen that this woman connects with the passenger within her body.
I am radically pro choice. I believe that if a woman wants to have an abortion for *any reason* she has the right to do so. If it’s because she just doesn’t feel like it, that’s a good enough reason for me.
That sounds outrageous, doesn’t it. But the truth is, that very very few woman make this decision in a social vacuum. There are almost always people around her, who will do their best to influence her, dissuade or support her. And a woman who is so truly alone in her mind that she does make the decision without any input– probably really does need to abort.
I had an abortion in my younger days, and I’ve never regretted it– thirty four years later. I knew I wanted kids, and I knew the time was not right.Since then I have raised two beautiful and responsible young adults. One reason I feel they grew up so well is that I was ready to be a mother by then.
Abortion is not a fun and pleasant thing.These men who claim that women are harmed “in body and mind” by abortions, though, are ignoring the numbers of women who are harmed in body and mind by birthing and mothering. To them I say; take your kindly concerns out of women’s business.
They could advertise prevention techniques instead.
The most interesting thing about this post isn’t the question posed, but that the person who posted it thinks it’s a profound question. Just because you found a few pro-lifers that haven’t thought out their worldviews doesn’t mean the pro-life view is incorrect. That’s called a straw-man argument. I suppose I could make a video of a bunch of unintelligent pro-abortionists (all I need to do to find them is drive to a local public university), but that would not satisfy me that my position is correct.
Riddle me this: what should be done with a person who intentionally kills a pregnant woman? Double-homicide? That’s how many states treat it, regardless of abortion laws.
@thenaturallawyer: Please see my comment above. What is and isn’t law has nothing to do with it.
@Stella: Oh, my goodness. Thankyou SO much, I agree with you 100%. I’ve never had an answer for the question “When does a foetus become a baby?” and now I do. thankyou. so true.
Interesting…..
So using a few select “anti-abortionists” to get the median thoughts of a whole country. I think before boasting about anything there should be a lot more polling going on.
There has to be some place in the middle with the Pro Life vs. Pro Choice conflict.
I believe that there is a very huge double standard going on with abortion. If someone murders a pregnant mother; that person can be charged with double homicide, but if a mother with an unwanted pregnancy gets an abortion its fine. What if someone murdered a pregnant woman who was going into an abortion clinic….would they get charged for two homicides and a hate crime? I wish the double standards would change.
Being pro choice does not necessarily mean being pro abortion. I believe abortion by any means should be a last second birth control. I believe that abortion should be there for the very obscure situations that are almost taboo. For example an 11 year old girl or an incest rape. In today’s society abortion is being far too abused.
Very entertaining article at the least. It is interesting to see someone not firm in what they believe in.
I still think all anti-abortion activists should be sentenced to be required to adopt one (1) unwanted baby.
A non-white baby. Not the highly sought after kind. The kinds we have more of than we can figure out how to take care of.
Adopting an older “problem child” that nobody will take would be considered acceptable too. Birth defects, drug habit, gang member…
I think the penalty for a woman that has an illegal abortion should be that they serve a mandatory 2 years of free infant/toddler child care in a state run care facility for first offence. 20 hours a week. This would be considered community service. After that, if they have another illegal abortion, they should serve jail/prison time and be judged and sentenced applicable to conspiracy to first degree murder in the state the abortion was preformed, The “doctor” that performs the procedure should be brought up on first degree murder charges in the state the abortion was performed.
There ya go.
Hah, very honest and truthful..
I think abortion is wrong in most cases…if it is a rape, or the unborn has a genetic disease which will cause severe handicap and suffering throughout life, then it is somewhat justified. But I can’t stand women who think, I don’t want this baby, this isn’t the proper time for a baby…I think I’ll just have an abortion and take the easy way out. There is always adoption. What is so hard about that? And I feel the way I do, because I lost a child. According to medical textbook cases, it was not a miscarriage because I was too far along. I have an incompetent cervix and it is difficult to carry the weight of a baby. I lost my son at 23 1/2 weeks into the pregnancy. And I was only 19 years old then. I think people who are willing to go have an abortion just because they don’t want a baby in their life right now, are selfish. It’s that simple. I wish I could have my son back more than anything in the world. And right now there is someone out there having an abortion because they don’t stop and think…some people don’t know how lucky they are to be able to choose. I didn’t get that choice. And so I feel it isn’t right to just end the life of an unborn. For most of you, it’s partially you’re fault you got pregnant anyway, so step up and take responsibility for you’re actions. I think even though I was 18 when I got pregnant and my boyfriend was 17, we handled the situation more appropriately than a lot of people twice our age. Abortion was never even a possibility for us because even though we were young and were just getting out on our own, we had morals..
@motspur: I agree with you that the human construct of law, whatever it is of the day, has no bearing on the question of the morality of abortion. However, you say “I believe that the punishment for murdering a pregnant woman should be MORE harsh than the punishment for murdering just a person”. Why is it that a pregnant woman is more than “just a person”. Is she “just two people”?
In the same post that you state that the lawmakers cannot decide whether abortion is moral, you affirm another post stating that a mother can. That makes no sense. No person can define for herself what is and is not an objective fact. The whole idea of “objective” means it does not depend on anyone (if it did, it would be “subjective”). By affirming Stella’s argument that a woman gets to decide when a fetus becomes a baby, you affirm an incoherent moral theory.
and I think if abortion were illegal, getting a life sentence in prison is not a cruel punishment. I think it would be the most fitting because then the accused would have to spend the rest of their life thinking about what they had done. Being put to death themselves wouldn’t give the opportunity for them to realize what they had done
shes obviously a smart cookie and has a well planned argument.. not
@ irishflame13
“Abortion was never even a possibility for us because even though we were young and were just getting out on our own, we had morals..”
Yeah, I have morals too, and they’re just as valid as yours. My moral is, I won’t bring a child into this world if I can’t be a good parent & support it.
“or most of you, it’s partially you’re fault you got pregnant anyway, so step up and take responsibility for you’re actions”
I will take responsibility for my actions. If I get pregnant, I will have an abortion, which I believe will be the most responsible choice, as I cannot emotionally or financially support a baby and would not be a good parent if I had one now.
@motspur… You said:
“What makes us who we are? What makes us human beings? Certainly not just the physical parts of us that have human DNA. No sir. We are who we are – more of a person every day – because of what we learn, our thoughts, our emotions, our MEMORIES. . . . A foetus is human physiologically, sure, but there is no person in there.”
I take it then that infanticide is cool with you? Paging Dr. Singer (Princeton)… And to say we are “more of a person every day” is interesting. What is a quintissential person? If this is a continuum, what are the end points? I sense we are going to have some arbitrary lines coming.
@thenaturallawyer
I believe that the body of a pregnant woman & the foetus inside her is more than just one life, it is a life and the possibility of a life. But not two lives.
“In the same post that you state that the lawmakers cannot decide whether abortion is moral, you affirm another post stating that a mother can. That makes no sense. No person can define for herself what is and is not an objective fact.”
No, but the point is that we can never know what IS the “objective fact” in this situation. No one can define when a foetus becomes a person. Some people believe in souls, some do not. Either way, we can’t tell when a soul enters a foetus, and if there isn’t a soul, we can’t define when a foetus becomes a person. You just can’t draw a definitive line. There is no decisive moment where one second ago it was a foetus and a second later it is a baby. It starts as some cells, it gains more cells, it exits the womb, it exits the vagina. It gains more cells as it continues to grow older. Point being, we can never draw the line. I think what is really important here is the mother’s choice. Regardless of whether it is a clump of cells or a cute widdle baby, I think it is the mother’s choice whether she should have a baby or not, and no lawmaker should decide that for her.
Motspur: “Yeah, I have morals too, and they’re just as valid as yours. My moral is…”
All morals are equally valid? Awesome! My moral is to steal whatever I want from people who write blog comments…
Not all morals are equally valid, and everybody knows that. If all morals were equally valid, you’d have nothing to say about the people who murdered Martin Luther King. After all, they were just following their consciences, right?
Some moral assertions are right, and some are wrong. That’s not to say that we cannot debate; but to think the arguments at hand are “equally valid” is just silly.
@thenaturallawyer:
No, infanticide is not cool with me. In fact, abortion is not cool with me. It’s a terrible thing, and not a decision to be taken lightly. But I still believe it is a woman’s choice whether she should have a baby or not.
What is a quintessential person? I don’t know. I don’t think anyone can really answer that question. Can you? I don’t think it’s all that relevant. My point is simply that, in situations where childbirth would kill the mother, or degrade her quality of life extremely, I consider a mother, with her memories & personality, to be more important than a blank canvas foetus with nothing yet to identify it besides its physical body.
@thenaturallawyer
Sorry, but I disagree with you. I believe all opinions, views & moral standpoints are equally valid. Some are stupid, perhaps, in my or your opinion – but that is just another opinion, again.
When it comes to deciding what is “right”, for the purpose of laws, etc, I am utilitarian, and believe the decision should be made which contributes to the greatest happiness/usefulness, and that everyone should be able to voice & act upon their own moral beliefs, as long as it does not harm others.
And no, I don’t count a foetus as an “other” which can be harmed.
Basically, there is no definitive “right” and “wrong”. Life is simply not that black & white.
The saddest part about this whole discussion? Pro-life people who want to women who have abortions punished typically imply that their motive for punishment is revenge; “I want them to spend the rest of their life thinking about what they have done.”
You’re against murder, but revenge is cool with you? You want these people to spend the rest of their lives in agony? That doesn’t seem like a very Christian point of view. WWJD?
The other sad part is that many pro-life people fully realize that their convictions are based on faith; they know they have no rational, verifiable, scientific arguments for ideas like “being human begins at conception.” Yet they *still* want to impose their views on other people. I fully respect your right to believe whatever you want; I just don’t think that right to believe gives you the right to impose your views on others.
You don’t want others to push their non-verifiable, irrational faith-based ideas on you. You don’t want muslims to impose the Sharia laws on you. You wouldn’t want Tom Cruise to force his Xenu-based ideas on you; why do you want to push your ideas on me?
And finally, you already *do* believe that women who have abortions will be punished for their acts once they’re dead. Why do you want to punish them *again* while they’re still alive?
motspur:
“it is a life and the possibility of a life” So when a woman is fertile, does that count? Or does there have to be an actual life growing inside her? Oh wait, I called it life. If it’s only a potential life, what is it now? Using the label “fetus” is just evasive: if you are saying it’s a “potential” life, you are saying it isn’t a life. But that is contrary to the objective facts.
“we can never know what IS the ‘objective fact’” I disagree. We can know lots of objective facts, including whether an unborn person is alive. The objective facts regarding viability outside the womb for certain unborn persons (that the law allows to be aborted) are undisputable.
“No one can define when a foetus becomes a person” You did, just a few posts ago, remember? You said what makes a person (memories and all that). Now you are appealing to ignorance?
“There is no decisive moment where one second ago it was a foetus and a second later it is a baby.” I could not agree more. Fetus=baby. We’re on the same page.
“You just can’t draw a definitive line” Then why are you doing so? Your definitive line is, apparently, birth, unless you’re cool with infanticide, right?
“Regardless of whether it is a clump of cells or a cute widdle baby, I think it is the mother’s choice whether she should have a baby or not, and no lawmaker should decide that for her” Regardless of whether a black person is a real human or a workhorse, I think it’s the property owner’s choice whether to have a slave or not, and no lawmaker should decide that for him. Explain to me the logic that destroys the latter statement without destroying the former. Keep in mind that at the time, there was no consensus about whether slavery should be legal, whether black people were fully human, or whether that even mattered for purposes of law. Can we allow slave owners to define when their property counts as a person? Or should we not allow people to decide such questions for themselves?
Your question is actually very simple. If the act was illegal, then women who get an abortion (and the doctors who perform them) would likely have to be incarcerated like any other murderer. Not that difficult.
The purpose behind your question is to avoid the reality of the unborn child and the fact that he/she is genetically alive and separate from his/her mother. And it figures you’d seek to avoid discussing the unborn in your question while focusing totally on (1) the mother, (2) the potential penality. When forced to admit the facts behind BASIC embryology, which have been around for decades, the pro-abortion position collapses like the house of cards that it has always been and always will be.
Hence we get simplistic and evasive questions like “If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?” all of which avoids the humanity of the unborn.
Fortunately, some of us are not fooled by your rhetorical gymnastics.
Typical pro-abortion b.s..
First of all, the issue of the morality of the issue is different from that of the appropriate punishment. People may want to crack down on any number of social ills, but aren’t necessarily sure of the best methods of enforcement.
Second of all, I’m a pro-lifer, and I don’t crumple up when faced with these types of questions. I write stuff like this, which does a number on every little theory near and dear to pro-abort hearts.
Third of all, think through these issues yourself. What is the best way to enforce laws? How do we balance punishment, deterrence, and reintegration? They aren’t easy questions, and it does a grave disservice to all Americans to pretend that some of our greatest social issues are facile and cutesy.
I just love it.
Thank you so much, I will use it.
I personally am against abortion FOR MYSELF. One thing that I love about laws enabling women to have an abortion is that it is about freedom and (to me) the real purpose of freedom, which is to learn and hopefully become wiser.
I am against abortion for myself but I am glad that we have the opportunity to because it is also to me a good way to question ourself.
What are all these good people against abortion ready to do to prevent an abortion beside protesting? Are they putting in the means to give a chance to a teen to raise her child? Are they providing all the psychological and financial help some women would need to raise this child? Because yes, unless we are dealing with a total idiot (if it is so then let us drive her to the nearest hospital so she can have this abortion), no woman have it without giving a thought about it, without feeling hurt about it, without any trauma.
Picturing these women so lightly is to me being prejudiced against them. It is so easy to have a set image that is not too profound so you can have such an easy point of view on it.
“”it is a life and the possibility of a life” So when a woman is fertile, does that count? Or does there have to be an actual life growing inside her? Oh wait, I called it life. If it’s only a potential life, what is it now? Using the label “fetus” is just evasive: if you are saying it’s a “potential” life, you are saying it isn’t a life. But that is contrary to the objective facts.”
Umm… sorry, you might have to reword this one for me, you are confusing me. No, it doesn’t count if a woman is fertile, I’m talking about when she is pregnant. No, using the word foetus is not evasive, that is what it is called. A foetus. What would you rather I called it?
“”we can never know what IS the ‘objective fact’” I disagree. We can know lots of objective facts, including whether an unborn person is alive. The objective facts regarding viability outside the womb for certain unborn persons (that the law allows to be aborted) are undisputable.”
Uh, yeah. I’m not gonna dispute something being “alive”. I will dispute whether it should be allowed the same rights as another thing which is also alive.
“”No one can define when a foetus becomes a person” You did, just a few posts ago, remember? You said what makes a person (memories and all that). Now you are appealing to ignorance?”
No, I merely said what was my opinion of when a foetus becomes a person. We can never really KNOW. Everyone will always have differing opinions on it.
“”You just can’t draw a definitive line” Then why are you doing so? Your definitive line is, apparently, birth, unless you’re cool with infanticide, right?”
That’s not my definitive line, no. I don’t HAVE a definitive line. My opinion, to be a little more detailed, is that a woman has a right to abortion anytime. However I do think that closer to birth or the time when a baby could survive outside the womb, at a time when it has already been obvious that the woman is pregnant, it is much more humane and sensible for the woman to carry the baby to term and then put it up for adoption. At such a late point there is no different effect to her than a small amount of time extra carrying the baby, and unless that’s going to KILL her, I’d strongly suggest just carrying the baby to term. I couldn’t make a LAW on that, however, because I couldn’t draw a line at X months or Z weeks as the definitive time after which the baby must be carried to term. My point is, we should not legislate these things because we can’t create a cut off point. We can only educate people and hope that they do the right thing.
” “Regardless of whether it is a clump of cells or a cute widdle baby, I think it is the mother’s choice whether she should have a baby or not, and no lawmaker should decide that for her” Regardless of whether a black person is a real human or a workhorse, I think it’s the property owner’s choice whether to have a slave or not, and no lawmaker should decide that for him. Explain to me the logic that destroys the latter statement without destroying the former.”
Simple. A slave is not living INSIDE THE SLAVE OWNER’S BODY.
@LKM: “The saddest part about this whole discussion? Pro-life people who want to women who have abortions punished typically imply that their motive for punishment is revenge;”
I could not agree more. Governmental punishment is not revenge and should not be invoked passionately. People who want to “get back at” women who’ve had abortions are just mean-spirited (and ordinarily irrational). Justice, on the other hand, is a different matter, and I don’t mean that it’s a simple one.
motspur: “What is a quintessential person? I don’t know. I don’t think anyone can really answer that question. Can you?”
A person is a person. I don’t think it’s a continuum. So yes, I can define a quintessential person. A living human being.
“Sorry, but I disagree with you. I believe all opinions, views & moral standpoints are equally valid.”
That’s funny. I disagree with you (i.e. you are wrong), but our views are equally valid. Clearly, you don’t believe what you are preaching. Otherwise you wouldn’t say that you disagree (there would be no such thing as the law of noncontradiction if all positions are equally valid). I think you are confusing knowledge with truth. No human being is infallible. One of us is wrong. We both take contrary positions. Just because we aren’t infallible doesn’t mean one (or both) of us isn’t wrong. Unless by “valid” you just mean “infallibly correct”, in which case you’d be torturing the English language…
“everyone should be able to voice & act upon their own moral beliefs, as long as it does not harm others.
And no, I don’t count a foetus as an “other” which can be harmed”
So how do you define harm? Whoever gets to define “harm” gets to force others not to act upon their “own moral beliefs”. There is simply no way around the government deciding which worldview will be privileged. Either an unborn person has a right to live or he/she does not. For the government to “not impose its morality” on the mother is to impose its morality on the child, by privileging the act of killing the child.
I propose a law: it is legal to kill law students. You don’t have to kill law students; it’s your choice. The government leaves it up to you. Answer this: is the law “anti-law student”? Or is it neutral because it doesn’t force anyone to do anything? I’m thinking the former…
You are asking the WRONG QUESTION. WHAT IS LEGAL IS MORAL TOO? OR THE OPPOSITE?
I am not putting here “moral” in the religion level. Morality is the minimum standarts that help us live together and communicate. For eg how you talk to your parents, friends, wife, boss etc.
So the question here is not about punishment. To give you the an example. Cheating your wife or having s-x with your best friends girlfriend is illigal? NO. Should you do the time in prison? Of course NOT. But is it MORAL? Cheating is not illagel but a judge will accept cheating as a reason for a divorce!
So legislature here is not legislating abortion illigal in order to punish but to prevent. Killing an embryo just because you are bored to rase a child or for economical reasons or because you were drunk last night is not an option. Even in practical way births are the only productive part of a community. So a society has the obligation to protect embryos as much as family and children.
I think that only doctors should be punished in way because of their Oath of Hippocrates. But that we can discuss it some other time.
“A slave is not living INSIDE THE SLAVE OWNER’S BODY.” You have reduced your argument to location. Where a person is determines whether a person has rights. I’m glad we got this down to the sticking point. I think we’re at an impasse, but you should walk away knowing that location is your last best final argument. It’s the only thing that truly distinguishes the slavery example.
Abortion is murder.
Imagine you have before you a chicken egg with a live fetus in it. In your conscience you know that if you stepped on it, you’d kill whatever was living inside.
Jesus defined murder as hatred in the heart. Our legal system does not punish murder as Jesus defines it, but God knows and takes account. So although our legal system does not punish women who have abortions, it does not mean they have not committed murder.
The US legal system is actually not designed to punish convicts for the purpose of enforcing a moral standard. It is designed to deter future criminal behavior and to rehabilitate people and return them to society (if you disagree, consult legal scholars).
The catch-22 you’ve created is flawed because just because the US criminal system does not punish a type of behavior does not mean it is right behavior – it is merely permissible. Different types of murder are treated differently under the system, anyhow. It just so happens that this kind murder is not punished; rather, Roe v. Wade allows it.
So to answer your question: What should happen to these women for the wrong they have committed? Nothing. They need compassion to heal from their guilt. I’m sure it feels worse than stepping on a live chicken egg.
“I disagree with you (i.e. you are wrong),”
Uh, NO. I am not wrong just because you disagree with me. You are not wrong just because I disagree with you. I BELIEVE you are wrong – but that is just my opinion, also, and I am perfectly willing to accept that.
“one of us is wrong”
No, I don’t think so. If we were debating some very solid fact (e.g. the sky is blue, no it isn’t it’s red) then one of us would be wrong. But we are debating a moral issue which has many shades of grey, as such I don’t think either of our opinions are definitely RIGHT or WRONG, the are just OPINIONS. By “valid” I mean “this opinion just as worthy as any other opinion.”
“So how do you define harm? Whoever gets to define “harm” gets to force others not to act upon their “own moral beliefs”.”
Gah. I define harm as harm is defined in the dictionary. You can harm a stick but I don’t really care about that. How I define harm is irrelevant. What is under debate here is what can be defined as a human with human rights. In the case of a foetus I don’t think we can make an informed decision either way, so we should not make it illegal to have abortions, therefore choosing for a woman what she wants to do with her own body. I don’t think that is right.
“I propose a law: it is legal to kill law students. You don’t have to kill law students; it’s your choice. The government leaves it up to you. Answer this: is the law “anti-law student”? Or is it neutral because it doesn’t force anyone to do anything?”
Irrelevant. Law students are obviously already fully-fledged human beings and they don’t live in someone else’s womb. It’s obvious that we shouldn’t kill them just for being law students.
@becky:
“Imagine you have before you a chicken egg with a live fetus in it. In your conscience you know that if you stepped on it, you’d kill whatever was living inside.” Not a valid metaphor for abortion – the chicken foetus is not inside its mother. Just stepping on an egg with a live baby chicken inside is just killing a baby chicken for no reason.
“Jesus defined murder as hatred in the heart. ”
So if I feel no hatred towards the person I’m killing… say I’m demented, psychotic, mentally unstable, I just enjoy killing people for no reason at all, no hatred, and believe it is the right thing to do… that’s not murder? Hrm.
Not sure if this has been pointed out yet, but; if abortion was illegal, the doctor performing the abortion should be prosocuted.
“Irrelevant. Law students are obviously already fully-fledged human beings and they don’t live in someone else’s womb. It’s obvious that we shouldn’t kill them just for being law students.”
Well, we are muddling legal and moral obligations, and I brought up the law side of it, so I’m not pointing fingers…
Whether you would approve of such a law is certainly relevant. Again you’ve reduced your argument to location. And I didn’t suggest that we kill law students just for being law students; I proposed a law that allowed us to kill law students for any reason (they are kind of annoying…).
“we are debating a moral issue which has many shades of grey, as such I don’t think either of our opinions are definitely RIGHT or WRONG, the are just OPINIONS. By “valid” I mean “this opinion just as worthy as any other opinion.””
Well, then I suppose you don’t think your opinions are right? That’s what it means to believe your opinion. Of course I’m not wrong just because you think I am (and vice versa); you are right or wrong because your beliefs do or do not align with the truth. Likewise for me. Neither of us has absolute knowledge which of us is right (unless one of us is God, and I know I’m not Him…), but that doesn’t mean every opinion is as worthy as every other opinion. Otherwise you could never punish anyone for anything, and you couldn’t criticize any action (holocaust, for example) because their opinions are equally valid. I am so convinced that the Nazis were wrong that I’d be willing to take arms against such evil, and I would hope you’d be there to join me.
Motspur: ““Jesus defined murder as hatred in the heart. ”
So if I feel no hatred towards the person I’m killing… say I’m demented, psychotic, mentally unstable, I just enjoy killing people for no reason at all, no hatred, and believe it is the right thing to do… that’s not murder? Hrm.”
That’s awesome. Couldn’t agree with you more. It obviously doesn’t matter whether a person thinks his actions murderous or not; murder is objectively murder whether the person truly recognizes it…regardless of his opinions, right?
I am so sorry to leave an excellent debate in the middle, but I have to go to bed. Motspur, it has been a pleasure speaking with you, and you have given me a chance to think more critically about my beliefs, and I hope I returned the favor. Have a pleasant evening/morning.
Some people confuse “I don’t like it” with “there oughta be a law”.
@thenaturallawyer:
To your first comment – Yes, of course – my whole view on the abortion issue is based on the simple fact of location. A foetus is essentially a parasite living inside a woman’s womb, and I think therefore she has the right to decide whether it may continue living there, or not. Not a nice way of putting it, and I certainly don’t actually think of a foetus as a parasite. I do believe a baby, a foetus, WHATEVER, pregnancy – is a wonderful and amazing thing. I would never WISH death upon any foetus. I am not PRO-abortion. I simply believe in maintaining a woman’s right to choose.
Yes, I do think we’re at rather an impasse. I really don’t think this is an issue that can ever be resolved, as such. Everyone will always have differing opinions on it, and that is why I don’t think we should put down laws banning abortion, because that is taking one side which may or may not be right. People who don’t approve of abortions should not have abortions, and leave those who have differing opinions to do what they wish with their own bodies.
To your second comment…
“Well, then I suppose you don’t think your opinions are right?”
Of course I think my opinions are right. That doesn’t mean I KNOW they are “the ultimate right way”. I know they are just opinions, like yours, and though I may disagree with your opinion, I appreciate it as an opinion just as valid & worthy as my own. Bringing up things like the holocaust, well I do still believe the Nazi’s opinions are just as valid and worthy as my opinions and your opinions! That doesn’t mean I think they were right, and yes, I would gladly stand against them by your side. I can criticize actions like theirs because I believe they are wrong, and they harmed many people. That doesn’t mean I count their opinion as any less worthy. I think it is wrong, and stupid, and horrible, but still an opinion just like mine.
To your third and fourth…
“It obviously doesn’t matter whether a person thinks his actions murderous or not; murder is objectively murder whether the person truly recognizes it…regardless of his opinions, right?”
Well, yes, but what is murder is still a matter of opinion, and differs from person to person, culture to culture. I was just replying to Jesus’ apparent definition of murder, according to Becky, which seems a little idiotic to me.
I too have enjoying debating with you, and you have indeed done me the great favour of showing me ways of questioning my beliefs, forcing me to justify them. I think that is one of the most important things in life, questioning everything, especially one’s own beliefs. Thankyou for debating with me intelligently and civilly! If only everyone on the internet was like you. Thankyou.
extraodrinary! Excellent post! One of the best stuff I’ve read so far, on wordpess. Congrats!
i am totally against abortion i think is a very great murder cause you kill an innocent child which can’t do anything to save him to protect himself to fight against the abortive procedure.maybe those women should be punished but much hard punishment is their sufference, they have to live all their life with this great fault very hard to live with.
Just because one or a few pro-life/anti-abortionists are unable to respond to your question in a satisfactory way does not mean that all or ever most anti-abortionists would be so tongue-tied.
The simple answer is this: A person who performs an illegal abortion should be prosecuted by law according to the appropriate standard on the books (likely that would be the taking of another’s life.)
It’s that simple. But this is not the debate at hand. Rather it’s a red herring on your part. The real issue is ought abortion law be decided by 9 justices or by the states themselves?
Let abortion be a state issue (as it was prior to Roe V. Wade).
I value skin cells more.
That’s your question to stump all anti abortionists? I’m against abortion and if it were illegal I’d say send the woman to prison. What’s so hard about that?
Abortion means taking a humans life. That’s it, and who did it should be punished. I’m anti abortion.
When my brain activity ceases, I am dead. Why isn’t the reverse true?
What’s so stumping about that? The first thing I thought of was: If abortion was “illegal” like you said, the doctor performing the operation & the woman would most likely go to jail or something just like any person would if they did something “illegal”. If you steal you get put in prison because stealing is illegal. It’s simpler than anything. The question is whether something like that would ever become illegal. Morally, I think it is like killing & wrong. It’s their responsibility for getting pregnant in the first place.
What should be done with women?
As a Christian I say:
Pray for them, and their recovery from something as terrible as killing your own child.
As a citizen I say:
An illegal abortion can be a de-penalized crime, as it already is in many countries. There is no penalty for the crime, but it is a crime.
Abortion is a crime promoted by people who are making loads of money out of it. It is a better business to promote abortion than to help women to carry out unwanted pregnancies.
Sure we’ve all been annoyed by some of the pro-life folks, especially when their passion for the cause eclipses a clear, sustainable dialogue. But that’s not a reason to dismiss the pro-life culture entirely.
The pro-lifers are fighting to protect everyone’s right to be alive; whether sick, unborn, dying, or disabled.
As for the question here, what is to be the punishment for breaking the laws against abortion…Here’s my reply. Anti-abortion legislation isn’t aimed at punitive measures so much as it is designed to restrict access to abortion services.
I’ve personally seen what abortion can do to a woman and there is no punishment to equal the guilt that CAN follow her for the rest of her life.
And for the other pro-life people: It’s not enough to just vote for legislation or protest at the clinic! We have to create a culture of life and that means helping people in need, demonstrating the joy you find in all life, and nurturing people in your community and beyond.
I think the position England had prior to 1967/68 is reasonable ie it was illegal to perform an abortion, but not illegal to have the abortion.
The abortionist would suffer legal consequences, not the woman herself who may not even be culpable if she is acting out of fear and isolation.
Nadia:
What if the woman had a coat hanger abortion? And how does one legally define “acting out of fear and isolation”?
Because if “acting out of fear and isolation” becomes a legitimate way of avoiding murder charges, I can assure you everyone and their mother will start claiming they were “acting out of fear and isolation” when they shoot, stabbed or choked another person.
You are right. The most logical conclusion is that these women (or the men who pressured them to abort their children) should go to jail. I agree with your observation.
The pro-lifers should be consistent, and I am sure that many are.
great thought i do appreciate it, nice video too
Brilliant video – more things like this are needed as an example to people who go around flounting their beliefs on people, yet have absolutely no true idea of what they’re arguing, nor what the other side of the argument even is.
Well your title was a little misleading.
From the comments it appears that many anti-abortionists were in-fact not stumped.
However there are a few it’s the womans choice comments out there so I’d just like to point out something:
Men have no rights whatsoever in regards to the baby, they do not have a legitamate say in whether the baby lives or dies.
Men have responsibilities though:
The lady keeps the baby, he doesn’t want it. He is required to pay a percentage of his wage for eighteen years to the mother of the child. (Correct me if I’m wrong please, seriously).
(To all those who say the man should have used protection, why doesn’t the woman? Why is it always the mans responibility?)
The lady doesn’t want the baby he does:
Lady and Man have disscusion -
Baby is kept.
Baby is aborted.
Either way, the two suffer damage, serious damage to their relationship.
So here is a suggestion, perhaps in the case of abortion both the man and woman must consent (Unless it is in the case of rape whereby it is not likely that the man will be known, but there are Morning After pills). With the woman having the final say of course.
However if the Father wishes to keep the child and the Mother does not then the Mother must pay a portion of her wages for eighteen years to the government (or man depending on whether I was wrong previously).
Whether or not you consider a foetus a human or not realise that Males have no legal say in this whatsoever.
Even though it is the womans body and the woman is the one who must go through the pains of childbirth, a man is required for this to happen.
And yes I do realise that there are such things as custody claims or whatever however usually the best outcome is won by the woman.
Note I am neither pro-life or pro-choice, all I am asking for is that the Male part of our species is given some legal rights in determining the fate of his child. The plan I put forward is pro-choice in nature because in a pro-life situation nethier gender would have a say.
Right thats it, back to the internet with you I say! Back!
If this wasn’t such a serious issue, some of these answers would be hilarious.
You see, for some people, it would seem, the removal of a tumor, in an attempt to save a life, constitutes murder!
Unless, of course, you have no interest in consistency, or sound logical argument, in which case, you don’t really have a case at all.
And if you wish to claim that “life” begins at conception (which is utterly indefensible), when what we are really talking about here is a few clumps of cells, it is hard to escape the conclusion that you commit a heinous act every time you swat a poor fly.
A sperm is “alive”, and so too is the egg. Both have the “potential” to become a fully formed human being, in combination. Are people seriously suggesting that it is the combination of the two that bestows them with “rights”? Seriously?
As others have already pointed out, either God is the worlds greatest abortionist, or they themselves are complete hypocrites, for not dedicating their lives (as well as their money) to making sure that miscarriage is prevented (or at least more preventable). There are roughly 900,000 miscarriages every year in the United States, alone. I can’t help wondering if many in this thread have even thought about that?
And it gets worse, because it is almost certain that most of the self-righteously indignant do not actually care about human life, afterall. If they did, they wouldn’t stand idly by while 26,500 children die of preventable death, this very day (and tomorrow, and the day after that……)!
Here’s what can happen when abortion is illegal (note: if you wish to challenge these statistics, I’d be happy with that, considering the difficulty in obtaining figures):
# Estimates of the annual number of illegal abortions in the United States during the1950s and 1960s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million.
# Of the 46 million abortions occurring worldwide each year, 20 million take place in countries where abortion is prohibited by law.
# Prior to Roe v. Wade, as many as 5,000 American women died annually as a direct result of unsafe abortions.
# According to the WHO, in countries where abortion remains unsafe it is a leading cause of maternal mortality, accounting for 78,000 of the 600,000 annual pregnancy-related deaths worldwide.
The point of these statistics is to highlight that, even when abortion is illegal, it rarely, if ever, reduces the number of abortions. And it almost certainly creates more problems than it destroys. In fact, abortion has been steadily decreasing, anyway. If there was a concerted effort to provide better education and support (as happens in Europe), those numbers would fall even faster.
I have wonder if those who would either punish women with prison sentences, or murder! them, with the backing of the state, have given this issue a moments thought, because it damn well doesn’t look like it.
Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
It’s really easy to look like the rational side when you cherry-pick the man-on-the-street goofballs from the other side. I wonder whether the typical Pro-Choice demonstrater could articulate a convincing theory of fetal consciousness if confronted impromptu. Likely not, and it would prove very little about the person confronted or the person using such a lame tactic.
For a truly rational (and scientific) explanation of the hesitance of these people to punish women for abortion, you might also look into the vast difference in the way women and men are punished for murder that is generally accepted as murder: killing someone already born. In other words, compare this test sample with a control.
You’ll find that, for the exact same violent crimes, women are treated far more leniently by the justice system than men. In fact, gender is more of an predicter of harsh sentencing than race, when comparing punishment for the same violent crimes.
So, when analysed rationally and scientifically, this phenomenon has little to do with Pro-Lifers being unclear about what they think about abortion, and everything to do with a general reluctance to hold women accountable for violent crimes (perceived or actual), because women are punished relatively lightly for all forms of murder.
(Of course, this does not prove that abortion is murder, just that Pro-Lifers can believe it is murder and still hesitate to punish women who have done it.)
Also, have you considered what this hesitance to punish women implies for the Pro-Choice talking point that the Pro-Life movement is a sexist attempt to control women? If that were the case, Pro-Lifers would not hesitate to send women to jail.
If however, as many Pro-Lifers themselves claim, their movement is actually about trying to protect the weak, the desire to forgive women who commit abortion makes perfect sense. So, in essence, you’ve scuttled key Pro-Choice propaganda and confirmed key Pro-Life propaganda. Congratulations!
Being rational is more than just rejecting the religion of your parents and patting yourself on the back for being skeptical. It means you have to think things through, beyond the “gotcha” of cheap, partisan tactics.
It is not that the woman is not unimportant, it is that the out come of the action is so severe and the worst action of all. I believe that people in America choose to view things our own way so we can justify our actions. This post to me is vulgar and, very sad. Sorry, mine probably wont be seen. lt is a considered a murder not becuase they are religious phanatics. Because the faith believes it is morally wrong. Why is it normal for someone to be thrown in jail for murder and, not someone who has done this? I don’t comprehend the reasoning. There is definetly lack of compassion. JMJ
“Brilliant video – more things like this are needed as an example to people who go around flounting their beliefs on people, yet have absolutely no true idea of what they’re arguing, nor what the other side of the argument even is.”
It was the last comment above mine and yet seems to sum up this entire blog far better than even the original author. This “evidence” for a “win” above pro-life advocates does nothing but show the ignorance of a few amongst the many. It does nothing to differentiate between moral or legal issues but rather throws both at someone when often the two are incompatible (it is morally wrong to torture people yet often it is legal to do so; it is morally wrong to kill someone yet some US states still have the death penalty) and ultimately neither morality nor legality is set in stone; both are in some way based on individual belief structures.
The real outcome of this “research” is as shown above, that the issue of ignorance (rather than opinion within abortion) is of great importance. To blindly accept anything is the ultimate misdeed upon humanity but to then advocate your belief in protest is bordering on sinful and immoral (or illegal? who knows).
Hopefully the researchers made a few people think a bit harder about what they deplore so loudly but I hardly think this can be construed as proof (or disproof) of any argument. Similar logic would have me disregard any other form of evidence for evolution when a girl I know (who believes in evolution) told me that the notion of humans arising from microbs was “silly”. She is ignorant of a belief she supposedly holds. Doesn’t mean she’s correct and that a scientific theory is fundamentally flawed.
All in all quite an interesting blog but only for the comments succeeding it and the debates that have sprung up.
You help them in whatever way you can, of course. Nope, not a stumper at all.
Many of them were/are victims of the lies spread by Planned Parenthood and similar organizations.
Think of it. If we prolifers (believers in God) are right and you are wrong, you by supporting this or actually participating in this activity, would have killed billions of babies/human beings by world’s end.
And then what would you say to God? What would you then say to all the women that have have been greatly deceived?
May you indeed be enlightened in your thinking. I wish you well.
Are you making the assumption that all pro-lifers are Christians? Can’t someone be appalled at the murder of an unborn child just by the fact that it’s an unborn child that was killed? People can believe it’s murder without having any religious affiliation…
Are Christians the only ones that abhor a toddler being beaten into a coma or become incensed by a pedophile molesting a child? I think Christians and non-Christians alike find these acts atrocious so why is it impossible for someone to think that it’s murder to kill a baby growing inside of a woman without being a bible thumping fanatic?
And just for the record, I do think it’s murder and YES, I do believe the doctors and woman should be tried for murder.
I do not think that “your question” should nor will stump any true believer. The saying “Give to Ceasar what is his” should settle this matter.
If abortion were to be illegal, the body in charge of creating and implementing laws in this country will or should come up with the “appropriate” sentencing / penalty. Oh by the way, it is said that “Be not deceived, you reap whatsoever you sow”. If you do not intend to be pregnant, either do not engage in activities that will result in it or just take precautions. If you do not then enjoy the “fruit” of your labor – Selfish …..LOL.
Go to: http://dmouhon.wordpress.com if you want to continue or learn a little more. Be blessed you and everyone that reads this.
Ah yes almost forgot.
I am an aethist.
Whatever way you look at it, abortion is murder. A child in the womb is still a child and still a human being, even if it isn’t fully formed.
I don’t oppose abortion because of religion -I oppose it morally because I know it’s wrong.
Everyone knows it’s wrong.
No woman ever has an abortion easily. There is no woman who just say “Yeah just headin’ for an abortion” as if it’s a dentist trip. It’s a huge decision for a woman to make, because she herself knows it’s a murder: if it wasn’t, there would be no conscience involved. As an earlier post points out, a person can be charged with two accounts of murder if they kill a pregnant woman in many places.
I don’t agree with radical Pro-Lifers and I don’t agree with pushing God in everyone’s faces when making the argument, but I also think your superiour attitude is pretty disgusting. Why do you think it’s funny to make fools out of people fighting for life?
That question is easy to answer:
Bring them to Jesus, because He is the one who can take the guilt away!
This verse corresponds with my own experience and with the experience of many other Christians. So I assume that it’s true.
I think the main question is not if abortion should be illegal or legal, it’s the question if abortion is okay. Just think about that: if people feel qualms about having an abortion, they admit that it is not okay.
I am convinced that God doesn’t want us to have abortions. And the point is that people should first of all be obedient to God and then obedient to human laws. And the human law is just a workaround until Jesus will set up his reign completely. The function of human law is to make the society work, not to accomplish justice. The only one who can accomplish justice, is God Himself.
When we have understood the meaning of human law, we come to those questions like: “Does the society work if robbers and murderers are at large?” Of course not! That’s why they must go to jail.
According question to abortion is: “Does the society work if we give abortionists plenty of rope?”
Our society is not ready to answer that question yet, but we will see that the society won’t work because if we kill the babies, there will be no one who cares about the old people. But this is a long term issue, while other crimes have an immediate impact to the society.
Considering this, I would recommend a low punishment for abortions. Maybe not for the women, but definitely for the doctors.
In Germany, by the way, abortion is illegal, but there is no punishment under the law for it. I think that isn’t an absurd solution. But it is true, when there is no penalty, people tend to think that they have a right to do so.
I wish you the best,
Philip
It should have went like this:
Q: Abortion should be illegal, did you say?
A: Yes, it should be illegal because it’s killing a human person.
Q: But don’t abortions send babies to Jesus faster?
/convo
Don’t confuse mercy from a Christian for a mistaken mother as admission that we don’t believe abortion is killing another human life.
Let’s just turn that question around.
Is that bit of tissue (with it’s OWN separate DNA, blood type and heartbeat) in the mother’s womb alive or dead?
If alive, what is it? Is it bovine, porcine, equine … or is it human?
If it’s human tissue, with it’s OWN DNA, it’s OWN blood type and it’s OWN heartbeat…. then when you kill it, it’s killing a human life of some sort that is separate from the mother.
Oh, you say it’s NOT viable without being attached to it’s mother? Thus it’s not human?
Well, a human being who is seriously injured in a hospital might also NOT be viable on his/her own without the aid of being attached to life support machines.
Does that make THAT person any less human for the time it’s dependent upon being hooked up to life support?
Here´s a nice brazilian video regarding abortion x punishment, I´ll do my best to (freely) translate:
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=_GDsuSk1vdA
Title: “Vai pensando aí” – Think about it
Narrator – Are you pro or against abortion?
People: – Against, against, against…
Narrator – Do you know somebody who had an abortion?
People: – I do, I do, I do…
Narrator – Should this person be arrested?
People: silence.
In Brazil, abortion is a crime in ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, including rape or life risk to the pregnant woman, however, isn´t punished in these 2 cases.
Sorry bout my jungle English.
Sylvia
“I have never thought about that.”
Yeah, I figured those people did not think much.
Everyone has an opinion. But how many people who have these opinions have been pregnant in a situation that was dire enough where abortion was an option they were seriously considering?
Not guys who’ve gotten women pregnant. Not mothers who had children that they wanted. And certainly not some person who has never been pregnant and has only ever heard about this third-hand. The privileged do not know where the hungry sit. Until you’ve been in that spot, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
I’ve been pregnant twice. I had my first and fought hard to have him when his father wanted me to abort. He is the light of my life. I then developed lupus, for which I have no health insurance and have been driven into poverty because I have trouble working. I was then raped by a boyfriend who was too drunk to care, and I had to get an abortion. It was horrible, but it is possible that it saved my life and preserved my ability to mother my existing child. I regret the necessity of that decision, and it is the result of a society that doesn’t care about women or their situations. They love to talk about how much they care about babies, but don’t give a damn about the people who make them.
No one else can understand that situation better than I could, and no one — certainly not the Christians who were protesting outside of the clinic — offered to do anything to help me with my situation other than my doctor at Planned Parenthood, my best friend who drove me and took care of me afterward, and the stranger who held my hand during the procedure. The Christians who were sign-waving never even bothered to ASK me what happened. They have no curiosity about what really causes these things.
What one person sees as irresponsibility from their comfortable position outside of things is almost always a very complex situation, often involving poverty, oppression, public shaming, threats, violence and lack of options. But people who talk about how to deal with abortion NEVER talk about addressing the sexual objectification, abuse, rape, poverty, lack of educational opportunities, and disrespect that women deal with, and I’ve never heard of an abortion that didn’t happen in a situation rife with those things.
This is about controlling women. If people are so concerned with stopping the spilling of the blood of innocents rather than controlling women, where is the great wealth of outreach toward MEN to stop raping, sexually objectifying women, beating women, overburdening women with domestic labor, and depriving them of professional and educational opportunities on the basis of the perceived primary social role women have as sex receptacles and baby factories? Why aren’t MEN being reprimanded by poster-carrying Christians showing images of dead babies to stop having casual sex, and/or use protection? Where are the pro-life/pro-moral protesters outside of strip bars and porn shops decrying THAT? Why isn’t there more pressure to discover medical means of safely temporarily sterilizing men in order to provide them with easy, inexpensive options to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Where is ANYBODY who says they care about the little children when legislation comes up for fair pay, or rape protection, or educational opportunities for women? And here I mean the kind of education that provides careers, not just the close-your-legs kind, because a lot of women have sex precisely because society teaches that financial support is a fair and acceptable trade for being a sex receptacle and baby maker.
Care about women — the place where babies come from — and abortion rates will decline. But then, donating to the National Domestic Violence Hotline or NOW or medica mondiale or just treating women you know like human beings isn’t nearly as catchy as shouting “stop murdering babies you whores!” from the street in your nifty red t-shirt.
Interesting post. But…
I think the questions you really want to ask are:
Why does no-one on the internet ever read more than about four responses in a thread before saying “you’re all wrong, none of you have thought about it as deeply as I have”?
How many Christians does it take to not answer a question?
Why do otherwise intelligent liberals allow themselves to get sidetracked off a discussion by exactly the sort of people they claim to be disdaining?
Why do unborn foetuses all look like Hugo Weaving?
Who will win the next World Cup?
etc.
When you answer those questions you will have dealt with the real issues.
thank you for pointing this out and in some reflection I think that the question you pose is so reasonable and affords us as a community to think through. I think that the language in the abortion debate has been unfortunate in its divisiveness. Words like murder and killing mutes the conversation to pervasive silences. I do think we have a long way for us to transform the conversation to look at the value of life include those who are unborn. what troubles me is that the women’s choice movement is not about choice but about one choice–abortion. I think that in reality it curtails choice because of the burden of having a child in our country is tremendous and instead of reframing the conversation on how can we as a society provide options for women and families to bring a child to term. I think that life in essence is filled with incredible value and we should wrestle together on this issue. But to just try to get people in these video situations to get a laugh or to point out a fallacy as an ends is narrow and mean spirited. I think that we have to take it further and think about this issue. One question in response is “how would feel if your mother had an abortion of you?” I think we often don’t think of the possibilities of an unborn is and when we ponder on this question it makes us pause that each of us have a life to be worth living and life is a miracle. Life is what God has provided for us to unveil the splendors of His creation, of our invitation to fellowship with Him and with one another. To move us from self centered worship to worship the one that prevails over the brokenness that is evident…but not without the promise of hope. Of redemption.
Lastly, I do think that as an evangelical community need to examine our true commitment to sanctity of all life. Including those who are being massacred around the world. For us to engage with issues of poverty, AIDS, and war. We often focus so much of our rhetoric around abortion but not committing ourselves to a larger pursuit of bringing value to life.
I do want to thank you for your words and your blog, it has encouraged me and made me (re)think my faith and what I believe.
If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?
send them to jail…. its not that hard, actually it might work as a deterrent :)
You used to be a Christian? And now you are a follower of Richard Dawkins? Ooh, la, la. Boy, does that explain a lot.
And this is supposed to be about intellect? As someone who once tried to read one of Dawkins’s books about evolution (I could not find any science in it, though I searched assiduously), my suggestion is that you try out your intellectual muscles on something substantive.
If you want intellectual argument from Christianity, why don’t you read Augustine or John Milton or Jaroslav Pelikan.
But lots of luck finding intellect in the writings of Dawkins. Never minding his touted credentials, the reading level of his books is junior high school.
If you left Christianity over “intellect,” all I can say is that you certainly got sold a bill of goods. Lots of luck with it.
cheers, ANF
As a matter of adoption as an option for the unwanted child, so many of you that think this is a feasible answer to the abortion have no knowledge of the reality in this. You see this as a quick and more moral answer to abortion. This is simply not the case.
There are many orphan organisations who mistreat the children; and in some countries there are some who are too poor to give such children the healthy lives they need. So, these children are kept in cots with thin mattresses and hardly anything to keep them warm. Most have no medical treatment.
In every country, there are some children who are sold to slave labour or the sex market. (Yes, even in America & other western countries) When people are so desperate to survive and put in that kind of situation they will do anything to make their lives more sustainable. Those put under slave labour do become brutally disfigured by their owner or their work. They become malnutritioned and very ill, often resulting in death.
In America & the UK, there are several parents that should not be parents. Constant beatings, and in some cases rape. These children are made to feel worthless, and the reasons behind their parents actions are often down to their feelings of self-worth created by the actions of others, including rape. Granted this is not a good reason to treat other human beings with appalling behaviour but this doesn’t make this less of a fact.
Out of the 12 richest countries, the UK is at the very bottom for child welfare, with the USA just above. Sweden, Norway and Denmark being one of the best for child welfare. United States and Mexico being worst for child maltreatment deaths.
You will also find that there are so few children that are put forward to be adopted that many people seeking to adopt are going abroad. Yet so many do not qualify.
Granted, bad parenting shouldn’t be the reason to abort children. But you can’t fall solely on one thing to solve a decision that is not yours to make, especially when none of the answers given are actually working.
None of you have thought about or even considered the possibility that both mother and child would die during pregnancies – would then the abortion be ok so that atleast one of them would survive.
Or; should the baby die during pregnancy anyway, would it not be more humane to abort it?
Or; should the baby survive pregnancy and then lead a life of pain, unable to interact with or acknowledge the outside world. To be complete dependant on their parents and technology in order to live their life. Is abortion still wrong?
So many of you take the black or white approach to everything that you fail to see that there are grey areas. It is not simply just a matter of right or wrong with abortion, as same with right or wrong with euthanasia. All aspects for reasoning should be taken into consideration.
As regarding other crimes to women and children (i.e rape, mistreatment and after birth deaths) we should not completely rule out anything before we solve the current worldly problems. We should always consider abortion as a more humane approach, and not illegal, if the health of either mother and child is threatened should the pregnancy continue.
We should also consider if abortions are pushed underground after been made illegal. It would become far more dangerous for those willing to break the law. People with far less qualifications in the medical field would perform these operations; which could end in severe infection or death.
Proper advice and operations carried out by qualified professionals is far more preferable than risking further problems.
But hey, in the eyes of your god… abortion is murder, murder is wrong. Bit hypocritical when it falls on him to pick and choose who dies. As said by someone, I can’t remember who, we are shocked when a person murders another… but we are unsure how to react when a person murders 1000’s. As a conforming society we like to pat them on the back and say well done, especially if isn’t our people that are massacred. Bit selfish, yes!
Your God is much like Hitler in that respect.
You would not stump me. Abortion is murder, and the woman and the doctor and staff should go to jail.
“what troubles me is that the women’s choice movement is not about choice but about one choice–abortion. ”
I am a women’s rights activist and I just made a long comment before yours about how it ISN’T just about that. Those sorts of explanations are everywhere on women’s rights activist sites, but it feels like that just goes right past anti-abortionists as totally trivial. You’re right that divisive politics do cause people to talk about this in an ideological echo chamber, rather than assuming the other side of the debate is composed of human beings, not idiot whores.
I’d love to have Christians help women to have more opportunities in their lives beyond having to trade their flesh for money because society (including Christians) pressures them to think that’s the best opportunity they have. I’d love to see more Christians involved in improving that part of their lives — the part that, when cynically or superciliously ignored, tends to lead to unwanted pregnancy. I’d love to see more Christians involved in rape prevention, raising the dignity of women, educating women, and spousal abuse prevention.
Why aren’t they there?
FYI: Many states have laws that define the killing of an unborn child as homicide:
http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html
When posed with that question I am not stumped to the point of my mind exploding and changing my beliefs to Pro-Choice. It just takes some thought as any punishment. If you pay any attention to the news at all you will see that people who have been convicted of murder by the courts get all sorts of different sentences and punishments. Pre-meditated murder usually garners more time than manslaughter, the death penalty is not allowed in all states, etc. If abortion were ever made illegal there would have to be some serious thought on what the most fitting and just punishment would be. It would have to be taken case by case, just as any other crime is taken.
I think there’s a difference between murder and homicide that is important here. If someone breaks into my house and threatens my life and I kill him in self-defense, I have committed homicide but would not be guilty of murder in the eyes of the law.
If you take the assumption that the fetus is a human life, killing him is homicide but not necessarily murder. To use a bizarre scenario: if a woman who believed fetuses were humans intentionally got pregnant to abort them, she would be qualitatively no different than a serial killer and would deserve tough punishment.
But that’s not why women have abortions. They do it out of fear, insecurity, or inconvenience. Many abortions, even if viewed as homicide, would be forgiven by the state: killing a fetus that threatens the life of the mother is equivalent to killing in self-defense. Killing a fetus that threatens health or could endanger the mother due to social circumstances could be equated with manslaughter – like a battered wife who kills her husband in his sleep.
If the law viewed fetuses as protected humans with inherent rights, it would be obligated to hold women who intentionally aborted them accountable. But rarely, as with everyday murder, would we see women locked up for the rest of their lives.
It’s a really interesting point, though. But you’re preying on the one quality of (some) anti-abortionists that is usually denied them: empathy.
anonymous dissenter: I think they are there, but they are not seeking the mass media attention. So they are often left quiet and not having opportunities to seek a broader agenda. It is more grassroots (very much like the origin of our faith). New York Times did a great article on one of these clinics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/16/national/16abortion.html?scp=17&sq=abortion%20counseling%20church&st=cse
I would love to be part of the conversation and also to see if as a community can work together to serve those who are at the crossroads of making this difficult decision regarding their pregnancies. To move us from conversations to real solutions.
The first thing that came to my mind was that in many states, murdering a pregnant woman is double homicide. I am not a supporter of the death penalty, so a prison sentence would be my answer.
It’s a volatile issue that will never go away. Because it’s painful, tragic, and sad. No one takes their private, necessary, decisions likely. Rather than attack pro lifers or pro choicers, in honour of National Sanctity of Life Day (Today, January 22) I made a list of ways to celebrate. Instead of wasting time holding signs for an issue that won’t go away, legal or illegal, there are so many ways to help show how much you care about life.
http://thegirlcanwrite.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/national-sanctity-of-life-day/
For example, get involved with the unwanted children, or the children no one can care for, already on the planet. From babysitting for the poor people, heading over to Sudan to help feed the starving, or adopting one of the thousands of bundles of joy tied to a crib in Romanian orphanages. Check it out! Get involved now!
I would say they are guilty of murder. What is so hard about that question? Try again.
all “religious fanatics” do not speak for the entire Christian faith, nor do they many times know how to even speak for themselves. The argument you put forth is one being discussed with someone who is not all that intelligent about their own opinion.
If abortion should be illegal, there should be a punishment, and it should be the same the circumstances when the woman tosses her pre-me in the dumpster behind the restaurant.
Just found your blog from wordpress, will have to read a little deeper but nice post to get people thinking a little bit.
It does not stump this believer. I am no ones judge or jury, only one has that power, assuming that I will be respected for my beliefs. :)
God will make those decisions, murder is sin; and one sin is the same as the other…sin.
The good thing is this…because of the Atonement, that would be what caused our salvations, Sin no longer effects our relationship with God. However, it does effect us, those we love and society…therefore, by sinning of any kind, murder…lies…adultery…we alter the world within which we reside for a time; creating misery and negative change…
Again, I am not stumped by this question at all, I try my best not to judge, it isn’t my place. At time, like all, I fail miserably…but stopping a heart beat is murder and will be judged and there will be a consequence…what that is, is up to us as individuals and society.
At the end of time, if you don’t believe in God then hopefully you will go into the dark and that will be the end of it. But….
What if that is wrong?
The problem can also be attributed to the fact that people generally don’t understand our legal system, either. And I think that would include you because, no offense, your premise is unfairly loaded by classifying the punishment as needing to be “severe punishment — like life in prison or the death penalty.” No, that is not a logical conclusion.
In the Unites States, there are varying degrees of punishment and classifications for “taking the life of another.” There are distinctions between voluntary and involuntary, premediated and non-premeditated, etc. And, depending on the state, each classification has different punishments attached.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people in this country can’t argue their points very well, no matter their political or religious persuasion. It is often natural because most of us have our daily lives to worry about and can’t really sit around to think or research all day. But, you are going to be doubly disappointed when you are not only discussing such a contentious topic, but also expecting the responders to be legal scholars.
In short, your whole premise is merely a calculated “gotcha” moment than any kind of honest logical debate. It doesn’t prove one side factually or logically incorrect, but rather proves the premise that you will always get this result from “man on the street” interviews no matter the topic (putting aside questions on what was edited out or what interviews were not shown). It’s the same reason I hated these types of interviews in regards to the election.
Prosecute the doctor, not the woman. If it’s against the law, the doctor is the one who is responsible for doing it.
Wow! To verbally disarm a radical, now that’s a tough one dude. The problem of your little question is that it will only work with people of a certain mindset: The ones that oppose abortion to the extent of wanting to render it illegal and at the same time ask for capital punishment.
However, you could also ask a Pro-Choice advocate (given that he or she is equally cliché ridden as your depiction of a Pro-Life supporter).
“So it’s ok for you to kill babies, but not criminals?” or “By legalizing and liberalizing abortions, don’t we sanction careless behaviour towards sex and human life?” or “If a young pregnant woman is deemed ‘not ready for a child’ you are fine with killing it off, but what if a child has just been born and you deem the mother as too ‘irresponsible’ do you want to kill it off as well?” It doesn’t take much to bring down a die-hard supporter of any dogma whatsoever.
Here in Europe it’s quite the opposite, occasionally you find die hard opponents of abortion but the “give out free abortions to women, children, men, animals” (virtually speaking that is) faction is much more present. One of them once told me that the sake of the child, the state should ask people to have an abortion if the couple is not perceived as responsible (but that’s just Europe dude, where people have always had a certain affection for totalitarian ideas).
I personally think that making abortions illegal won’t serve any purpose – it will endanger mother and child alike. However I believe that the state should highly regulate the whole process and not allow any abortion after the second month.
Punishment for anybody who takes another life. Let the puishment match the crime and leave that up to lawmakers to decide.
Holy abortion Batman! A new record?
Firstly, hat’s off to you, sir. This is hilarious for probably all the wrong reasons.
As a non-american, it baffles me how this issue is so contentious in US politics and society. From the outside, it seems like religion has managed to supplant science and rational though in a great many areas. This has impoverished American education, medicine, and parts of the economy.
I find it grotesque when people who claim to be Christian clearly act contrary to those beliefs (Anti abortionists attacking clinics? Katrina was sent by God? Oh, please!)
Is there not an hypocrisy in Christian groups decrying the strict demands of Sharia law, then demanding that the laws of their god be the laws of the state?
Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? Isn’t that enshrined in your constitution?
Who knew a post about abortion would bring the godbots out in droves?
Religious Zealots?
All right here is my issue with you liberal jerks who seem to have a philosophy of “If It Feels Good Do It”.
We have a right to our beliefs as you do. We the people who are against abortion believe that Sex the act of love between a man and a woman is not a Recreational Activity. It is an act that comes with responsibility. Part of that responsibility is the person created from that act. To treat a person, a baby, a FETUS, as something less than that is demeaning.
We are treating a life as something that should be thrown away. Life is a resource. The life we take may be the life that could have changed man’s destiny.
To treat life, the creation of life as something to throw away because it is not convenient, is to us disgusting.
Why should we have the right to fight against abortion?
Because Abortion is the taking of what we believe is a life.
Let me ask you a question….
If WE, the “Religious Zealots” believe that life… HUMAN LIFE begins at conception, how can we not fight against Abortion?
If you can support people who believe that the killing of an animal for food is wrong then why can we not believe that killing an unborn child is wrong.
I am really tired of being labeled by Liberals who feel that Abortion should be a right.
The right is DO NOT HAVE SEX if you do not want a child.
Why is that so hard to do?
Because we promote sex as a recreational activity, instead of as an act of love between 2 people who love each other. Is it any wonder that sexually transmitted diseases have sky rocketed since the 60’s. Had we not had the Sexual revolution of the 60’s and 70’s would we have the Aids Epidemic of the 90’s?
Gee now I am sounding like a prude…
What should happen to a person who has an illegal abortion? They should go to jail. I do not know for how long, but to me the taking of a life is wrong. The idea that it is an encumbrance on the poor is a joke.
How many women regret an abortion?
Apparently Roe did as she is now an activist against abortion.
-killing a fetus that threatens the life of the mother is equivalent to killing in self-defense.-
Tim, killing in self-defense usually means that the attacker was doing so with intention, where as a fetus threatening the life of the mother (and itself) is completely unintentional, its something neither one of them could help. If we punish them for that and call it manslaughter, should we not punish mother nature for the same reasons?
It is not manslaughter through self-defence, it is necessary more than anything. Allowing herself and the fetus to continue pregnancy, then for both to die during is manslaughter in itself. And those preventing such abortions should be held accountable.
Congress, anti-abortion protestors, religious leaders and those who pass anti-abortion laws should be made accountable for those denied the option in such a situation. And punished accordingly.
-It’s a really interesting point, though. But you’re preying on the one quality of (some) anti-abortionists that is usually denied them: empathy.-
You’re right, most of these people have no empathy and lack in substantial reasons to back up their argument with. They fail to look at all sides of the argument to form an intellectual opinion. They simply go by what they’re told and thats good enough for them. My intention was to open their eyes to the reality of it all or at-least recommend to research on the topic instead of… going yeah, its murder you should be punished, end of story.
I’m just glad that I don’t live in a country where the mindless and thoughtless ignorant believers can dictate as to what is legislated.
It’s a shame such a big country that is majorly dictated by such persons is becoming more and more of a dominant leader of the world liken to imperial ancestors of Rome and Mongolia.
On a secondary note, this same sort of logical progression can be turned around on the pro-choice crowd if you take their arguments to their natural ends.
If abortion is the “reproductive right” of the woman, should a woman, based upon the same reproductive rights, be allowed to have as many children as she wants? I would bet a lot of money on the fact that most people who are ardently pro-choice also think the world is overpopulated or in danger of becoming so. The same people praising reproductive rights in regards to abortion probably think the Duggars are sick for having so many children even though the mother is flexing that same reproductive right on the other end of the spectrum.
So, if you are for reproductive rights, shouldn’t you argue against, say, China’s one child policy with the same zealous attitude?
I am an agnostic, and I do not protest, so I can’t be accused of any fanaticism. I am simply a rational, moral man.
I have a question for you.
Is it OK to kill a baby who has been born, but is still attached to the mother by its umbilical cord? No? Step back in time in one minute increments and tell me when it becomes OK. Just exactly when does a baby in the doctors hands revert to organic waste?
Before that moment, go ahead and abort. After that, it is murder. I just don’t know when that moment is.
“If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?”
That’s an oldie but goodie.
I can just imagine some of them saying that these women are victims, and that they have been duped by the abortionists, and that we need to punish the abortionists, not the women. “Cause the women can’t really make their own decisions. Augh.
“A: Yes, there’s a punishment for murder because that’s taking a life.
Q: So why shouldn’t there be a punishment for a woman who has an illegal abortion?
A: Oh… as the other [person] said, it’s kind of between her and God. She will get her punishment in the end.
Q: So why should it be illegal?
A: Because it’s the taking of a life.”
Then the women should be prosecuted to full extent of the law.
And if murder is punishable by death, then the women should get that punishment.
Anything less than the full extent of the law is a violation of the murdered person’s justice.
Augh.
This question didn’t stump Ron Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8
(around 2:48)
@jcdarrin:
That is a completely rational approach, and I am amazed at how often people are unwilling to focus on that as an obvious starting point.