[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.
1219 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!!!
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….
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.
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!
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.