Redstate

We also recognize that it will take some time to adjust the attitudes of women toward the practice in a post-Roe world. We also recognize that, as with other types of murder, there are circumstances that must be taken into consideration to determine the degree of one's culpability. Now, could there be a case where the facts are so heinous that the prosecution of a women seeking an abortion would be justified? Perhaps so. But the vast majority of cases will almost certainly involve women who feel they are in dire straits for one reason or another. They need our help, and the prolife community will be there to give it to them (as it is now).

Keep in mind also that women cannot procure abortions unless there are doctors willing to perform them. That is why the focus needs to be on doctors. Now, it is certainly true that some women may attempt to peform an abortion on themselves, or have someone else do it. Incidents like that are tragic to say the least. But those tragedies pale in comparison to a society that sanctions the killing of roughly one million innocent unborn children a year. __________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

"Murder" requires not just homicide--the killing of a human being, but also, among other things, significant criminal intent, and an absence of justification (e.g., self-defense) OR excuse (ignorance, duress, etc.).

Abortion is homicide. The fact that those of us who recognize this fact do not favor the imposition of the death penalty or even any significant (or even any) criminal liability on the mother of the child is not a result of the pro-lifers concurring in the apparent consensus that the killing of the unborn child is not the killing of a human being.

There are many factors leading to the conclusion that it would be improper to impose significant (or any) criminal liability on the (often imperfectly) consenting mother:

1. A recognition of the fact that so many individuals are ignorant of the facts indicating the humanity of the unborn child. In effect, the knowledge of these facts depends upon peculiar experiences (e.g., witness of a miscarriage, or the performance of an abortion) or the use of technology that's only been available in the past few hundred years (microscopes). Hence, the law might suppose that the average mother may not have the knowledge of the humanity of the unborn.

2. A recognition of the fact that many women undergo abortion at times of crisis or other "duress," which, like ignorance, significantly mitigates culpability.

(It should be noted that by and large, the abortionists are neither ignorant nor acting under duress.)

Finally--

3. A recognition of the fact that law enforcement might require an immunity for the mother, because in the vast majority of cases, the mother is the least culpable of all the available witnesses of the homicide.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

You said it better than I did. Well done.
___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

I can't stand Bill Clinton so it really pains me to have to agree with him on a point here.

If abortion is considered murder then the woman who procures an abortion is at least as guilty as the doctor who provides the abortion. Deciding not to prosecute women who seek abortions is a tactic that is designed to create distrust by the doctors for the women seeking abortions, scare abortion providers out of business, and reduce the availability of abortions for future women seeking them. It's also meant to encourage the general public to support the prosecutions in a way they might not if a woman who obtained an abortion under difficult circumstances were also standing in the dock next to the doctor.

As a political tactic, this makes sense. However, it's intellectually dishonest in my opinion. If it's really murder, then prosecute everyone involved. Claiming the woman is too ill-informed to understand what's at stake or too "emotional" to be held accountable is wrong. Keep in mind that in "murder for hire" cases, the main target is the person doing the hiring, not the would-be contractor. Considering the woman as the most worthy of immunity because she's the "least culpable" doesn't make sense. It's not like doctors are abducting women and performing abortions on them against their will.

I'm a pro-choice Republican so I don't want to see anyone prosecuted if the abortion is performed prior to the point of fetal viability. However, I accept that a majority of my fellow Republicans have genuine moral convictions that the practice is murder at any stage. So let's be up front about what making it illegal really entails.

Jill

1. To restate, abortion is objectively homicide--the killing of a human being. Whether it is "murder" or not depends on other factors.

2. Pro-lifers sometimes indiscriminately use the word "murder." In truth, I think they would concur with me that whether that word is appropriate depends on the knowledge, and more generally, the culpability of the person involved in the homicide.

3. I think it is fair to say that the average mother seeking to hire an abortionist is qualitatively different from the "murder for hire" scenario you suggest. First, many are fully or partially ignorant of certain facts indicating the humanity of the unborn child--because knowledge of those facts is not gained from ordinary experience. Many are convinced when they are reassured that "it" is merely a "blob of tissue."

For example, if one fires a weapon at something one reasonably believes is a scarecrow, not knowing a human being is inside a costume, the killer is not subject to criminal liability, unless his actions are deemed reckless--and even there the liability is far greater than for murder.

Do you believe making such distinctions based on ignorance or duress is "dishonest"?

4. Finally, you acknowledge that by might prove an effective way to end abortion by increasing abortionists' fear of prosecution. You say it is "intellectually dishonest." Really? Does honesty require adopting ineffective strategies for protecting human life? The use of selective immunity is VERY common in criminal law (limited or no liability for cooperating witnesses), as well as military operations (e.g., amnesty in Iraq). Why? Cause it works.

It is not dishonest, but prudent to adopt effective strategies to protect life, liberty, and property.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

1) I think you make a valid point in discussing the legalities of classifying a death as homicide vs. murder.

2) It is quite common in my experience of watching the abortion debate to hear it classified as "murder" (often in a rage-filled scream). You are more careful and precise in your language, and this makes it more interesting to read your conclusions.

3) I'm not convinced by the argument that women are unaware of what they are doing. The exact knowledge of how developed a fetus may be prior to the point of viability may not be common knowledge, but past the embryo stage it's pretty clear that it's not just a blob of cells. Different people obviously have different emotional reactions to the seriousness of it. The woman involved has made a decision to end the life that would if not interrupted presumably result in the live birth of a child. She's found a medical doctor to perform the procedure, scrounged up the funds, and arrived for an invasive procedure. (I'm ignoring RU-486 induced abortions here). That's a pretty serious step - it's not waving a gun around carelessly and mistakenly plugging the farmer vs. the scarecrow.

I do think it's wrong to say that the doctor performing the abortion is deserving of prosecution but the woman obtaining it should be spared because she's emotional about it or uninformed. Calling it intellectually dishonest was probably a bit too harsh here because it came off as a personal statement, and I did not intend to impugn your character. So my apologies for that. My point is that if you're going to prosecute the doctor, then you should be willing to prosecute the woman who is the real decision-maker.

4) It may come down to an interpretation of whether the ends justify the means. If your objective is to end the practice of abortion, then I suppose you attack it on every front and convincing doctors they'll be prosecuted while their client/patient skates is one effective tactic. The protestors who have made a crusade of personally harrassing the abortion providers so they'll decide to stop just to end the harassment are similarly effective to some extent. What irks me is that the selective prosecutiono tactic comes across to me as suggesting women aren't responsible, thinking individuals capable of making their own decisions and accepting the consequences.

Just to be clear, I personally am pro-choice so I'd rather not see anyone prosecuted as long as the abortion is performed prior to the point of viability. If we succeed in getting a President that appoints conservative jurists to the Supreme Court then perhaps this matter will be reviewed again and if Roe vs. Wade gets overturned - so be it, we can debate this state by state. [I would prefer this scenario to the sort of Kelo-type horrors a Clinton/Obama judge might come up with.] If the pro-life forces can convince the residents of a particular state to support legislation making abortion a crime then women should be prosecuted on an equal basis as their doctors.

Your question can be asked of so many persons who are "personally" opposed--who wring their hands in indecision...before they declare open season on the lives of the unborn.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

"They" really don't.

Because really they do.

By way of example
Amanda Marcotte ring a bell ?

I know this will grow tedious with you after all, the first round of your position is to try preemptively discard every scrap of experience that anyone who has been pro life in a liberal environment has had.

Yes they do feel that if you are pro life you can't be quite sane. If you own arms you are one step away from joining a militia. If you are from the south your IQ is twenty points short of what it should be. If you are conservative and from the south subtract another ten.

Thats the way it is. I can only surmise you either lack experience or are attempting deception.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I would agree there are some who make that sort of terrible logical fallacy.

But there are equally many fallacies on the opposite side. If you are pro-choice, you want to kill as many babies as you possibly can. If you oppose the death penalty, you want to free killers so they can run amuck. If you think any government program is a good idea, you're practically Stalin's long-lost sibling.

I would certainly not go so far as to generalize either side as if they are even remotely representative of the left or the right as a whole, though.

I thought you were really Dick Cheney! Who would have guessed you were really a pathetic liberal prepubescent troll?

===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

So you choose to attack me personally for writing out my opinion, and I'M the troll?

This sorta proves my point that there are a lot of people on the right that falsely make blanket statements of people on the left, as there are people that do the same in reverse. I would never think to attribute the sort of venom coming from Vegas as representative of everyone on the right, though.

And turn it into "No we don't and yours is just as bad"

Oh p.s. The statement is pro choice people want the right to kill unborn babies at will. In Obama's case it includes the recently born as well.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777