Thread: Abortion: split from stem cell research

If you're pro-life and believe that human life begins at the moment of conception; and that abortion is literally the murder of a human being, then would you support and want to see the death penalty applied to any woman who has an abortion, and well as all the medical personnel involved in the procedure? And would any laypersons who counseled the woman to have an abortion and lent any type of assistance in facilitating its performance (for example, driving the woman to the abortion clinic knowing the abortion will be performed) be subject to, if not murder charges, lesser charges such as manslaughter or aiding in the commission of a crime?
If your answer is "no", why not, if abortion is literally the murder of a human being?

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

If you're pro-life and believe that human life begins at the moment of conception; and that abortion is literally the murder of a human being, then would you support and want to see the death penalty applied to any woman who has an abortion, and well as all the medical personnel involved in the procedure? And would any laypersons who counseled the woman to have an abortion and lent any type of assistance in facilitating its performance (for example, driving the woman to the abortion clinic knowing the abortion will be performed) be subject to, if not murder charges, lesser charges such as manslaughter or aiding in the commission of a crime?
If your answer is "no", why not, if abortion is literally the murder of a human being?

Never heard this exact question. Thank you for posting it in this way. I look forward to the answers. Is abortion literally MURDER? If made illegal, ought all involved be charged with murder or accessory thereto?

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

Never heard this exact question. Thank you for posting it in this way. I look forward to the answers. Is abortion literally MURDER? If made illegal, ought all involved be charged with murder or accessory thereto?

I think the editor of my law review wrote a note on this - I never read it but I heard it wasn't very good. Apparently she thought it was a whopping argument against pro-liferes, and surprise surprise her analysis was apparently superficial.

I think if you work your way through the posts in this thread (granted you may not have the five hours you'd need to do that), you'll see that many of us that think abortion is murder think that illegalizing it will likely cause more issues than it will solve, because people will take risks to avoid discomfort and humiliation. So if we aren't going to make it illegal, we probably aren't going to suggest the electric chair either. In fact, a number of us probably don't support the death penalty either. [I do in theory by the way, though I suspect the endless appeals process necessary to do the best job possible of avoiding executing the wrong guy probably isn't worth it either.]

But playing along with the hypothetical, why not execute abortionists? Well, we don't execute people that murder someone that is stalking them. We don't execute people that murder terrorists. We don't execute people that murder a robber in their house. [and yes, those aren't called murder in our system, but neither is abortion] We don't execute kids that murder an abusive parent. We consider the circumstances and sometimes issue quite light punishment. There are a lot of countervailing factors to be weighed in sizing up the morality of a particular act of abortion, and I venture to guess that if it was ever made illegal, it would never result in the death penalty.

"But playing along with the hypothetical, why not execute abortionists? Well, we don't execute people that murder someone that is stalking them. We don't execute people that murder terrorists. We don't execute people that murder a robber in their house. [and yes, those aren't called murder in our system, but neither is abortion] We don't execute kids that murder an abusive parent. We consider the circumstances and sometimes issue quite light punishment. There are a lot of countervailing factors to be weighed in sizing up the morality of a particular act of abortion, and I venture to guess that if it was ever made illegal, it would never result in the death penalty."

Well--here's where you lose me. As I understand their argument, the pro-life movement takes the position that human life begins at the moment of conception, and that abortion is murder. (the "abortion is murder" position is routinely exhibited on demonstration signs, bumper stickers, etc).
If a fetus is a human being that is morally no different from an "outside the womb" human being, than why wouldn't abortion be the EXACT equivalent of putting a gun to the head of a 9 year old child and pulling the trigger? If someone did actually put a bullet through the head of a 9 year old child, wouldn't that be just the type of henous crime that you would call "murder" and would impose the death penalty for? If so, why from a logical standpoint would the pro-life argument apply any different result to the mother who decides to abort her baby, as well as everyone else involved in bringing the act to fruition? This is what I don't understand in terms of the pro-life position--it argues that the fetus is a human life no different than life outside the womb, but most pro-life folks I've discussed this issue with, who have no problem with the imposing capital punishment in cases of murder, shy away from saying murder charges should be filed in cases of abortion if their view of the issue was ever put into law. If you're going to claim it's a human life, than those who terminate that life, knowingly and with intent, are no different than someone who murders a born human being, no?

if we are going to execute those who have abortions and the doctors that perform them, are we going to execute the executioner and the judge who made that decision? argueably, they are responsible for someone's death. sounds like a vicious circle to me. but as i stated before, if you can't get pregnant, and it's not your baby, it's not your business.

Originally Posted by kljr

if we are going to execute those who have abortions and the doctors that perform them, are we going to execute the executioner and the judge who made that decision? argueably, they are responsible for someone's death. sounds like a vicious circle to me. but as i stated before, if you can't get pregnant, and it's not your baby, it's not your business.

Those would be legal government sanctioned killings, where the abortions would be illegal.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

"But playing along with the hypothetical, why not execute abortionists? Well, we don't execute people that murder someone that is stalking them. We don't execute people that murder terrorists. We don't execute people that murder a robber in their house. [and yes, those aren't called murder in our system, but neither is abortion] We don't execute kids that murder an abusive parent. We consider the circumstances and sometimes issue quite light punishment. There are a lot of countervailing factors to be weighed in sizing up the morality of a particular act of abortion, and I venture to guess that if it was ever made illegal, it would never result in the death penalty."

Well--here's where you lose me. As I understand their argument, the pro-life movement takes the position that human life begins at the moment of conception, and that abortion is murder. (the "abortion is murder" position is routinely exhibited on demonstration signs, bumper stickers, etc).
If a fetus is a human being that is morally no different from an "outside the womb" human being, than why wouldn't abortion be the EXACT equivalent of putting a gun to the head of a 9 year old child and pulling the trigger? If someone did actually put a bullet through the head of a 9 year old child, wouldn't that be just the type of henous crime that you would call "murder" and would impose the death penalty for? If so, why from a logical standpoint would the pro-life argument apply any different result to the mother who decides to abort her baby, as well as everyone else involved in bringing the act to fruition? This is what I don't understand in terms of the pro-life position--it argues that the fetus is a human life no different than life outside the womb, but most pro-life folks I've discussed this issue with, who have no problem with the imposing capital punishment in cases of murder, shy away from saying murder charges should be filed in cases of abortion if their view of the issue was ever put into law. If you're going to claim it's a human life, than those who terminate that life, knowingly and with intent, are no different than someone who murders a born human being, no?

Then read my post again. I don't know how you could read and ask the same question again.

A - we look at the circumstances of all killings before dolling out judgment. If an adult walks up to a nine year old and shoot him for no reason, that's pretty simple. If an adult shoots a 9 year old that is holding a chainsaw to his five year old sister's neck that different. Aborting a child in the womb because the mother is on crack is different yet again. Even a "purely selfish" abortion involves weitghing the physical burden on the woman. You don't get the same punishment for every very different iteration of the same crime.

B - it's pointless to try to score points by rebutting the most extreme sector of what you demonize as the pro-life movement - not sure anyone posting here is part of that. That's not representaive of most people that are pro-life, anymore than the most extreme pro-abortionists represent you. I bet you don't believe it's ok to stab an 8 month fetus with a coat hanger, but the most extreme elements of the pro abortion movement do - but I'm not going to waste time saying how crazy that is.

Originally Posted by loueedacat

Then read my post again. I don't know how you could read and ask the same question again.

A - we look at the circumstances of all killings before dolling out judgment. If an adult walks up to a nine year old and shoot him for no reason, that's pretty simple. If an adult shoots a 9 year old that is holding a chainsaw to his five year old sister's neck that different. Aborting a child in the womb because the mother is on crack is different yet again. Even a "purely selfish" abortion involves weitghing the physical burden on the woman. You don't get the same punishment for every very different iteration of the same crime.

B - it's pointless to try to score points by rebutting the most extreme sector of what you demonize as the pro-life movement - not sure anyone posting here is part of that. That's not representaive of most people that are pro-life, anymore than the most extreme pro-abortionists represent you. I bet you don't believe it's ok to stab an 8 month fetus with a coat hanger, but the most extreme elements of the pro abortion movement do - but I'm not going to waste time saying how crazy that is.

A. You keep bringing up examples of killing performed as an act of self defense. Aside from the minority of cases where the pregnancy poses a risk to the life of the mother, all other abortions do not implicate self defense issues. Again, if we start with the premise that a fetus is a human life, in what other context do we kill an innocent human being for the sake of the "convenience" of another human being? Conversely, if a fetus is not a human life, but is something "less" in terms of possessing the same set of rights as a "born" human, then it seems to me there is justification for allowing abortions in a variety of contexts.

B. See paragraph A.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Well--here's where you lose me. As I understand their argument, the pro-life movement takes the position that human life begins at the moment of conception, and that abortion is murder. (the "abortion is murder" position is routinely exhibited on demonstration signs, bumper stickers, etc).

If I kill someone not realizing they were a person with individual rights, it is not 1st degree murder.

Let me try this another way. If you believe human life begins at the moment of conception and/or relatively soon thereafter, then abortion is the act of killing a human being, no different from the killing of a human being outside the womb. And since abortion is planned and the goal is termination of life, it squarely fits within the definition of murder, particularly in terms of the premeditation aspect. I believe this accurately states the position of the pro-life movement.
If we follow this line of reasoning, those who advocate this position, to be consistent, would have to hold the position that any pregnant woman who elects to have an abortion, and those involved in the process, are engaging in a premeditated act of murder.
Now if your position is that there are countervailing considerations that operate to either justify or mitigate the interest of not killing a human being who just happens to be inside rather than outside the womb (for example, the mother doesn't want to go through childbirth or is too young to have a baby), then why wouldn't those same considerations apply to an already-born child? Yet we certainly would never say it's ok to terminate the life of a toddler, or an adult for that matter, due to the type of "considerations" that are argued in the context of abortion. As far as I know, there are NO set of circumstances that are recognized in our society for terminating the life of an "out of the womb" human life (other than acts of self defense in a criminal setting).
My point if that if your a strict pro-lifer, and you believe life begins at conception, there can never be any circumstances justifying the murder of a human being, even in instances of rape, incest, etc. Because if there were SOME set of circumstances that provided moral justification for the killing of a human being inside the womb, those same circumstances would justify the killing of a human being outside the womb.
Anyone care to respond?