Legal problems that may arise if abortion is considered murder?

[AlTheCollegeGal]

In regards to smoking, drinking, or other frowned upon activities while pregnant, I believe that the answer lies within the intent. By this I mean, does the mother intend to kill her child via drinking in excessive amounts? Or, did this particular woman have no antipathy towards her unborn child when consuming these harmful substances? This is a fine distinction, and one that would have to transfer into legality when considering the ramifications of making abortion akin to murder in the court system. If the woman was not attempting to maim/kill her child when making this abominably stupid decision (or, in the case that she was coerced into drinking harmful substances), then I do not believe that she would receive such a severe sentence. Of course, this is also dependent upon the status of the child afterwards; is the child born with any severe abnormalities or birth defects? If so, the sentence would be more harsh than the child born with no visible/testable problems. This is a sticky issue, but I do believe that abortion is a grave immorality, an intrinsic evil which has brought a blight upon society. I believe that abortion must end, and that killing a child thus is akin to murder.

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by wynnejj

Your story is not uncommon. The story in my family is that my grandfather, an alcoholic, told my grandmother to get an abortion, she said "No", he punched her (he was drunk) and she lost the baby.

But the real reason why I made my point in the way that I did was intentional in response to this attitude which indicates that you do not accept wholly that abortion is murder.

Abortion is "Unapproved Behavior"? Those who voluntarily & deliberately procure an abortion (discounting temporary insanity), and those who force / coerce abortion and, those who provide abortion services are all complicit in the crime of murder.

This supreme understatement - "abortion is unapproved behavior" - seems to be actually the prevailing view in Christian society unfortunately.

This kind of rhetoric needs a whole lot of "tough love".

I do accept it is murder. But I just don't think people will enact severe laws against it, considering how women are today. So I'm trying to think of something that might stand a chance of getting passed, but even then (as I said) I don't think they would even pass a mild law against abortion (one that is more supportive of than punitive toward the woman who had the abortion and helps her in various ways not to abort in the future).

I think when it comes to it, lots of people are against abortion, but when push comes to shove they may shy away from laws that would imprison women for long periods of time, subjecting them to the inhuman treatment in our prisons.

[wynnejj]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

I do accept it is murder. But I just don't think people will enact severe laws against it, considering how women are today. So I'm trying to think of something that might stand a chance of getting passed, but even then (as I said) I don't think they would even pass a mild law against abortion (one that is more supportive of than punitive toward the woman who had the abortion and helps her in various ways not to abort in the future).

I think when it comes to it, lots of people are against abortion, but when push comes to shove they may shy away from laws that would imprison women for long periods of time, subjecting them to the inhuman treatment in our prisons.

Actually this whole scenario is causing me to rethink my stance. As you can probably tell, I'm not inclined to cut any slack for those that pressure a woman into an abortion. The legal aspects of prosecuting such actions, though, could be quite problematic. Let's say that a woman voluntarily gets an illegal abortion, and says that she was pressured ... but wasn't. Maybe a high percentage of cases, this is actually true ... but quite a few cases are false allegations out of some kind of animosity for the father. Without a public display, such as escorting the woman to the illegal abortion location, there may be no way to tell whether the woman was pressured or not. There are indeed some legal aspects that make it difficult to obtain justice ... other than the abortion provider. I think this does cut to the heart of the opening post.

I guess what I would say is that abortion clinics must be shutdown, from then on abortion providers should be convicted of murder, and unwed mothers should be able to sue for child support from the biological father subject to DNA proof of fatherhood.

[The GreyPilgrim]

Originally Posted by wynnejj

Actually this whole scenario is causing me to rethink my stance. As you can probably tell, I'm not inclined to cut any slack for those that pressure a woman into an abortion. The legal aspects of prosecuting such actions, though, could be quite problematic. Let's say that a woman voluntarily gets an illegal abortion, and says that she was pressured ... but wasn't. Maybe a high percentage of cases, this is actually true ... but quite a few cases are false allegations out of some kind of animosity for the father. Without a public display, such as escorting the woman to the illegal abortion location, there may be no way to tell whether the woman was pressured or not. There are indeed some legal aspects that make it difficult to obtain justice ... other than the abortion provider. I think this does cut to the heart of the opening post.

I guess what I would say is that abortion clinics must be shutdown, from then on abortion providers should be convicted of murder, and unwed mothers should be able to sue for child support from the biological father subject to DNA proof of fatherhood.

Earlier in the thread I mentioned how the circumstances could mitigate how complicit the mother may or may not be as far as guilt goes in procuring an abortion. And that the judge could be given discretion as to what the proper punishement for her may be depending on those circumstances ranging from possible prison time to merely probation or no time at all(sometimes our consciences cane be a greater punishment than any amount of time in prison).

But I also asserted the severity that doctors who perform abortions need to be held to. That any doctor who either does them or manipulates mothers into procuring them need to be given the stiffest penalties, maybe even life. They KNOW what they're doing and yet ignore what they know for money. It's no different than if they were contract killers, so they should be treated as such.

[wynnejj]

Originally Posted by The GreyPilgrim

Earlier in the thread I mentioned how the circumstances could mitigate how complicit the mother may or may not be as far as guilt goes in procuring an abortion. And that the judge could be given discretion as to what the proper punishement for her may be depending on those circumstances ranging from possible prison time to merely probation or no time at all(sometimes our consciences cane be a greater punishment than any amount of time in prison).

But I also asserted the severity that doctors who perform abortions need to be held to. That any doctor who either does them or manipulates mothers into procuring them need to be given the stiffest penalties, maybe even life. They KNOW what they're doing and yet ignore what they know for money. It's no different than if they were contract killers, so they should be treated as such.

You are right. There was never any question for me about the abortion provider. True, some may actually feel that they are doing a good thing for woman. But objectively, abortion is murder. Therefore, any act of murder should exact the penalty for murder, regardless of personal viewpoints.

Going after the pregnant woman who seeks an abortion is truly a tough call. Some are truly callous, others are truly stressed out. I think lynnvinc's suggestion of a sentence that treats it as something more than passing a bad check, but not too tough, is a good idea.

[The GreyPilgrim]

Originally Posted by wynnejj

You are right. There was never any question for me about the abortion provider. True, some may actually feel that they are doing a good thing for woman. But objectively, abortion is murder. Therefore, any act of murder should exact the penalty for murder, regardless of personal viewpoints.

Going after the pregnant woman who seeks an abortion is truly a tough call. Some are truly callous, others are truly stressed out. I think lynnvinc's suggestion of a sentence that treats it as something more than passing a bad check, but not too tough, is a good idea.

The way I see it, a woman who is so callous to have multiple abortions within a certain amount of years, I have no problem putting that woman in prison for a 15 year sentence(manslaughter) with the possibility of parole.

But a woman who was coerced into an abortion and it was her first? I have no problem letting her off the hook.

A woman who knowing procured an abortion, it was here first, and is not remorseful about it? I would say 10 year suspended sentence. And if she procures another one within two years, she serves the full 10. I think that's fair.

There's lots a ways that this issue could be adjudicated fairly.

[lynnvinc]

I think an underlying problem that tends to make laws against abortion difficult (even mild laws with penalities like community service) is our Enlightenment-based concept of the "individual" and a "rights-based" code of ethics (v. a "duty-based" code of ethics). Autonomous, free, independent individuals came first (so thought Enlightenment philosophers -- without considering these individuals came from mothers & others) then only gave up so much of their rights when forming society (which came 2nd) as to protect themselves and their interests. The idea of duties was a weak shadow of rights, only to serve rights of self and others.

Also, since rights are not in a vacuum but usually in a context of competing rights, it is the people in this rights-based system who are most able to press for their rights that get their rights respected, over those who are unable, or don't have strong, powerful spokespersons for them. Self becomes salient; others less important, peripheral, or even non-existent in one's mind.

An "individual" is sort of like "a man's home is his castle," not to be violated or controlled by others -- inviolate....or to be respected and maintained as inviolate.

However, even in the few centuries after the Enlightenment, while these ideas were becoming more and more entrenched, only (white) men were considered "individuals," and women were more like appendages -- like an extra arm to serve the man, part of the "man's castle" -- and slaves were considered subhuman or nonhuman. In this context the rights of women were downplayed, and the prior ages during which a "duty-based" code of ethics mainly applied to them (and domestic animals, etc).

It took some centuries for Enlightenment ideas to become so entrenched that even women (and non-white men) started considering themselves (and got others to consider them) as individuals worthy of freedom and rights, as inviolate individuals -- autonomous from society, only giving up some freedoms from control so as to protect their personal interests.

As the centuries since the 1700s have progressed, there has been more and more emphasis on individual and rights, and less & less on society and duties.

In some other traditional cultures (I'm thinking India, which I've studied) the idea was more on the "dividual" (a person is connected to and "composed" of outside substances from other people and object), and their person is not inviolate. In this context abortion could more easily be considered a wrong-doing, because a person was not a free, independent agent focused on self-fulfillment, but a part of (and enmeshed in) society, and the baby within the womb was also a part of society, and society was there to maintain itself, which meant by extension maintaing the person/parts and person/parts-within-person/parts (in some societies, when a baby is born it is considered to be one year old at birth). Society had every right to strongly intervene in a person's conduct, esp that which pertained to his/her relationships with other persons. People had duties, with rights only as a secondary consideration and not something apart from duties.

Now I think early Christianity and Catholicism even today to some extent struck a good balance between these opposite types of society -- respecting individual rights to an extent, but also equally focusing on duties and our enmeshment in society.

......I think I'm just convincing myself that the push against abortion may not be so much a going back to the more duty-based code of ethics, but a further carrying out of the Enlightenment project of rights (in this case considering the unborn as individuals with rights -- rather than a a part of society to whom we owe duties, as in traditional societies).

The problem then is the clash between the woman's right to abort something within her inviolate individual body v. the unborn person's rights to life, etc. In order to protect the latter, then women's rights will of necessity have to be much more greatly curtailed. That's where the fight comes in, but if the Enlightenment project is indeed progressing to all areas (people are even now talking about intergenerational rights, rights of future generations to come, and animal rights, and nature's rights, "wild law," etc), then it seems that anti-abortion laws could come about, at least those that are the most sensitive and accommodating to the rights of women.

Perhaps we just need to keep pressing this logic of rights (applied to yet-to-be-born-individuals), but it will still be an uphill struggle, since women feel they have gotten their rights after hard-fought battles, and will not be in a mood to give up any rights at all. People always want more rights, not less. (We even consider corporations to be persons, with all the rights (I have a sign on my door that reads, "I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one).)

I personally prefer a balance between a rights & duties based society as envisioned in early Crhistianity and in Catholicism today (I'm old fashioned), and I think that would be the ideal & also give a better basis for anti-abortion laws. However, in today's world today "rights" is king -- our whole Enlightenment-based legal system in the U.S. is based on them -- and "duties" are only dim shadows of some hated past era.

[wynnejj]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

In some other traditional cultures (I'm thinking India, which I've studied) the idea was more on the "dividual" (a person is connected to and "composed" of outside substances from other people and object), and their person is not inviolate.

Mother & pre-born are "individual" in the eyes of God.

The word "individual" basically comes from the idea of "not able to divide".

It is the principle that Solomon proposed when he suggested cutting a child in half.

The judgement was awarded to the women who relinquished her woman's rights in deference to the rights of the "individual"?

[minkymurph]

Originally Posted by The GreyPilgrim

The way I see it, a woman who is so callous to have multiple abortions within a certain amount of years, I have no problem putting that woman in prison for a 15 year sentence(manslaughter) with the possibility of parole.

But a woman who was coerced into an abortion and it was her first? I have no problem letting her off the hook.

A woman who knowing procured an abortion, it was here first, and is not remorseful about it? I would say 10 year suspended sentence. And if she procures another one within two years, she serves the full 10. I think that's fair.

There's lots a ways that this issue could be adjudicated fairly.

The problem I see with this, is the 15 year sentence. In order to adjudicate fairly, when should a case of manslaughter receive a 15 year sentence and when should it not? Should all crimes of manslaughter carry the same sentence? A judge may choose to suspend a sentence?

There was a case in Britain were a man and woman received a 3 year and 18 month suspended sentence for manslaughter respectively. Is it fair one person may receive a three year sentence or a suspended sentence for manslaughter, and another 15 years?

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by wynnejj

Mother & pre-born are "individual" in the eyes of God.

The word "individual" basically comes from the idea of "not able to divide".

It is the principle that Solomon proposed when he suggested cutting a child in half.

The judgement was awarded to the women who relinquished her woman's rights in deference to the rights of the "individual"?

Traditional civilizations and the Church have always recognized the importance of other people (society) in forming the person -- there is a lot of (material, biological, ideational, spiritual) inputs into the person, starting with God, and the person's father and mother. And we need a viable environment to survive....God's creation which he provided for that. We ingest food (and poison), etc. And the person has inherent responsilities and duties to others -- he is not an island unto himself.

The Enlightenment idea was of self-sufficient, autonomous (from others) individual person -- a world unto himself -- a pre-societal person (they forgot we have mothers & fathers, etc, or downplayed that connection). Their idea of the individual was not the Church's idea, and in fact they were opposed not only to monarchy/autocracy, but also to the Catholic Church. It is that Enlightenment idea that is the root of our rugged individualism here in America -- we've carried it to an extreme.

So that is what I was referring to. Not that one could cut a person in two and he'd still be alive

And now women are tapping into that rugged individual with plenty of rights but no duties, so that makes the abortion issue more difficult. It's easier for powerful people to get their rights, but very difficult for the powerless (unborn) to get theirs, or making people sensitive to others' rights when they don't have a strong sense of other people, due to their rugged individualism.

[wynnejj]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

It is that Enlightenment idea that is the root of our rugged individualism here in America -- we've carried it to an extreme.

Not to the extreme of considering the baby in womb as an individual with human rights.

Not to the extreme of considering a mother with baby in the womb as "individual" that cannot be divided. Near as I can tell, the baby in the womb has the rights of an appendage.

The premise that America is based on too much "rugged individualism" as a generalization has many problems. Even confining the scope of the analysis to the abortion issue, what do we call tax funding of Planned Parenthood? HHS Mandate? These are based on misguided duty-based societal values.

It is an interesting thesis, though.

[mark a]

Originally Posted by LemonAndLime

Let's say that abortion becomes not only illegal but defined as murder, be that in any country. I also want to clarify as by experience on CAF I have to - I am pro-life. I can ask questions and still be pro-life. Anyway...

It's been mentioned before (I have mentioned it before too) but does the pro-life campaign have any answers to what would happen to pregnant women if it becomes illegal?

So let's say you're pregnant and an unborn baby has been defined by law to have the same rights as a born person (so that abortion is legally defined as murder). Does that mean that a pregnant mother can be fined and prosecuted for doing something which could harm the baby? Would the state end up policing her pregnancy? This maybe sounds a bit crazy, but think about the following things which are could harm a baby in the womb -

• Smoking
• Alcohol
• Drugs
• Obesity
• Reckless behaviour - e.g. going bungee-jumping or weight-lifting while pregnant.
• Eating certain foods/taking certain medication

So let's say a woman had a miscarriage. Would that have to be investigated by the state to make sure it wasn't an abortion? Could she be charged if she was found to have a history of alcoholism and had high levels of alcohol in her blood, for example?

Just wondering what people's thoughts are regarding this, and whether there has been a lot of discussion about it on the pro-life scene.

Note: This is specifically asking about the effects of making abortion murder, assuming that this means an unborn baby has the same right to life all people have in that country. Abortion can be illegal without this happening, but a lot of pro-life people are campaigning for abortion to be classed as murder too.

Priestsforlife.org has a great booklet that answers these questions and just about any other one might have:


Priests for Life PO Box 141172 • Staten Island, NY 10314
Tel. 888-735-3448, (718) 980-4400 • Fax 718-980-6515 Email: mail@priestsforlife.org

Best wishes!!

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by wynnejj

Not to the extreme of considering the baby in womb as an individual with human rights.

Not to the extreme of considering a mother with baby in the womb as "individual" that cannot be divided. Near as I can tell, the baby in the womb has the rights of an appendage.

The premise that America is based on too much "rugged individualism" as a generalization has many problems. Even confining the scope of the analysis to the abortion issue, what do we call tax funding of Planned Parenthood? HHS Mandate? These are based on misguided duty-based societal values.

It is an interesting thesis, though.

That's what I was saying. Since we are so imbued in Enlightenment thinking of rights (without any duties or responsibilities, without interconnections to others in society), we might as well go the route of pushing for the rights of the unborn, than the route of our duties and responsibilities toward the unborn. That would be more effective in our culture today, even though I'm more a duties than a rights person (old fashion).

Think of it this way, if the 10 Commandments were to be rewritten in our times, it would be a list of rights, not duties. "I have the right to life" would replace "Thou shalt not kill." Bec there is no "thou," no "I and thou" (no relationship, connection, society), only "I."

Which brings us back to what should we do about the woman (mother) who aborts, or uses hormone disrupting cosmetics that cause birth defects and miscarriages (see http://www.ewg.org/skindeep to check out if any of you are using such), and thereby causes a miscarriage. Or pesticides, which also cause birth defects and miscarriages. Or just living in auto-fume areas, which also causes such.

Do we slap them on the wrist or imprison them for causing their baby's harm or death? Think of all the taxes needed to maintain such a large number of women in prison.

I seriously don't think we are going to go down that road, and it would even be very difficult to even get some law passed that would imprison people involved in regular medical abortions. They would be pressing their "rights" -- and feel incensed that a woman's body is no longer considered her "castle" to rule over it as queen, "choosing" her own laws re whether abortion is legal or illegal within her body-castle. I'd be for going back to the pre-1973 era -- they had panels then to decide whether or not a woman could get a legal abortion (health, rape, incest, etc).

I'd sincerely like to see a more duty/responsibility/love culture emerge (I remember reading about a nun who was raped, but went on to have the child, even tho she qualified for an abortion.....that is the real duty/responsibility/love-based ethic). Such an ethic would be focused on the totality of the society (both mother and child) and help them both to survive and thrive.

Except for some really sincerely religious Catholics and other people so inclined working with that duty/responsibility/love-based ethical code, that mode doesn't look very hopeful in today's world. However, this is inspirational: http://franciscansoflife.org

[wynnejj]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

Think of it this way, if the 10 Commandments were to be rewritten in our times, it would be a list of rights, not duties. "I have the right to life" would replace "Thou shalt not kill." Bec there is no "thou," no "I and thou" (no relationship, connection, society), only "I."

There's a big difference between a declarative sentence and an imperative sentence.

A declarative sentence does not imply an "or else" but an imperative sentence does.

Commandments and laws are imperative sentences that always have an "or else".

You seem to have a "change hearts & minds" approach to this problem.

We are over 50 million "individual, yet to be born" (I object to the phrase "yet-to-be-born-individual"), reasons beyond the "unapproved behavior" approach.

You may be right that we may not be able to sway society to enact tough law enforcement that refuses to cater to the free sex without consequences ideology, especially when that consequence is the murder of an innocent individual who have an inalienable right to life.

If the Church can't protect the sacraments from desecration through canon law enforcement, how can we expect the Church to influence the State to protect the unborn from desecration?

Nevertheless, if the Christian society got serious on the abortion issue, then the State laws would be enacted and women faced with an "or else" would not elect abortions. Our prisons swell more due to improper raising of children, so this notion of prison populations swelling seems to be exaggeration.