Today, I got this e-mail from a reader:
I always enjoy your editorials and read them whenever I see that you are featured in the State (though I normally refer to the "State" as the "Local "since its sports bias is almost always limited to Columbia-area teams).
I enjoyed reading your editorial board interview with Sam Brownback, but am curious about something.
I read some time back that Brownback stated that a woman raped should be forced to carry the child to term. Did this or a similar comment come up in your interview?Thanks and keep writing…
Which prompted me to break my rule and respond (actually, if I respond and then post it on my blog, it’s not really breaking the rule — since the rule is, after all, designed to get people to comment on the blog instead of via e-mail):
Not that I recall. But why would anyone who opposes abortion make exceptions in the case of rape? I’ve always had trouble understanding that. It seems to be a case of emotion overriding logic.
If we’re talking about a human life, why would it cease to be worth protecting in the case of rape? We don’t have the death penalty for rape, even in the case of the perpetrator. So why would we put the unborn result of the rape to death? It doesn’t make sense.
Yes, it’s horrible for the victim. But everything about rape is horrible. If one is truly opposed to abortion, the fact that a pregnancy resulted from rape should not negate one’s position.
I’m guessing — from your choice of words (specifically, your use of "forced") — that you object to Brownback’s position on abortion. Would you find it LESS objectionable if he said "except in cases of abortion?" If so, why? I ask this less from a pro-life perspective than from one of logical consistency. One of my colleagues who is pro-choice often says she finds pro-life people who don’t make such exceptions more worthy of respect. I think she’s right (narrowly speaking) to take that view.
What do you think?
If this exchange follows the usual pattern (and I hope it won’t), it will spin off into misunderstanding and miscommunication, but I ask once again: If you believe (as do I) that abortion ends a human life, why again would it be OK just because the horrible circumstances of a rape are involved? Logically speaking, of course.
Related Posts
It’s more of a political compromise rather than a philosophical nuance. If the goal is to limit the number of abortions and/or overturn Roe V. Wade, politicians who are pro-life understand that they cannot win if they go for the whole package at once.
It’s a far harder sell to get support for a position that forces the rape/incest victim to carry the baby to term regardless of the emotional impact that might have on the victim. I think it would be very likely that no person could be elected President if he/she expressed a zero tolerance for all abortions.
A very prominent conservative religious leader in Columbia sat in my living room many years ago and told my wife and I that even though he was against abortion, he would not hesitate to counsel his daughter to seek one in the case of rape. I don’t think he’d announce that from the pulpit, but I think it shows the struggle even the most fervent pro-life people have with the issue.
Here’s a link to some generally accepted polls related to people’s views on abortion:
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Basically, about 80-85% of Americans believe abortion should be legal at least in some circumstances. Roughly 55% of Americans believe abortion should be an issue between a woman and her doctor while another 30% believe it should be legal only in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother.
I would guess that the breakdown of the 15% who are completely opposed to abortion is primarily older males.
Maybe because carrying the consequences of rape to term might put just too much strain on the mother, physically and emotionally.
Maybe because the birth would produce an eternal reminder of the rape that would cause the mother a lifetime of pain.
Maybe because some people would say a birth thanks to a rape couldn’t be God’s will.
Maybe because in the battle of pro-choice and pro-life, abortion in the case of rape or undue risk to the mother represents a middle ground that would preserve at least an iota of the rights women gained through Roe v. Wade.
From my point of view, the God’s will arguments falls flat, because who could successfully argue that God would approve killing to correct something that happened contrary to his will?
But the idea of rape as an exception to abortion law does make sense as a political compromise, because far fewer fetal (or embryonic) murders would occur, and that would please pro-lifers.
Methinks this is a topic best extrapolated by women, though.
Brad,
Are your views shared by your wife and/or daughters/daughters-in-law?
I think the reason why there are people who hold the “no abortion but for rape/incest” view is pretty logical. They understand the effect that carrying that preganancy to term could have on the mother’s psychological well-being. Being reminded daily for nine months of the traumatic experience that led to the pregnancy and then being faced with the decision of giving up the baby after delivery is something you or I as males will NEVER have to face.
Here’s a bad analogy – let’s say you’re walking down Gervais Street some night and a guy runs up and kicks you in the testicles. The police catch the guy and decide that the best course of action is that every day for the next nine months, he gets another free kick at you… just so you won’t forget what a horrible experience you went through. And at the end of nine months, you have to decide which testicle you’re going to have cut out. Even if the guy who did the kicking gets sentenced to life in prison, do you think your mental state would not be seriously damaged by the experience?
I am a reluctant pro-choice person. Reluctant because I do believe that life is precious. While I don’t consider a blastula or a gastrula to be human life, I do recognize the potential. Having said that, I haven’t heard of nearly as many people willing to take in and care for the profoundly involved babies, as there are such unfortunate children. I haven’t seen many willing to take the crack babies, the alcohol syndrome babies, the babies with rare syndromes (which were no fault of the mother’s), and so on. When I have asked the ‘on the street’ folks who advocate banning abortion how many unwanted children they have adopted, or even have helped support, I have gotten very insulted responses. Most of those responses were along the lines of “if the mother couldn’t afford the baby/didn’t want it, she shouldn’t have gotten pregnant.” Don’t these folks understand that if the mama had their resources/upbringing, she probably wouldn’t have gotten pregnant. Rape puts that in spades.
Now, we come to the worst scenario. And I’m going to put this in “you/your” terms, because I think we need to think of this very personally, before we’re willing to make these ethical choices for another. You and your young spouse want a baby. You find out you (the family) are pregnant. Two weeks later you find out it’s a condition which will kill the woman, and probably her baby. What do you do? The last time I checked, the law does not allow you to kill one innocent person to save another, even if that person may die any way. The way I see it, if that fetus is fully human, there is no choice but to let the mother die, even if the chances of saving the baby are small. But, if you say that the fetus is not as human as the mother, than what right do you have to take away her choices? I don’t have all the answers here, to say the least. I would, like everyone else, make abortion rare, but I don’t think that outlawing it will. I think it will just make it very unsafe. And I don’t see anyone stepping up to the plate to make sure all children have adequate care from inadequate parents. And we have been cutting, cutting, cutting, the funds to take care of those profoundly affected children I spoke of originally, and to continue caring for them when they become adults.
According to supporters of Brownback, the “Baptists For Brownback” Sam doesnt support abortion in cases of rape.
read this thread:http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/use-updates/
Brad,
I think your logic regarding the consistency issue is solidly rational and also steeped in faith, regardless if that was your intention.
Take this a step further and apply this logic to capital punishment. If a life is a life then how can being pro-life and pro-death penalty be reconciled? Conversely, what’s the rationale behind being against capital punishment but being pro-choice?
Following this logical perspective, I pose the following scenario.
Let’s say a pregnant woman is pro-choice. If her doctor mishandles her or if a drunk driver crashes into her car and her pregnancy is prematurely and tragically ended, it would be phrased “she lost her baby”. On the other hand, if she had an abortion it would be phrased “the pregnancy was terminated”. How can ending a pregnancy be viewed in such contrasting perspectives?
Randy,
I think you have it backwards.
Most pro-lifers, logically, would be pro-capital punishment, and most pro-choicers anti-capital punishment.
Pro-lifers value innocent life, which a doctor takes from a fetus or a murderer from a victim.
Pro-choice people value the rights of the doer, the pregnant woman who doesn’t want to be that way and the killer who doesn’t want to suffer the same horror inflicted on someone else.
But this question was about rape, not murder. And it’s a question that would have to divide the pro-life people, some sympathizing with the mother, others sympathizing with the innocent life, even if be the fruit of a rapist’s seed.
That should be “divide pro-choice,” not pro-life, in the last paragraph. It may be. But that wasn’t what I thought I saw as it zipped off into cyberspace.
If you believe (as do I) that abortion ends a human life, why again would it be OK …
-Brad
It is critical when discussing this issue to use the proper verbiage. Instead of OK the word LEGAL should be used. That is the correct way to frame the debate. Pro-choice folks do not believe abortion is OK. Once you correctly frame the debate it is absolutely essential to stipulate what the penalties are if you decide that abortion should not be LEGAL.
Brad, it’s interesting that you posted this. I thought in the same terms you did as I read this commentary about Amnesty International:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/cath_elliot/2007/08/valuing_womens_lives.html
If someone is opposed to abortion (in general) because they believe the unborn child is an innocent life, then the question (in the case of rape) becomes: Does the value of your life depend on the circumstances surrounding your conception?
Why is the answer to this question any less obvious when discussing the unborn as it is when discussing the already born? It shouldn’t be.
We shouldn’t, in this country, put children to death for the crimes of their fathers.
None of this diminishes the suffering of an innocent women who is the victim of a horrible crime. But neither does her unjust suffering diminish the value of the other innocent life involved.
If the life of the mother is in danger, there is an ethical decision to make, but it’s really not the same issue we’re discussing here. It’s a doctor or team of doctors trying to save two people. If it comes down to choosing one over the other, that’s a call doctor and patient have to make.
Here’s a note I got today from someone with the Brownback campaign:
It was quickly followed up by THIS one:
Since I just finished sifting through 1,500 unread recent e-mails, this is the kind of message I love — the kind that answers itself.
Bud hits the nail on the head. If you are in the “make all abortions illegal” camp, then you have to be specific about how you would handle those people who seek and/or perform abortions. That’s where the “no exceptions” pro-life position tends to lose its supposed “logic”.
Because how could holders of that opinion logically consider abortion anything but murder? what is Brownback’s position on punishment for doctors who perform abortions and the women who seek them? Want to be he avoids that aspect of the issue?
Are you able, Brad, to tell us what your views are on criminal punishment related to abortion? Lay it out for us so we can understand the logic.
Just to try to reply briefly to everyone above:
And oh yes, Doug, thanks, I missed one:
I think revocation of a medical license would be a reasonable punishment for abortionists. You’d have to come up with fines or something else for non-physicians who do abortions.
I don’t think I’ve run across anyone who is interested in criminal penalties for the pregnant women. The only people who bring that up are the pro-choice people who are trying to whip up sympathy for their position. The people you would want to penalize would be the perpetrators, not those trouble souls who seek them out in desperation.
If you want to heave stones at the poor woman, you go right ahead.
I’m sorry if my answer disappoints you. I’m going to go back to drawing in the sand, now.
Brad,
Your answer regarding punishment for abortionists is exactly why your logic is broken. You claim that abortion is taking a life yet would punish a doctor who performs an abortion with a much less severe punishment than any other similar crime. Why do you equivocate? If the life that is taken is the same as any other life, why do you suggest a far lesser punishment than murder, manslaughter, or even assault? Why are your compromises on the punishment any different than the compromises someone who is opposed to all abortion except in rape cases?
And you would have been smarter to leave off your convoluted “war is justified” rationalization. It only weakens your case, particularly when you would have to navigate logically around the issue of innocent civilians killed by our soldiers. Where’s the logic in that?
The reason I brought up what you call the “life for life” scenario is specifically because it makes the ethical problem so clear. The mother may have many more relying on her. That is not the point. If another person is just a fully human as she is, then legally you may not kill that person to spare her. And if the other person is not “as fully human” as her, then the ethical problem is solved. Now, must the mother die, so that the unborn may have a chance?
Brad, What makes you think that a person who performed illegal abortions would be a doctor?? Are you that young? Talk about punishing the desparate woman! The man who drew in the sand talked about those without sin casting the first stone. Let those who are without sin make the decision regarding which is the worst scenario. And if we lack qualified people, then let the persons who are involved and capable of deciding do so. And what did you say about supporting the helpless ones out there after they come into the world? Or are you only worried about their destruction before they are born?
What? You consider abortion “murder” but you’re only willing to revoke the abortionist’s medical license as punishment?
Heck, why aren’t we taking drivers licenses away from people who are convicted of murdering a real, living person who’s proven capable of existing outside of the womb?
If you term abortion as “murder” then you can’t logically differentiate between my wife hiring a hit man to murder our 16-year-old child; or her hiring an abortionist to end her pregnancy.
Just because you write “The only people who bring that up are the pro-choice people who are trying to whip up sympathy for their position” doesn’t make the analogy incorrect.
Would you let Susan Smith out of prison since she “only” murdered the kids that she carried to biological viability?
Nice try at avoiding the logical consequences of your philosophy.
Sorry, Brad, but abortion in the case of rape is precisely a topic BEST extrapolated by women, as I wrote, not ONLY to be decided by women, as you interpreted.
This ain’t just hard logic and law.
When you get through nine months of nurturing a fetus resulting from rape to birth, let me know how it feels. And how the next two decades feel, knowing the child you didn’t want is half you and half rapist, while ever you wonder which genes dominate which, and what that child, the one you never wanted at all — the product of a godforsaken nightmare — might become.
This issue you’ve raised isn’t so simple as pro-life equals pro-life no matter what, even rape or murder.
And the idea that an execution “involves the state doing the thing that it says is wrong, and that is logically indefensible” is just reason half-baked.
I hope you’re not asking me to believe the murder of a highway patrolman who stops a car for speeding and the execution of the patrolman’s killer are equivalent acts.
I’d just tell you the execution was the state acting in self-defense.
And I’d ask you why it’s OK to declare war on terrorists but not on murderers.
This can’t be, after all, a discussion of what’s legal rather than what’s OK or what’s right. What’s legal is abortion, and, in some states, execution. The law has it half right, I think, but whatt one issue has to do with the other, I can’t see.
Really. If abortion, then execution? Or if execution, then abortion? Terminating an innocent blob of potential and executing a fully developed, desocialized monster who knows right from wrong, those are kith and kin?
Sounds like the ticket to a lost world to me.
But here we are.
All right, everyone, pay attention now: RTH has just provided us with a beautiful, museum-quality exhibition of the kind of intellectual dishonesty that characterizes this debate.
Would someone please — in order to assist RTH — point to where I referred to abortion as "murder." You’ll note that RTH sets forth the word repeatedly in quotation marks, which to literate people means that it is a direct and accurate representation of what the other party said. (Of course, many semi-literate people mistakenly use quotation marks for emphasis, which in this case would be equally illegitimate and worthy of condemnation.)
This setting-up of straw men in order to knock them down is both pathetic and offensive, which is why the comments of those who employ such unworthy tactics don’t get approved on this blog — unless they present an example that might be helpful in drawing the lines.
Others expressing confusion, I believe, are not acting in bad faith to the extent that RTH is. I therefore refer them to the various degrees of homicide under the law. — there’s quite a variety, depending upon intent, method, circumstances, etc. I would think that the best state law would probably place abortion within its own category. There would probably be subcategories within that category, I suppose, and probably various aggravating or mitigating circumstances. But these are technicalities that don’t go to the essence of what we were discussing.
And Karen — who I believe writes in the best faith of all — please go back and read what I wrote more carefully: "You’d have to come up with fines or something else for non-physicians who do abortions."
Based on the legal definition of muder, how does an abortion differ? By modifying the definition of murder to treat a fetus differently, you then ascribe to the idea that a fetus is not a person.
The legal definition of murder is:
MURDER, FIRST DEGREE – In order for someone to be found guilty of first degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated.
To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.
Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing.
—
The penalty or sentence that exists for any given crime may indeed reflect some information about that crime, but it doesn’t speak to whether the action in question should have been outlawed in the first place.
You have first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide, for example. The fact that there are different penalties for these crimes in now way implies that the lives of the victims had different worths. Many factors go into which charge is prosecuted and sentenced: the brutality of the crime, whether there was provocation, the extent, or immediacy of that provocation, and so on. A prosecutor might have only enough evidence to pursue a lesser charge than the “true” crime that was committed.
Would Bud or Doug claim that there should be no difference in penalty between premeditated murder and negligent homicide? Maybe they honestly would, I don’t know.
The point is, abortion should be viewed as the killing of an innocent life, and should therefore be illegal. Personally, I don’t think it would be unreasonable to prosecute abortions as first degree murder, but even if a lesser sentence were established by law, that in now way negates the legal basis for the criminalization of abortion.
Karen, consider a case of infant conjoined twins, who will both die if they are not separated, but one is more likely to survive after separation than the other. This situation is ethically similar to the “life of the mother” situation. It’s really not an “abortion” question.
So Karen writes in the best faith of all, but the idea this is a topic best extrapolated by women is completely unsound.
My, how Brad did walk into the door he shut in my face.
I should add that while my answers to these questions regarding penalty are quite clear to me, they may not be to others (based on some of the responses I’ve seen). This could be the fault of some folks being obtuse.
It could also be because I’m not interested in penalties. You’ll find that this is a theme that runs through a lot of positions we take at The State (and mind you, opposition to abortion is NOT a position take by the state; I have no realistic hope of obtaining a consensus). For us, it’s often enough to make a thing illegal.
Cindi Scoppe articulates this position more often than I — the idea that MOST people will refrain from certain behavior just because it is illegal. This doesn’t work in all instances (speeding, for example — folks WILL speed if the limits aren’t enforced, but if often does — as with seat-belt laws.
There are various societal forces already in play that have led to a reduction in the incidence of abortion in the U.S. Add illegality, and you get fewer abortions — whether there is a penalty or not, even if it is merely a sort of societal disapprobation.
So beyond saying it’s wrong and illegitimate to perform abortions, I’m not that interested in other legal considerations.
But I AM interested in what happens to those babies, and I’m more than a bit surprised at Karen for questioning that interest. I’ve been called a socialist too many times over the years by the libertarians for my stances in favor of social programs, including universal education, health care, etc. — plus my willingness to pay higher taxes to pay for same — to sit still for that. I’m afraid Karen fell victim to one of the stereotypes propagated by the pro-choice crowd that time.
Come now, Weldon — I refer to her writing, her tone, her attitude, and her spirit as it shows in her comments. Not to her sex.
Of course, such attributes DO seem to occur rather often in her sex. But there are a few reasonable men as well.
I can’t believe I wrote “in now way”, when I meant “in no way”. . . and I did it twice. That’s pretty awful.
1. Yes, the community takes care of those unfortunates who have obvious mental or physical disabilities, and we care, more or less for those whom we can prove have been badly abused or neglected. But what about those children who are simply unwanted, or those who may be wanted, but are born to mothers who lack the skills to nurture them? We care for them usually after they turn 18. The institution is all too often prison.
2. Who’s worried about the abortionist? I’m concerned about the women. I am not at all sure that making abortion illegal makes it less probable. What I know for sure is that it makes it much less safe, along with less visible. I can remember before Rowe vs. Wade (although I was fairly young). All too many women were desperate enough to try to self induce abortions, often with fairly disasterous results. Others went to veritable butchers. But you didn’t read about it in the papers. Those with means arranged for a “D and C” all right and proper. Oh, you mean there was a pregnancy involved there? Didn’t notice.
3. Yes, we take care of children, but an orphanage, or a mental retardation facility, or a nursing home, or a hospital is a poor excuse for a real home with loving father and mother, which is precisely what these children do not have.
If you want to reduce abortion, reduce unwanted pregnancies. Make sure that teenagers have not just access to, but honest information about birth control. I am all in favor of promoting abstinence, but I think the best way to do it is to teach our youngsters the honest and complete truth about sexuality, about birth control, and communicable disease. We need also to teach our teens about parenting skills, and about nutrition, healthy practices, and basic finances. And most importantly we need to be sure we provide the least prepared of our pregnant women with the opportunity to learn these skills. We also need to provide new mothers with affordable day care (and they may not be able to afford their next meal, much less day care), because a child raised in a family with low social and educational expectation, little access to stimulation, poor nutrition, and cultural biases that denigrate the desire to overcome these conditions will be a lost child, and will grow into an adult that produces other lost children. We have to meet their needs somewhere, and we need to teach their mothers the skills basic to providing for a family. You don’t like abortion? There are ways to reduce the need for it. Unfortunately these ways are not nearly as easy as overturning a supreme court decision.
It’s easy to try and box in the abortion debate into a “logical” box but there are so many real world offshoots from a very strict pro-life position that show the difficulty of holding that view.
Can you be pro-life and support living wills that allow a person to choose not to be resuscitated or for certain medical procedures to keep a person alive? Is this illegal?
Can you be pro-life and support doctors making decisions in end-of-life situations that consider the tradeoff of extreme pain versus hastening death? Is this illegal?
Can you be pro-life and deny the sale of a morning after pill? Is this illegal?
I think in Brad’s case, he has to consider the religious aspects of his beliefs. He seems to be following the Catholic party line – the one that many Catholics (like Rudy Guiuliani) choose to ignore – although we haven’t yet heard whether he considers birth control to be the equivalent of abortion.
You know what would be really useful to this debate, but probably impossible to obtain? Reliable figures on the numbers of illegal abortions that occurred pre-Roe, compared to number of legal ones that occur today.
My very strong suspicion is that illegal abortions of any sort were far more rare than legal ones today. Proponents of legal abortion tend to speak as though there were just as many abortions back then; they were just back-alley and dangerous for all involved. I strongly doubt that.
But I’ve never seen any reliable numbers that any fair-minded person could truly depend upon. In fact, it seems highly unlikely that there would be any way to obtain such numbers so that people of differing views could depend upon them.
So everyone ends up with what they “suspect” or assume, which is unsatisfactory.
Actually, Doug, it is ISN’T easy to box things in logically. But once you succeed in doing so as well as you can, it would be wrong not to do the rational, moral thing to the best of one’s ability to identify that course.
Once you reach this conclusion, some other questions are easier, others are not. You raise three questions. The second and third are easy; the first is not. Regarding a DNR statement. First, you should lean in favor of life in deciding whether the situation involved causes the DNR to kick in. But once it is determined that continuing life mechanically is to defy a natural death, you disconnect the tubes. To some extent, I think respect for life encompasses a respect for its natural span. But this is a very, very difficult issue. The trouble with a DNR is that the circumstances in which the decision-makers find themselves once the patient is incapable of deciding (or at least, of communicating that decision) are very complex.
The other two are fairly straightforward — one does not HASTEN death; that’s artificial. And how could a pro-life person aid in an abortion by supplying the means? Perhaps some could rationalize that; I could not.
Oh, as for Catholic doctrine — you’ve got your chicken and egg out of order. One thing that made it easier to become Catholic is that the Church agreed with the views I had come to embrace regarding life. You might say the “Catholic party line” followed me. You might, but I would not. “Church-shopping” to find one that agrees with one’s own preconceived notions is actually one of the most offensive of American pastimes. Suffice it to say that there were a number of reasons that I felt guided to the Church, and respect for life was something that helped rather than hurt the process.
Finally, there’s your odd question about birth control. Asking whether “birth control” is the “equivalent” of abortion is like asking whether “baseball” is the equivalent of a “double play.” Abortion is a FORM of birth control, but is not “equivalent to” it, since the term encompasses other means that are NOT abortion. None of those other forms could possibly be as morally objectionable as stopping life after it’s begun.
I suppose, then, that I should extrapolate that, at least in your view, I am an unreasonable man, Brad, no matter how many commas I use.
But I decided different long ago.
I also decided long ago that the abortion debate would outlast Israeli-Arab enmity.
Somewhere above, someone wrote how difficult it is to put abortion in a logical box. Well, yeah, not even considering the stem-cell dilemma, which hasn’t come up yet, I don’t think.
The pregnancies that result accidentally from rape, consorting with a prostitute, a one-night stand, a two-week relationship, a two-month relationship, a two-year relationship, an extramarital relationship and sex within a marriage offer a smorgasbord of different feelings to ply through, but each offers only two basic alternatives: have the baby or don’t.
Before we slog through what the proper timing for an abortion might be — by pill the next day or so, a doctor’s intervention the next month or so, all the way up to partial-birth abortion — we must first consider what will happen to the baby if it’s born. What is the mother’s attitude? Will it wind up in a dumpster? Will it be born stunted with drug addiction? Will its life be worth living?
That’s all a bit too complicated for me to just stick the issue in that logical box. Well, it’s life, and killing is wrong, but, so help me, I can’t find much wrong with the idea of a next-day abortion pill, which prevents the formation of a consciousness. At the same time, I can’t stomach the idea of a partial-birth abortion.
So let it be. Preventing unwanted pregnancy is the catch-all solution. Might prevent a few unwanted executions, too.
Weldon raises an excellent question:
And to THIS one, if to no other, I can offer an unequivocal answer:
Brad,
Does the Catholic church’s position on birth control also apply?
From http://www.catholic.com
“There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called “individual conscience” argument amounts to “individual disobedience.”
Sorry for not reading every single post but among the first dozen or two, I noticed a missing element that makes it clear for me in all cases including capital punishment.
Ultimately for me, it’s not about life–it comes down to choice and accountability. If you choose to have sex and you get pregnant, you are accountable for that life developing inside of you. Your choices in the first instance have removed your right to choose in the second–to terminate the pregnancy.
On the other hand, if someone else forces himself on you and gets you pregnant against your will, then you should not be held accountable for that other person’s actions and therefore, you shouldn’t be forced to carry that pregnancy. This is where the sacredness of life comes in because I would counsel a woman in this circumstance to carry the child, but I wouldn’t impose a law requiring it.
Similarly, if someone chose to break into my home, I might decided not to shoot that person, but I wouldn’t make a law prohibiting me from shooting that person. However, if I invite that person into my house, and then decide to shoot them out of spite or because they simply wouldn’t leave, I would expect the law to lock me up.
In capital punishment cases, those being convicted and sentenced to death have already made their choice and now face the accountability.
Pro-life is really a misnomer, it should be pro-accountability, but that doesn’t sell in a society full of hedonistic secularists who don’t like the idea of consequences for their actions.
The pro-life arguments are all over the map. Brad and others argue (unconvincingly) that abortions would be reduced if we just had some type of law, with weak penalties, against the practice. This group at least respects, to some extent, the humanity of the women who seek abortions.
SC Conservative wants to punish women for having sex. At least he’s honest about his agenda.
Quite a few on the far extreme compare abortion to first degree murder and propose penalties to that effect. This might reduce the number of abortions but would result in a very crowded prison system. I guess the abortion ladies could keep the pot smokers company.
But the pro-choice folks are pretty consistent and very pragmatic. We simply believe that designing any law that makes the practice of abortion illegal quickly becomes too complicated and draconian to serve the interests of the public. As a result pro-choice people strongly support policies that result in few abortions but those few that still are performed should be safe. Legal abortions for most if not all situations is both pragmatic and the most ethical choice.
I agree with you, Bud. And I can’t help but wonder, if all the energy and money on both sides of the abortion issue had gone to make fewer women consider abortion their only reasonable option, if we wouldn’t have a much lower abortion rate, and one that would steadily decrease as those changes worked through the years.
Wow. Legal abortions for most if not all situations is both pragmatic and ethical, with a female ditto, nonetheless.
Well, heck yeah, why don’t we just kill the little bastards? They might get in the way of someone who lives in the real world making a moral choice that involves a dash of forethought.
Weldon, my wording was poor. What I should have said instead of “Legal abortions for most if not all situations is both pragmatic and ethical …” is:
Abortions should be legal under almost all situations, regardless of how long the woman is pregnant or how she came to be that way. However, alternatives, especially preventative birth control and adoption, to abortion should be encouraged as the more socially acceptable options. This legal/social dichotomy is the most pragmatic and ethical position to take.
And in case you did not notice Weldon, what I’ve been advocating is an approach that would actually reduce the number of abortions, rather than simply drive them underground. At the same time, I would like to see some compassion for the women who must make this choice. It is seldom a case of “don’t care” or “not thinking about the consequences.”
And Brad, no, you probably are not going to be able to get those statistics, but I can assure you, that as a college student going to Loyola in New Orleans, I knew of 3 abortionists, one of whom was not good at all. And I was never in a position to need one, nor did I search out that info. It came up in college conversation, and at that point I did check just to see if it was true. At any rate, those problems were never published, because it was usually the ‘lower class’ who had the problem. The ‘upper class’ could get an abortion disguised as a D and C.