Do we even NEED that many license plates?

Posted by smijer on March 8, 2006 06:13 PM Link to comment

Numbers don't lie and the truth they tell can be sobering.

Fascinating argument and an angle that I had never considered.

Definitely food for thought.

Posted by Buck on March 8, 2006 07:30 PM Link to comment

Interesting point. I suppose the anti-abortion fanatics believe their new laws will deter most of those abortions. As we know, prior experience does not support such an assumption, but surely some unknown number of abortions would be deterred under their system.

Of course if the U.S. mullahs cut back on the availability of birth control -- which, obviously, they would like to do, as a further way of putting their fatwas into law -- the number of "desired abortions" might rise, more than cancelling out any deterrent effect.

Posted by Ralph on March 9, 2006 06:22 AM Link to comment

Dear RSA,
If the law should become retroactive and target abortionist, it would be the person who performs the act who is targeted, not the person who allows it. Until recently, the 'Mothers' themselves did not perform abortions, so I do not think those who are pro-abortion should stress over the possiblity of millions of women being convicted of murder if the law is changed. Perhaps they could be brought up on a lesser charge, but I think we all know that this is not going to happen. Actually, I do not believe that an abortionist can be convicted of breaking a law that did not exist at the time the act was committed, but if this does happen, it will be abortionist, not mothers who are convicted. Mothers are usually under great stress and often are not fully aware of the enormity of the decision that they are making and unaware of the other options that are available. They are many times victims, just as their unborn child is a victim.

I think this new argument is an attempt to frighten off those who might be switching sides and joining the pro-life group. It is a weak argument by those who love the abortion laws and the money they earn the abortionist. These same people know that more and more Americans are realizing that abortion is not in the best interest of women, or families, or nations.

As to whether or not abortion is murder, perhaps a look at what actually occurs during abortion or a look at what is left behind after abortion could answer that question for you better than anything else.

Even women who perform their own abortion with a drug, would probably not be the target of the law, but rather the one who manufactures the drug.

Jan

Posted by Jan on March 12, 2006 09:27 PM Link to comment

Hi, Jan,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I think that there are some issues worth clearing up.

First, by assumption in my post, abortion is murder. This is what pro-life people claim, and to say that the doctors who perform abortions should be targeted, but not the women involved, is saying, "Okay, abortion is something like murder, but not quite as bad." Why? Let's imagine a parallel universe where mothers can legally take their healthy newborn babies, who may be up to a month old, to a doctor to have them euthenized (i.e., murdered). If you were against such a practice, would you want the law to pursue only the doctors? I think not: the mothers are equally culpable. Back in our real world, saying that pregnant women are under stress and don't know what they're doing is treating them like children. They make their own decisions--your judgments should treat them as adults.

Second, I am making this argument, and I don't "love" the abortion laws or the money that doctors earn. (Do you ever get asked, "Why do you love blastulas so much?" Would that make any sense to you?) Further, I am even on your side when you say that abortions, in general, are not in the best interests of women, families, and nations. Neither is smoking or fast food, though these are more trivial examples.

Third, about your suggestion that laws might go after abortion pill manufacturers rather than the women who use them: Do you feel the same way about guns, that the law should go after gun manufacturers rather than people who shoot other people? If not, then you're making some kind of distinction either between women who get abortions and people who shoot other people, or between their "victims". By the assumption that abortion is murder, these distinctions should not exist.

Finally, on seeing images of the results of abortions: I would probably be sickened. On the other hand, I've seen images of people getting hip replacements, heart replacements, and ankle surgery. (Educational TV is a wonderful thing.) I was sickened. Nevertheless I don't call for a halt to those kinds of operations because of my visceral reaction, which is unrelated to the moral issue.

Posted by RSA on March 13, 2006 11:43 AM Link to comment

Well, some of what you say makes sense, but some of it doesn't. For example, the comparison of abortion to a hip replacement is not sensible. A hip replacement is begun for the purpose of a completely different outcome and statistically speaking, the success rate is completely different. Death occurs in a tiny percentage of patients. In abortion, there is a 99.9% death rate of the unborn. This has led many to the conclusion that it is a form of murder.

Since we agree on that, the remaining discussion is on who is guilty. Should the abortionist bear the guilt alone or should the mother be blamed as well. Before discussing that, however, I would like to discuss your casual comparison of abortion to smoking and fast food. Could we not say as well that murder by bombing, by shooting, by raping and strangulation, poisoning and on and on are not in the best interest of society and therefore we have passed laws to punish perpetrators of these acts? Practically every law we pass in our civilized society is based on the dgree of seriousness of an act and whether or not it fits into the category of "crime" or whether it does not. An attempt to trivialize abortion does not make it a trivial event. The only reason it is considered civilized is because of the size of the baby and the fact that the baby has not become 'known as a person' to others at that point in its development.

Now, is the mother equally culpable? I still say that in many cases she is not. I say this for the following reasons. Often times the mother is a young teenager who has been told that the child she is carrying isn't truly a living person. She is told that life does not begin at conception. She is told that the fetus cannot feel pain and that abortion is not murder and is not wrong. Perhaps she should be held culpable, but I do not believe that in all cases she should be. There are probably exceptions, but due to the fact that in the USA the "LAW" has given her permission to commit this act that results in death to a child, I do not believe that the mother will be or should be retroactively convicted of murder. The abortionist as well is acting under the protection of the law and until the law is changed he is protected. The answering that he will do, will be to his own conscience and to a higher Power. It seems to me that this argument is being used to frighten women who have had an abortion from joining the pro-life movement. Many are doing so and it is disturbing to the abortion crowd.

Posted by Jan on March 13, 2006 12:48 PM Link to comment

Again, thanks for responding, Jan. I think I have a better grasp of the arguments on the other side. In particular, I didn't realize that my position could be taken as an attempt to frighten women who've had an abortion away from a pro-life view. You're right; it could, though that wasn't my intention. On the other hand, I honestly believe that if abortion is murder, ignorance of the personhood of the fetus should not be an excuse. (Let's leave the law out of this, for now.) Imagine someone who has been raised to believe that some members of a minority group are less than human. (The historical analogies should be obvious, and indeed are employed by pro-lifers.) If this person buys a gun and kills a member of that minority group, or hires a hit man to do the same, we still want to hold the person responsible (rather than or in addition to the gun manufacturer or the hit man.) The murderer's ignorance would not and should not be excused.

I'll offer a few other more trival comments.

I should have realized that comparing abortion to fast food and smoking was not a good idea; my point was not to trivialize the decision, but to say that there are some things that we might like to have legislation about but for different reasons cannot.

My analogy between hip replacement and abortion may have led you down a garden path. I don't think we agree about the point of the analogy (my point being that an emotional reaction isn't sufficient to motivate a moral evaluation), but it would take me too long to explain what I actually meant; perhaps in a later post.

Posted by RSA on March 13, 2006 02:51 PM Link to comment

Could you explain where this came from?

[Imagine someone who has been raised to believe that some members of a minority group are less than human. (The historical analogies should be obvious, and indeed are employed by pro-lifers.)]

I have been involved in the pro-life movement. I have known two counselors and know their personal views well. I have read tons of literature and listened to many lectures. I have never encountered even a hint of anything of the sort. Perhaps if you search the web you will find some fringe element on the right who has made a weird statement just as you can find those on the left who embarrass the left, but I can assure you that (if you mean what I think you mean) the vast majority of prolife people have never entertained this idea and certainly it has not been taught. As for leaving the law out of this, we cannot. The law governs and protects. The law (as decided by the judicial system) currently protects the abortionist and the person who decides to have an abortion. Because of this decision, those who have undergone abortions are not threatened by the law and have no reason to fear, even if they "should" be held culpable. When Roe vs Wade is reversed, the protection will no longer be in force. After that date, I doubt there will be a mother prosecuted. This might interest you:

There are no documented instances of prosecution of such women for murder or for any other species of homicide; nor is there evidence that states that had provisions enabling them to prosecute women for procuring abortions ever applied those laws. To read more go to:

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_7.asp

Posted by Jan on March 13, 2006 07:12 PM Link to comment

I should have been more direct in my analogy. A Google search for abortion and holocaust turns up over 4 million pages. From the site that you point to, abortionfacts.com, abortion is described as a "Hidden Holocaust". What I meant to suggest, without mentioning Hitler, was that if we think it's reasonable to prosecute those who participated in the extermination of Jews during WWII, *even if they honestly believed Nazi propaganda that Jews are less than human*, then it's reasonable to hold women accountable for abortions (still assuming that abortion is murder), *even if they believe that fetuses are less than human*. It strikes me that the holocaust analogy focuses entirely on the victims, but for some reason generally ignores the perpetrators; abortions wouldn't happen if pregnant women didn't actively participate.

On a separate point, you've consistently argued that women who have had abortions will not be prosecuted by the law, and I agree that it will never happen on a broad scale. But I'm still unclear on why they are absolved of responsibility, aside from political concerns.

Posted by RSA on March 14, 2006 12:04 PM Link to comment

I would say they are not guilty under the law because it is not considered a crime by the law. Killing in self-defense is not a crime under the law. Neither is war-time killing. Laws change and people have different opinions about what should and should not be punishable by law. I do not think anyone would want to begin prosecuting people retroactively, but I do think many would like to see the law changed.

If women were not prosecuted before Roe vs. Wade, it is doubtful they will be prosecuted after. If they were, they would only have to argue that they acted within the law.

It seems to me that you are suggesting that those who killed the Jews are similar to those who commit abortions. Perhaps there are some similarities, but the question is this. Did Hitler violate international law? The answer is "yes". I do not think that is the case in abortion. Did he and others violate God's law? For and answer, consider this: Exodus 23:7 "and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked." Who could be more innocent than an unborn child?

Posted by Jan on March 14, 2006 07:11 PM Link to comment

This isn't a direct response to your last message, but let me shift gears and propose a different analogy (I apologize that it is grotesque):

Scenario A: A young woman gives birth, and her baby turns out to be autistic. After a few months, she has yet to make an emotional bond with the baby--she doesn't even consider it entirely human. She brings the baby to her veterinarian boyfriend, who is a callous sort, and they give the baby an injection.

Scenario B: A young woman goes to the doctor and has an abortion.

Now, my understanding is that in Scenario B, for pro-life reasons that I think I follow but don't accept, the doctor should be pursued by the law but the pregnant woman should not (perhaps it's the case that both are morally guilty of murder but only the doctor should be prosecuted?) In Scenario A, I presume we agree that both the mother and her boyfriend are both morally and legally guilty of murder. So, what difference am I missing? Why, if abortion is murder, should these cases be treated differently? If the answer is, "Because otherwise fewer women would become pro-life, out of fear of prosecution," that's a practical view, but it undercuts any moral authority that the pro-life movement may have--it would be condoning murder in favor of political support.

Posted by RSA on March 16, 2006 11:23 AM Link to comment

I will not argue with you that if the law prohibited abortion (as I believe it should) women should be penalized aong with the abortionist. Society has to decide that, but I think it is ridiculous to make an issue of retro-actively prosecuting women for something that has been legalized.That would be like suddenly passing a law which states that self-defense is not an acceptable defense in court and arresting and prosecuting everyone who has ever killed in self-defense and is still living.

I certainly agree with you that the killing of an unborn child by abortion is premeditated murder when the mother is properly counseled and understands that life begins at conception. Some are truly ignorant in this regard. Many believe that during the early stages, the fetus is not human and therefore truly do not believe they are guilty of murder. If they understood better they would most likely make a different decision. Pro-life groups attempt to counsel with women before the decision is made. A waiting period often is helpful and prevents some women from doing something that they often regret deeply, but regardless of this, the issue is should women be punished next year for a law that did not exist this year.

Posted by Jan on March 16, 2006 04:58 PM Link to comment

"when the mother is properly counseled and understands that life begins at conception. Some are truly ignorant in this regard. Many believe that during the early stages, the fetus is not human and therefore truly do not believe they are guilty of murder."

Before asking why having a different opinion from you about when "life" begins constitutes "ignorance", I'd like to know how you define "conception". Is it fertilization, or implantation of the zygote on the uterine wall?

You've said that "society" should judge how to deal with women who have abortions... however, you've been willing to share already that *you* think society should outlaw abortion. Will you say whether you think society should prosecute women for abortion the same way as they do for murder? If not, does that mean you really don't think it is murder?

If you do think that abortion is murder, and you think that it should therefore be prosecuted the same way (which currently would include capital punishment), you are saying that you would take the life of - or the lifelong freedom of - a woman who destroyed a zygote, embryo, or fetus... you are saying that her life is worth no more to you than that of a zygote, embryo, or fetus. It's a tough way to feel, considering that zygotes don't have children of their own, dreams to fulfill, loved ones to miss and be missed by, etc... but that's your option... you choose to believe that zygotes have "life" - not meaning its scientific definition of "animation" (I bet whatever you had for lunch was once alive by that definition) - but its moral definition: sacred worth; You choose to invest the zygote with "life", then (unless you are applying some weird, arbitrary moral standard) you choose to believe it is worth the same as the life of a person, and that a woman should be deprived of much of her own life for taking aborting it.

I think if many of us really thought about it, we would realize that we *don't* really think of the zygote's life as sacred in the same sense as that of a person, and we would not want to rob a family of a daughter, sister, or mother over her choice to abort it. I think - if we really thought about it - we would decide that abortion really isn't murder, and that our objection to it is based almost entirely on emotional reaction or religious ideas. And I think that if we really respected women as people, that we would be extremely careful about depriving them of their freedom or life on the basis of our own emotional reactions or our own religoius ideas. That doesn't mean that there should never be any excercise of the social conscious in relation to abortion - only that any resulting restrictions or regulations should take into account the importance of the woman's life and help first and foremost, and should also take into account the development of the fetus in terms of its ability to place value on its own life.

If we get past the implication of RSA's argument that if abortion is murder tomorrow, it was just as much murder today, or yesteday.. this discussion still has a big point to answer. Because if you really believe abortion is murder, then you shouldn't want new laws to outlaw it... you should want to see Roe v Wade repealed, and then all future abortions prosecuted under the murder statutes. And if that is what you really want... why do you not say so loudly and proudly for the nation to hear? Take half-measures like South Dakota, if you must, but at least tell us what you really believe?

Posted by nick on March 16, 2006 07:03 PM Link to comment

A child is conceived at the moment of fertilization. I understand what you and others are trying to do with this "prosecute and convict" the mother or "admit she has not committed murder" argument. It is intended to back pro-life people away from their position or to find some way to discredit those who want to fight for the life of the infant. By declaring that those who would fight for the life of the infant care nothing for the life of the mother, perhaps some would become silent and allow abortion on demand to continue unopposed.

Actually, pro-life advocates are also advocates for the mother as has been proven time and again. The same counselors who attempt to reach a woman before an abortion are there to give aid and comfort to those who have had abortions and who are suffering from grief and loss. There are advocates and programs designed for those mothers who have lost children through abortion. As for deciding the penalty, certainly society will have to make the decision as society did for 196 years in the USA prior to Roe vs Wade and for ages past in all societies. Just because something is distasteful, does not mean it should not be dealt with. Just as each case of death in our society is dealt with according to the circumstances and evidence presented, each case will be dealt with when Roe vs Wade is overturned. It is my thinking that only those with pregnancies that have reached the third trimester (possibly the second) would ever be brought before a judge. I do not really know. New technology has reduced many late term abortions already.

You asked me to speak up loudly and proudly and proclaim that the woman who kills her child is guilty of murder. Why would anyone feel proud of this? Yes, a woman is certainly an accessory to the crime that the abortionist commits. It is not for me to set the punishment for that crime and I am glad that it isn't up to me, but that will not silence me or stop me from speaking up for the unborn.

You say: "...zygotes don't have children of their own, dreams to fulfill, loved ones to miss and be missed by, etc..."

I say: They have as much right to these things, to life, as you and I.

Posted by Jan on March 17, 2006 07:50 PM Link to comment

Does this: "...zygotes don't have children of their own, dreams to fulfill, loved ones to miss and be missed by, etc..." mean that if a person does not have children, is depressed and without dreams, and has no family they are expendable, not worthy of a license plate and take up too much space in this overcrowded world???

After WADING through all of the pro-abortion comments, it seems to me that it all comes down to one thing. Those who argue for abortion are attempting to take the focus away from the real issue, which is: Does the unborn have the right to life? Who gives life and who has the right to take life? I believe that God gives life and the unborn has the right to life. No one has the right to take innocent life.

Posted by LadyLiberty on March 18, 2006 02:34 PM Link to comment

I've been trying to make a moral point by identifying some of the political implications of a pro-life view. (Nick makes some additional points, well-expressed, that I also agree with.) Let's take LadyLiberty's ending comment: No one has the right to take innocent life.

My moral argument is simple. Suppose we say that no one has the right to take innocent life (specifically, an innocent person's life). Suppose further that we believe that a fetus is a person; obviously this will be an innocent living being. Forget about politics and the law for the moment. What does it say about us if we believe that a woman has taken an innocent life and we do nothing about it? Do we let child abusers go if they sincerely believe that beating or starving a child is in the child's best interest? Do we let murderers go if they sincerely believe that their victims deserved to be killed? No. If abortion is really murder, then we cannot avoid describing women who have undergone an abortion as murderers, from a moral and logical perspective.

To return to politics and the law, we may be unwilling to prosecute women who have had abortions, but following the pro-life viewpoint, this is a practical rather than moral standing. You can't have murdered babies without murderers, and doctors who carry out abortions are only acting as hired guns, so to speak.

Posted by RSA on March 19, 2006 01:37 PM Link to comment

The real question is this. Do we give a person, be it mother, doctor, or abortionist, the legal right to take a life at will? That is precisely what Roe vs Wade does. Should a civilized society allow any group to be legally slaughtered by another, particularly the most innocent and vulnerable of our society?

Posted by Jan on March 19, 2006 06:53 PM Link to comment

I guess we've come full circle. That is the real (first) question. The second question is what I tried to answer in my original post: What then?

Posted by RSA on March 20, 2006 11:35 AM Link to comment