For those of you haven't yet watched this video of a Libertyville Abortion clinic protest, do so! It illustrates for me something really dangerous in the pro-life movement, especially when they agitate to restrict or ban abortions through laws.
Pro-choice positions encompass and embrace moral views that find abortion abhorent. If you believe that abortion is immoral, and there are plenty of good arguments, then no pro-choice advocate will try to limit or restrict that decision. Pro-lifers, however, want to limit your decisions and it appears that many haven't even thought through what the legal consequences of that will be!
Um, I only have one thing to say to that insane post about abstinence only...why do they seem to think that Planned Parenthood is a for-profit organization?? I'm sure that, if every woman in American had affordable access to gynecological care and birth control they'd be happy to close their doors, stop stumping for money, and go do something else where they were needed. This is not a get-rich scheme!
ReplyDeleteThe rest of it was so stupid I can't even be bothered to comment--J
Just saw the video...amazing. Kudos to the interviewer for providing cognitive dissonance....to bad his interviewees couldn't pick up on it better.
ReplyDeleteAntheia--
ReplyDeleteThanks for the tip on the editorial. I am going to write about it today.
Can you send me an email: aspazia@gmail.com. I want to ask you a question!!
--Aspazia
Fair enough "anonymous"--so, do tell, what should be the penalty for a woman who gets an abortion?
ReplyDeleteWell, the wonderful thing about a democracy is we get to decide the fate of our own society.
ReplyDeleteIf its decided by the majority that abortion is murder than a doctor or patient getting an abortion should receive the same penalty as anyone who murders a newborn now because in that event, the fetus will be looked at as the same as a newborn (legally). Of course, social/mental/situational circumstances should be considered as in any murder case.
Right now it is not considered murder and so nothing should happen in our courts.
This seems simple enough to me, but maybe I am missing something. As for those in that video, it appears that they hadn't considered the punishments simply because they don't want anyone hurt. I wouldn't take joy in sentencing a serial killer to life in prison (it is a sad event for everyone involved) but it is necessary just as its necessary for consequences to follow the breaking of laws.
Ed-(I don't have a user name or anything so it just says anonymous)
Ed--
ReplyDeleteWhile democracies do decide many things the way you described, we rarely decide punishments this way. Moreover, if punishments were determined by "vote," then we are essentially moral relativists. If something is a crime, then it should have a fitting punishment, right?
However, that question aside, what do YOU think should be the punishment?
Do you think women who have multiple abortions are serial killers?
--Aspazia
We already do decide punishment by vote, albeit not directly, but by the people we elect.
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't make us moral relativists because we are deciding on set punishments for the same crime. There is nothing relative about that. A moral relativist would say the same crime is ok for some and not for others. Taking into account the scenario and factors isn't the same thing as two 99.9% similar cases recieving greatly different sentences.
In other words, two men killing a woman for the same reason in the same (in terms of brutality) way should recieve the same sentence. One man who was forcefully drugged (lets just say), and handed a gun he was told was fake, killing someone should not have the same sentence as the other two.
Anyway, I do think it is murder and whatever penalty we have right now for killing an infant should be applied (always considering moral culpability in terms of mental capacity, circumstances, ect.)
Ed
Ed--
ReplyDeleteI mean this is in all seriousness, how are punishments decided by the people we elect? Is the penal code a product of the political whims of our elected officials?
The reason I considered it "relativistic" to think of punishments as decided by democracy, is that it suggests that punishments are a popularity contest. If most people think that stealing bread is a felony, then its a felony. If most people think that abortion is murder, then it is murder. But, this is not how we make moral judgments. We don't leave the judgement up to the "masses," or to a vote, in any case.
Now, let me ask you more specific questions about your statement that abortion is murder. Just to clarify, do you think that taking Plan B constitutes murder? That is, if Sally was raped and she goes to the emergency room to get Plan B (which prevents the implantation of the fertilized egg on the uterine wall) does that constitute murder? Or, let's say Jane is a regular contraception user as is her husband Hank. However, Jane and Hank realize there is a contraception failure--the condom breaks--Jane goes to her local Planned Parenthood to get Plan B to prevent the pregnancy.
Are these two scenarios murder?
Moreover, as I am sure you have heard many, many times, the question of "murder" only arises if you think that you are aborting a PERSON with rights. To make the case that you are indeed KILLING a PERSON, you have to make a compelling moral argument, which shows that in any case abortion is murder.
What are examples, btw, of the sort of conditions that show a person to not be morally culpable due to diminished mental capacity?
I mean THIS in all seriousness, does some other country decide our penal system? If not, then how could we not decide it to some extent?
ReplyDeleteDemocracy is a popularity contest (unless you happen to vote for who you hate). We can only vote for what we feel is right, that isn't relativistic, thats making a decision and abiding by it. Relitivistic actions would be exactly what you said in your comment
"Moreover, as I am sure you have heard many, many times, the question of "murder" only arises if you think that you are aborting a PERSON with rights."
Think is the key word. Murder is murder (or perhaps, to be closer to the context and, I think, meaning of your wording, I will say killing is still killing) whether you THINK it or not. Moral culpability changes upon the circumstances, but the action remains the same. As for your questions...
If the couple using contraceptives actively seeks a way to destroy a fertilized egg and then implements that way then yes, it would be murder. I tend to lean toward not prosecuting (other than psychological help) the rape victim because of the circumstances. That is, a day (I am assuming that is the time period) after a rape I would hardly think one could think clearly. The same would apply if she shot her attacker in a state of rage. I don't think one could fully realize what they are doing at that juncture, but I cuold be wrong. Also, it would have to be shown that was the case.
The answer to your last question can be found in the above rape/contraception case, but there are other example, ie: boyfriends/parents forcing the girl to have an abortion, ect. This would have to be looked at case by case and (I am sure) wouldn't always necessarily mean suspending prosecution but rather limiting the penalty.
Ed