Making Abortion Illegal Will Reduce the Number of Abortions

Imagine a politician making the following statement:

"Personally, I believe slavery is wrong. However, I disagree with the suggestion that criminalizing slave owners and slave traders is an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the number of slaves in our nation."

This would be a ludicrous statement. But Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius made a similar comment.

She said, "Personally I believe abortion is wrong, however, I disagree with the suggestion that criminalizing women and their doctors is an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the number of abortions in our nation."

This modified pro-choice position is foolish, especially for the governor. She says her Catholic faith "Teaches me that all life is sacred." If abortion kills sacred human life, then shouldn't she want to make killing sacred human life illegal? After all, society usually outlaws methods of killing innocent human beings – abortion should be no exception.

Comments

[mike]

Are you going to raise those children whose mothers cannot afford to. Why is it the same republican ----- like you believe in making abortion illegal yet don't believe in helping poor pregnent women or their children. Abortion is a good thing hell your mom probably should have given you the coat hanger.

[Robert Casteline]

Mike, your invective aside, many social conservatives do involve themselves in caring for children who have been saved from abortion. You may not know about the many ministries which do this, but that does not mean they do not exist. Try googling words like "crisis pregnancy center" and "christian adoption".

Alan, since your question goes directly to the issue of repercussions, are you then saying that mothers who get abortions should be criminally prosecuted? This would be a hard sell in the US and pushing for it would allow you to win the battle of consistent ideology but lose the war. Just looking for clarification here because a politician who was to advocate for criminal prosecution would lose in all but the most conservative of districts.

[David Hawkins]

Hi Mike,

If cities cannot afford to house, feed, and clothe the homeless, would it be okay with you if we rounded them up and killed them? I don't think you should object to that unless you are willing to let them move in with you.

Your "are you gonna raise them" argument is old, tired, and reminiscent of something a 15 year-old goth kid would say.

Why would you suggest that "we" don't believe in helping poor pregnant women or their children? First, its the children that need to be allowed to live. Second, Right to Life, CareNet, and a host of others provide all kinds of services to your "poor pregnant women."

Your rhetoric is typical of the uninformed. And your coat hanger reference is vile. (And so is your grammar.)

Please get some facts before engaging further. You are not even doing the pro-choice side any favors with your illiterate ranting.

[David Hawkins]

I'm not sure why this seems so "difficult" to answer for many. (Maybe I don't get it.)

If abortion is legal, there can be no criminal prosecution for the previously-pregnant woman.

Since abortion used to be illegal, I suspect the laws that governed abortion pre-Roe V. Wade would return in some degree.

But the whole argument is a straw man. The real issue is being sidestepped as usual.

What is abortion?
The termination of a pregnancy.

What does that do?
Kills something.

Kills what?
A human being in the earliest stages of development.

What does that mean?
Abortion kills a human person...since our size does not affect our value as a person...abortion, I repeat, kills a person.

So, if that is against the law, what do we do with women who get an abortion?
Um, you mean women who pay someone to kill an innocent, defenseless human person?

How does our system usually deal with someone who hires someone to kill someone else?

I know its easy to get distracted from what abortion is. Many still think it's merely a form of birth control, no more objectionable than a botox injection or pulling a tooth. Unfortunately, ignorance and opinion run this nation instead of facts and truth.

[David Hawkins]

Sorry..."facts and truth" is redundant. Meant biological science education and truth (vs. ignorance and opinion.)

[Gary]

War, inadequate healthcare, lack of information regarding birth control, poverty, and backroom abortions all kill, sometimes to both the mother and the fetus.

Making it illegal to have an abortion will not stop them. Promoting the advancement of birth control would help in lowering the numbers, but a knee-jerk reaction does not.

[David Hawkins]

Gary,
You are right. Making abortion illegal will not stop all "kills" from taking place.

Murder, rape, child molestation, stealing, manufacturing meth, withholding income taxes... All these things have laws against them too, and they still occur. So, by your logic, we should eliminate laws against them. In fact, if we take your idea to its limits, we could just jettison every law that has been broken, since it failed as a deterrent.

Please think for just a second or two.

Making abortion illegal is equally a testimony to the character of a nation, telling others that all human life is sacred and valuable. Not trivial and dismissive, just because there might exist a temporary inconvenience. I.E. the life itself of the child versus the lifeSTYLE of the mother.

...Of course people are still going to the break the law(s). But it does not follow that because someone broke that law, that it (the law deterring a specific crime) should be taken off the books. I hope I misinterpreted your concern, and am way off base here. Otherwise, I shudder to think the social masses are so easily misdirected.

[kpolo]

Mike,
We as a society have come to conclude that we cannot afford you anymore. So to end the misery, we suggest killing you. Do you like that logic?

If a mother has no obligation to her offspring, then society has no obligation to anyone either.

[Dennis]

Gary: You're right, outlawing abortions won't entirely stop them. However, it will make them uncommon, as very few would seek out the 'backroom abortion'. Nearly everyone knows those to be dangerous, and if it was found that they were becoming more common, I'm sure there would be a massive public awareness campaign. Promoting birth control might help some in reducing the numbers, but in all likelihood it would only shave off a couple percent. I don't think a lot of pregnancies which lead to abortions today are caused from a lack of information or access to birth control. They're more likely from failures of birth control devices or people simply neglecting to use them.

On another note:
Robert does make a good point regarding the political difficulties with outlawing abortions. It would be a sticky issue. If the pro-choice side ever feels like they're losing the debate, I imagine they'll resort to emoting in that regard very quickly. Of course, David is right that it isn't a valid argument against outlawing abortion, and I would say that it's not an apologist's problem, it's a politician's.

I'd expect that you'd end up with significant punishment for the performer of the abortion, with little or none for the woman. Possibly mandatory mental health counseling or some such. Not that it's really a morally correct solution, but it seems to me the sort of thing people would be more likely to agree to.

[occasional reader]

To my surprise, a lot of Christians reject the assumption that abortion involves the murder of the innocent. In fact, far from being innocent, many Christians apparently believe that some unborn babies deserve far worse than bodily dismemberment.

What do STR folks think about this?

[David Hawkins]

occasional...

Umm, sure.

These people (if they are indeed real people) might be wearing an icthus tee shirt, but that hardly equates "them" with actual Christianity.

(I'd have to see some of whom your talking about, otherwise, it appears to be a jab with no substance.)

Whatever they purport to be, you will know them (or maybe you won't) by the fruit they bear. It is always unwise to take someone for their word, when their positions/actions contradict the tenets of their banner.

I can stand in the middle of my garage and make engine noises for an hour and tell people I'm a '32 Ford Coupe, but that doesn't make it so.

What is genuinely "surpising" is that you would actually give "Christian credence" to whomoever you are referring to, unless of course you are unfamiliar with the tenets of Christ's message.

[Naturallawyer]

In law school, I took a criminal law class with one day of the class devoted to the question "why do we punish?" There were four basic theories: deterrence ("to keep them from doing it"), incarceration ("to keep those who do it away from us"), rehabilitation ("to help them stop doing it"), and retribution ("because they deserve it"). Any punishment should fall in line with your basic theory of punishment.

Personally, I think it always falls back to retribution. If we say deterrence is our primary motivator, we should chop the hands off of thieves; that would deter! But we don't do that because we don't think thieves deserve to have their hands chopped off. That punishment strikes us as cruel and unusual. I find incarceration equally problematic (we could lock up criminals indefinitely), and rehabilitation is foolish because it doesn't (can't?) work.

The question thus becomes, what punishment do women who attempt to kill their babies deserve? I think they deserve less of a punishment than the doctors who kill. When a man catches his wife in bed with another man and kills that man on the spot, we often assign the charge of manslaughter, not first degree murder, because of the dire and immediate emotional situation he faced when committing the homicide. Likewise, desperate women who kill their children are often not thinking clearly (even though some are, and perhaps deserve greater punishment, especially repeat offenders). The doctors have no vested interest other than money, and profit from the killing of humans. They should be put away for a lifetime.

And to answer the governor of Kansas, who is relying on the theory of deterrence: would not putting doctors away for a lifetime when they intentionally murder innocent human beings more effectively eliminate abortion than allowing those doctors to profit by the millions every year for performing those abortions, and allowing those same doctors to encourage their patients to have abortions? You don't even need to criminally punish women at all to do that.

Click my name to see an objective description by the U.S. Supreme Court of what doctors do to perform late-term abortions (both regular and partial-birth types). It's easy to see why doctors who commit such deeds deserve to be punished.

[occasional reader]

If we say deterrence is our primary motivator, we should chop the hands off of thieves

To say that deterrence is the primary (legitimate) motivator in punishment is not to say that it's the only consideration that's relevant in determining punishment. The same point applies to your dismissal of incarceration. How did you get through the LSAT?!

[Jesse]

Occasional,
What do you mean by your earlier post? Do you mean that a lot of Christians don't think an unborn is innocent? What do you mean by innocent?

I didn't know that many Christians think the unborn deserve worse than bodily dismemberment. Where did you get this impression from? What do you mean by 'far worse'?

Also, in these statements, what do you mean by 'Christian'? Do you mean Catholics? Protestants? Mormons? Jehova's Witnesses? All of the above? Does anyone who calls himself a Christian qualify?

[occasional reader]

Alan,

More needs to be said about why Sebelius's position is "ludicrous" or "foolish".

Would it be ludicrous to personally believe that masturbation is wrong, but deny that masturbation should be criminalized? I assume not. Likewise, one might think that using certain words is sacrilegious, without thinking that the use of such words should be made illegal.

[Sam]

I totally agree with Naturallawyer, but I want to add one more thing to the argument against rehabilitation. If rehabilitation is the reason for punishment, then the length of imprisonment should correspond to the average length of time it takes to effectively rehabilitate people. But suppose, for whatever reason, that it took longer to rehabilitate thieves than it took to rehabilitate murderers. In that case, thieves should always get longer sentences than murderers. But that is counter-intuitive, and hardly anybody would accept it.

Did y'all see that? I used reductio ad absurdum. I took the roof off! LOL

[Jesse]

Occasional, what's the similarity between masturbation and abortion? Does masturbation involve the destruction of a human life? Are there other moral wrongs that shouldn't be criminalized? Are there moral wrongs that should be criminalized?

What about the government forcing a religion on its people? Would you say that's immoral? Should it also be illegal?

[Jesse]

Sam, I agree... it seems to me that more and more the view is that imprisonment's only purpose is for rehabilitation. Doesn't that seem to ignore the notion of justice?

[Pentium Dual Core Processaur]

Question;

What Christians believe babies deserve dismemberment?

Thats an awfully bold statement.

And yes, as Jesse said, is it possible to be a Christian and have a lurking desire to see babies suffer worse than they do already regarding abortion? .. I mean, though its not my place to say, Ide be very skeptical of a Christian who endorses the rape as a punishment for adulterous women.

[occasional reader]

Jesse, re-read Alan's post and consider the context of my comment. Pay close attention to Alan's reasoning. Can you identify the form of Alan's argument? Try to say what it is, and then reconsider the relevance of your questions to me.

[Jesse]

Occasional, are you dismissing each and every one of my questions on the grounds that they're not relevant? Why would the context of Alan's argument invalidate my asking where you get the idea of certain Christian views?

[occasional reader]

David Hawkins and PDCP,

Consider the following:

(a) Separation from God and eternal torment in hell is worse than bodily dismemberment.

(b) God does not condemn someone for what he/she doesn't deserve.

(c) Many Christians apparently believe that some babies who die in the womb are condemned to hell.

It's (c) that surprises me. But you can see what else follows.

I'm happy to find Christians that believe this to be outrageous, for it does seem outrageous.

[Jesse]

It seems to me Alan is pointing out it's strange that one who is personally opposed to abortion on the grounds that abortion kills a human life would not be in favor of outlawing abortion.

How is your comment that some Christians don't see abortion as murder relevant? Doesn't it seem that Alan's comment only really applies to those who are personally opposed to abortion on those grounds? If Sebelius weren't personally opposed to abortion, do you think Alan would have been able to make the same argument?

[David Hawkins]

occasional...

A: I am personally opposed to abortion, but I think it should be legal.
B: Why are you personally opposed?

B: Because it kills a child.
A: Just so I understand clearly...you are personally opposed to abortion because it kills a child?
B: Yes.

A: But you think it should be legal to kill a child?
B: Umm....is that what I think?
A: According to what you have told me is.

B's position is untenable. It is cowardly, nonsensical, and yes ludicrous. It is an attempt to be politically correct and please everybody, but actually ends up self-destructing. Most people simply refuse to think about the position they hold on this topic (choice) to any degree of intellectual honesty.

Unless you just don't give a care.

(Human life begins at conception. The jury is back, science knows, doctors know... As for the handful in pro-abortion power positions (Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, et al), they know what abortion is, yet promote it anyway...and that's a whole new realm of sinister. It is genuinely an Obamanation. In terms of economic accursedness, and a whole other level of problems...in the words of Bachman Turner Overdrive, we ain't seen nothin' yet.)

[occasional reader]

Jesse, I don't know what you mean by an "invalid" question. I just don't see how your questions are relevant. Convince me otherwise and I'll address them.

[occasional reader]

This time delay in posting comments and being able to see them is causing some disorder here.

[occasional reader]

Jesse,

Good. The point is that it would be false to suggest that simply because one believes that something (like slavery) is immoral, or (like blasphemy) is sacrilegious, one should also believe that it should be outlawed.

Alan therefore might try to shift all the weight to the last bit of his post, and to argue that abortion should be treated like other cases of killing innocent human beings.

But this claim is dubious.

[Jesse]

Occasional, you actually did address a few of my questions in your recent post.

You make a fair point. Immorality alone is not sufficient grounds for legal prohibition. Is that the reason you opposing making abortion illegal?

[Pentium Dual Core Processaur]

Wether or not babies wind up in hell is a entiiirely different discussion. For the record, Everybody, myself included, deserves to go to hell. Im dead serious. Not a single man is righteous or deserving before God. The question is, do we get what we deserve (hell) or do we accept Gods grace, and does Gods grace intervene on childrens behalf? The Bible gives no clear answer. We can discuss the issue for decades, but the truth will not be known this side of heaven.

And, if I am to entertain the thought, the answer wether or not aborted babies go to hell doesnt vaporize the claim that abortion is murder.

So,We can work from the facts we have and proceed, or we can get sidetracked on an issue that isint entirely relevant to the discussion.

[occasional reader]

Jesse,

I'm just asking Alan for a more adequate articulation of why he thinks that Sebelius's position is "ludicrous" or "foolish".

[occasional reader]

PDCP,

Note my original claim: "many Christians apparently believe that some unborn babies deserve far worse than bodily dismemberment."

If Christians believe some unborn babies are condemned to hell, and they believe that God is just (not condemning an someone for what he/she doesn't deserve), what follows if they put two and two together?

I'm glad that, originally, you and DH had the good sense to object to the idea that some Christians believe this. Do you change your mind now?

[Jesse]

Occasional, do you think Sebelius' position is reasonable? What does it mean when she says she believes "all life is sacred?" Doesn't she imply that this belief informs her that abortion is wrong?

[Pentium Dual Core Processaur]

I believe I allready answered that but I will restate it**
Note earlier I said no man is righteous before God. We are all deserving of Gods wrath, (including hell.) Who in humanity can on his own accord stand before God blamelessly? We are unrighteous by default, and I personally have plenty of reason to agree with this. The Bible is clear about this. Therefore, by this premise alone even if we limit justice to the definition you gave, there is no violation of Gods character. So the question then is, does Gods grace, which is the sufficient attonement so we may be found blameless before God, also applied to the unborn? Again, I have no idea. The closes we can get to an answer is perhaps the story of when David lost his son due to him adulterous acte. And in light of that again I say this issue is not entirely relevant to the discussion. It would be better to discuss the immediate topic instead.

[Sam]

Obamanation...that was funny.

[Pentium Dual Core Processaur]

and btw initially (due to the wording of your original statement) i thought you ment there were Christians who thought babies should be physically punished in harsher manners than they allready experience. I misunderstood what you ment

[Naturallawyer]

occasional opined:
"To say that deterrence is the primary (legitimate) motivator in punishment is not to say that it's the only consideration that's relevant in determining punishment. The same point applies to your dismissal of incarceration."

Um, right; but where deterrence is the supposed "primary motivator", you must always have other "relevant considerations". And among those relevant considerations will always be a consideration of what punishment is actually deserved (retribution). And the retribution consideration (under whatever name it is given as a supposed secondary consideration) will generally set the boundries for what deterent methods will be deemed acceptable (which leads one to question whether those considerations are really "secondary"). That was my point...

"How did you get through the LSAT?!"

I got a 169; what was your score?

[Pentium Dual Core Processaur]

169? Wow, thats very good nat!

[occasional reader]

David Hawkins (12:28 p.m.),

Why must the conversation proceed like that? To begin with, why should Sebelius answer the question "why are you opposed to abortion?" in the way you suggest?

Why not: "Because abortion is immoral/sacrilegious"

Or: "Because abortion can have psychologically adverse effects on the woman."

Or: "Because abortion is expensive"

[occasional reader]

Jesse,

I don't know enough about Sebelius's position to tell whether it is reasonable or not.

Suppose that she believes abortion is wrong because it is sacrilegious (i.e., it is violation of the "sacredness of life"). What follows?

[occasional reader]

PDCP,

I see that you do believe that unborn babies deserve something far worse than bodily dismemberment.

I quote David Hawkins:

What is genuinely "surpising" is that you would actually give "Christian credence" to whomoever [believes that some unborn babies deserve far worse than bodily dismemberment], unless of course you are unfamiliar with the tenets of Christ's message.

David, what do you say?

[occasional reader]

Naturallawyer,

I've just lost a little respect for the LSAT.

Are you being serious here:

"And among those relevant considerations will always be a consideration of what punishment is actually deserved (retribution)."?

And even if that were true, how would it show that deterrence ("to keep them from doing it") or incarceration ("to keep those who do it away from us") is not the primary reason/justification for punishment in the first place?

[Pentium Dual Core Processaur]

With respect, o.c, and I do mean that and I will be careful with my words, I dont think you were interested in what I had to say to begin with. If Grace did not exist, that quote from Dawkins might have a bit of weight. It seems you have focused solely on the depraved and corrupted nature of man, to which I firmly hold is indeed worthy of judgement. If that were not so, wouldent an innocent baby have been sufficient rather than Jesus Christ, as an attoning sacrifice? In any case, we all deserve things far worse than dismemberment (including babies). But thanks to our mighty and wonderful lord and savior Jesus Christ, Thank God were not all going to get what we deserve.

You are free to continue in your opinion, but your gripe is not with what Christians believe, rather, what the Bible says. And if thats how you feel, I certianly respect that.

[Jesse]

Occasional,
Alan's main point is that Sebelius' position on abortion is foolish. If you don't know enough about her position to determine whether it's reasonable, then why are you so quick to object to Alan's comments?

[occasional reader]

Jesse,

We can put it this way. I don't know if Sebelius' position is foolish or not. Alan says it is foolish, and I'm wondering why. He provides some reasoning, but the reasoning is faulty/inconclusive. I point that out.

What's the problem?

[occasional reader]

PDCP,

Thank you for your straightforward honesty on these matters.

Btw, I quoted David Hawkins (9:20 AM), not Dawkins (perhaps just a typo?)

You say that unborn babies deserve far worse than bodily dismemberment.

Do you also think that some of these unborn babies get what they deserve?

[Naturallawyer]

occasional offered:
"And even if that were true, how would it show that deterrence ("to keep them from doing it") or incarceration ("to keep those who do it away from us") is not the primary reason/justification for punishment in the first place?"

Well, lets back up for a moment. When we speak of our various theories of punishment, there are the theories that we actually employ (no doubt some legislatures aim to be deterrent, some rehabilitative, etc.), and then there are the theory or theories that are actually worthy of merit (unless you don't think punishment needs to be justified at all because it's a will to power). There is also the intricately woven question of what to punish along with why we punish.

Thus, when you say "how would it show that deterrence ... or incarceration ... is not the primary reason/justification for punishment in the first place?", are you speaking of some inherent moral need for a justification for punishment, or are you speaking of a description of the primary motivations of those who make criminal laws? If the latter, I can't really dispute the point (and I don't dispute it). If the former, we must ask whether deterrence truly justifies punishment. And that requires asking what should be punished.

We can't just deter everything; we obviously need a reason to deter. Thus, those who claim their primary justification for punishment is deterrence must give us a reason they sort behavior to be deterred from behavior to be permitted. I contend that it is at this point that they will start slipping moral judgments into the equation. And in doing so, when we get around to assigning punishments, they will inevitably (and perhaps unconsciously) seek to match up "deterrence" with "desert". Any "deterrent" they assign that is out of step with "desert" will be challenged. There will always be more effective deterrents (you can give the death penalty for speeding if you want to), and there will be criminals that deserve punishment but are physically unable to commit another of the same type of crime. We intuitively know that it's wrong to make deterrence or incarceration the primary goal; other factors (like justice) must trump deterrence. Thus, "deterrence" ends up back at retribution, and deterrence in itself does not justify punishment.

By the way, I've passed along your concerns to the LSAT board. I'm sure they'll look into the matter hastily...

[Pentium Dual Core Processaur]

hahahaha
OOPS!!! I completely misread that quote!! no typo on your behalf!
Silly me! Anyway, ide have to ask David to clairify if he had the same initial clarity issue as I did. I dont think he would disagree with my statement, that statement being that humanity is by nature fallen and undeserving of an eternal relationship with God. Which indeed, is probably worse than being decapitated.

And to answer your question, I have no idea. I would like to think they dont, and perhaps I have good reason to believe they dont, but I dont know, so I suspend my curiousity in favor of trust in God that he will make the most righteous decision, whatever that may be as he is in a much better position to make one. And that was a really long sentence

[Amy Hall]

>>I've just lost a little respect for the LSAT.

O.C., over time, I've let your condescending attitude slide, but if you want to continue to have conversations here, shape up your attitude or you're out. You've already had a second chance. I know it's possible to make arguments without the snarky comments.

[occasional reader]

It seems that folks who disagree with the STR position are held to higher standards in conversational etiquette. Or have things changed since I've been here last?

[Amy Hall]

It's the condescension, O.C. Get it under control. Sometimes people on here get angry, sometimes they're not nice, but condescension is manipulative and destroys conversation, and I've watched you use it against people for a while now.

>>It seems that folks who disagree with the STR position are held to higher standards in conversational etiquette.

Just worry about yourself. I wait to see a trend. Also, I never begin with a public warning, so you have no idea who I have or have not spoken to. Now, can we continue as peers? Drop the attitude.