« The Berkeley Mission -- Part 5 | Main | Scripture Alone »

March 10, 2006

Comments

There was a time in my life when I spoke to a great deal of troubled women, counselling them and trying to help them through their pain and difficulty. Battered women, abused women, rape victims, former child molestation victims, etc. One theme that came back to me from these women again and again was that carrying the baby through to pregnancy actually helped healing and brought good out of the darkness, shame, fear, and horror of rape or incest. Another theme was shame and deep sorrow at having put their baby to death if they aborted it instead.

But this is the side nobody will tell, they don't care to listen to what these women have to say, they don't care even if they did listen. It contradicts the story line they want to tell, it conflicts with their politics, and so it doesn't count.

Abortion may make the best of a bad situation. I doubt if adoption is much of a possibility in countries like Mexico. Even if "give(ing) both the victim of rape and her unborn child the best care possible" was possible the average rape victim will still be faced with raising the child with no financial safety net and in a usually hostile social environment. The only realistic choice may be some degree of guilt vs. grinding poverty and stigmatization.

Would those disagreeing please list what concrete POLICIES you would institute to bring about your desired results.

"Abortion may make the best of a bad situation."

--quite a euphemism.

Hi rdb, do you support the recent South Dakota law dealing with abortion?

good question...jury's still out on that one. Don't know the specifics of it, but if what I've heard is accurate (it outlaws abortion except in cases in which the mother's life is in danger), I'm for it. My only caveat is that I'm not for bills that will ultimately get defeated some way along the way, and end up solidifying bad precedent and just encouraging the faithful.

But, you probably asked that question for some other reason than soliciting my opinion. You're probably doing a bit of 'witness leading' (that's ok btw, I do that lots too...makes things interesting), so...what am I missing?

The incest issue is similar. Most cases of incest are rapes as well, and having an abortion helps hide the crime and lets the abuse continue.

Alan, let me get this straight... you think murdering a baby is better than being poor or uncomfortable? Could you please defend this position? I'd love to know how you came to this conclusion.

Hi r, I wasn't sure what you meant by 'euphanism". To what exactly were you referring?

Neil, a backalley abortion may conceal a crime however an abortion done in a hospital creates a record and provides the ability to maintain a chain of custody of the evidence as well as the opportunity to test for DNA.

Chris, it's murder in your mind and to a few other people; to most folks, even those who oppose abortion as an individual's choice, it is something else. Again I will point out the obvious: If the fetus, or for that matter the embryo, is a child and abortion is murder then the pregnant woman and those who assist her in obtaining an abortion are guilty of first degree murder with special circumstances - a capital crime in California. If you believe that the death penalty would be a proper punishment for a woman who hired a person to kill her ten year old child then you have to believe the same penalty should apply to a woman who hires a doctor to terminate her pregnancy. If any jurisdiction attempted to make abortion a high order felony and included the woman in the crime you would see what support you have melt away.

It doesn't matter what I happen to believe about raising a child in poverty; the reality is that the women seeking an abortion believe that and if you want to cut abortion rates you will have to deal with that reality. Steve doesn't seem to get this either. Giving a woman prenatal care without provisions for the next twenty or so years is what leads to the love-affair-with-the-fetus charge. If you want to cut abortion, create a safety net.


Alan, when you kill a fellow human being without just cause, it's murder in ANYONE'S book. The burden of proof is on you to show this unborn baby is somehow not human.

If it's not murder, then you shouldn't be opposed to abortion in any form nor consider it in any way bad or regrettable.

"a backalley abortion may conceal a crime however an abortion done in a hospital . . ."

But the backalley abortion itself is a crime. If you are implying that some people will commit a 2nd crime to conceal a crime, then I agree. But what is your larger point? Are you saying aborting the living human being is a moral good because, if done in a hospital, it will help catch the perpetrator with DNA evidence?

No, Neil I was only pointing out that (re: your post) that not all abortions will necessarily conceal a crime.

If abortion is a moral good is irrelevant as not all moral wrongs should (or can) be illegal.

Chris please answer the question. I'll try to make this easy.

1. A seven year old child inherits $10 million from her grandparents. The child's mother hires Guido to kill her husband and child, leaving her the sole heir and free to run off with her boyfriend. She and Guido are caught and both receive the death penalty? Is this just?

2. A woman gets pregnant and hires a doctor to terminate the pregnancy so she doesn't fall off the partnership track at her law firm. This is her second abortion. What penalty would you exact? If different than the penalty in example #1, why?

Until you (and anyone else who wishes) clarify your position it is pointless to keep trying to get me admit that there is any significance to the number of chromosomes that an embryo or fetus has.

Alan, you're going to have to face the reality of your position some day without a screen of sophistry to try to avoid it. I pray its soon, for your sake.

now for your questions:
1) No jury or legal system in America would put both to death for this crime.
2) See number one.

You're making a sad, obvious logical error by presuming that if Abortion was made illegal, the death penalty would be the only possible sentance, not only for the doctor but for the woman involved. This is not only without logical basis, it is without historical basis. You must get past this and face the basic truth of the matter: killing innocent, helpless babies is monsterous and ghastly.

Chris, I asked for your personal opinion as to the justness of #1 and what penalty you would oppose in #2. This seems like a simple question. You evaded answering yet again.

I don't see what I'm missing here. Someone help me. If we have a person from conception than what is the justification for treating abortion differently than any other murder for hire case?

So far all it appears is that the assertion of personhood and citizenship for the embryo and fetus is based on mere sentimentality and that sentimentality breaks down when we are confronted with the realities of using the legal system.

I evaded nothing, you're loading the questions up in such an absurd degree it's barely worth answering. As I noted, murder for hire to my knowledge has not been given the death penalty for decades, and NEVER has the person hiring the killer ever been given the death penalty.

Further, you want to discuss penalties not dealing with in question: the humanity of the baby that is unborn. Whatever the penalty, it should be illegal to deliberately kill helpless, innocent people.

For a person who takes the position you do, you could not possibly call abortion tragic or call for fewer of them. Why would it be tragic to scoop out a mass of unwanted tissue from a woman's body? Do you consider Liposuction something that ought to be safe and rare? That it's a tragedy that ought to be avoided? Your position should be one of disregard for the whole issue, one that says "who cares if they get one or not?"

Trying to dismiss the humanity of an unborn baby by calling it "sentimentality" is beneath you, Alan, I have no doubt you've read and heard far more arguments than simply "ooh, I feel it's a baby and it would be icky."

Nothing magical happens when a baby exits the mother's body, it is human before and human after. There could be some attempt at arguing that there is a point at which that baby becomes human before birth - but since none of us have the knowledge or wisdom to declare unequivocably in a legal sense, how on earth can you justify killing that baby at any point short of death to the mother?

Simply put, you cannot. You need to examine your position, Alan, it is inconsistent, self-contradictory, and ill-considered. I suspect you're pro abortion not due to careful examination of the facts and long thought over the matter, but rather a combination of reaction to people you disagree with, a position passed down by parents and peers, and like many younger guys you hold it because you think women will dislike you if you don't.


"190.2. (a) The penalty for a defendant who is found guilty of
murder in the first degree is death or imprisonment in the state
prison for life without the possibility of parole if one or more of
the following special circumstances has been found under Section
190.4 to be true:
(1) The murder was intentional and carried out for financial gain."

Murder for hire is the first enumerated special circumstance under California law. Sec. 190.2(b)includes all parties to the transaction.

The State of California executed a man in January in a murder for hire case.

"Allen, who was legally blind, nearly deaf and used a wheelchair, had spent more than 23 years on death row for commissioning the 1980 murder-for-hire of three people while he was serving a life sentence for the 1974 murder of a 17-year-old girl who helped him rob a Fresno market. http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=blog_iframe

"The next day jurors deliberated for five hours before voting in favor of death sentences for both Marilyn Plantz and William Bryson. They were each also sentenced to 100 years for recruiting others to help in the murder, 10 years for conspiracy to murder, and a 15-year sentence for burning the pickup truck. http://www.dpio.org/inmates/Bryson,_William.html

Anyway this is going to drop off soon. My position isn't due to my youth but to many years of real world experience which has convinced me that some things are better dealt with outside the criminal justice system. As I don't believe in the concept of an immortal soul that exists from conception we will always have a different outlook. That is why I can consider abortion undesirable but sometimes the best of bad choices and at any rate the sole choice of the woman, at least during the first trimester.

Thanks for the info on recent law, I wasn't aware of any hit men being put to death. Thank you for reinforcing my point that nobody is put to death for hiring a hit man.

But as I pointed out above, that does not address the issue at point. Whatever the penalty, it is wrong for it to be legal to kill helpless human beings. Since you and I cannot determine in objective terms legally and scientifically when a fertilized cell becomes human, then it is obvious and clear that we are compelled to defend this at all points from being put to death without just cause, just like we have to with a baby that is outside the womb.

Why, exactly is abortion undesirable if it's not killing a human being? Is liposuction regretable and undesirable? Like I said, you've not based this on careful thought - give it some time, think about it, consider the position without presupposition. Don't take a position and try to prove or disprove it.

Start out neutral as you can, start out with an open mind, and examine the issue from all sides. You've not done so, I can tell, because you're unable to answer or explain your position.

Chris, read closer, Allen HIRED the hit man.

Yes liposuction is regrettable. Most lipo is the result of overeating. Any surgical procedure carries risks.

This will drop off any minute so we'll have to continue elsewhere.

I HAVE A FRIEND THAT WAS RAPED AND THE RAPIST WAS FOUND GUILTY AND SERVED 7 YEARS IN PRISON.MY FRIEND HAD THE BABY AND RAISED HER. NOW THE RAPIST SAYS HE WANTS RIGHT TO THE CHILD DUE TO HES THE FATHER. SHE WAS IN NO WAY INVOLVED WITH THIS MAN.

DOES HE HAVE ANY RIGHTS TO THE CHILD?
THE RAPIST MOTHER IS AN ATTORNY AND SHE WANTS TO SEE THE CHILD AND SAYS SHE IS GOING TO FIGHT FOR HER AND HER SONS RIGHTS TO THE CHILD. CAN THIS BE POSSIBLE?
I COULD NOT IMAGINE A JUDGE ALLOWING CONTACT WITH THE VICTIM OR ALLOWING HIM TO HAVE ANY RIGHTS TO THE CHILD.
ANY ADVISE?
THANKS

The comments to this entry are closed.