Pro-Lifers Squirm...Part II

A quick read of the comments under my most recent blog indicates that some misunderstood my blog to mean that in a world where abortion would be illegal, I think it's up in the air how women should be punished. Here's a clarification that will help. The point of my blog was that we can't know how a specific woman will be punished without more information. A few readers took my response to mean that I'm unsure completely about how women should be charged and that I lean toward not charging them with any sort of serious crime. If you look carefully at the post, however, I listed murder and manslaughter as possible charges, but not anything less weighty, such as justifiable homicide.

The point of my blog was actually the opposite of the point some read into it: I think killing unborn human beings should be treated the same in law as the killing of born human beings. Since the charge for killing born human beings is understandably complicated by various factors, so the charge for killing unborn human beings should be. My point was simply that the question, "How should women be charged?" is too simple. It treats all abortion situations as exactly the same, which they are not. Lawyers can sort out how each woman's intention and premeditation affects her sentence. In doing so, though, women who kill unborn human beings should be treated the same way as women who kill toddlers.

Comments

[jchfleetguy]

Really? I thought this position was really clear in your last post. I think it is wrong, but that is another issue.

I think the most restrictive abortion law in the country (South Dakota) was accepted by one of the most conservative populations in the country in part because the included this caveat:

"Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty."

I sincerely believe that answer is the key to any legal restriction of abortion - because the sensibilities of the majority of folks in the pro-life movement will not see 500,000 women a year as murderers. Forcing them to accept that view will force them away from protecting innocent life.

Finally, there is nothing in the Bible that requires that, while protecting innocent life, we seek to punish those that attack the innocent. It is just fine to offer grace and mercy instead. In this case, I think it is key to the eventual restriction of abortion by law.

[Franklin]

jchfleetguy,

appealing to popularity is not an argument for something being correct.

"Finally, there is nothing in the Bible that requires that, while protecting innocent life, we seek to punish those that attack the innocent"
Excuse Me? how can this argument not be applied to ANY murder.

Do you have a logical argument as to why civil law should just simply dismiss premeditated murder? Or is your argument simply pragmatic without appealing to morality?

read my post on the topic:
http://frankpeach.com/2007/08/do-pro-lifers-have-courage-of-their.html

[jchfleetguy]

Franklin,

It certainly is pragmatic; but not entirely.

The quandary the majority (IMO) of pro-life folks are in is that while they believe unborn children are innocent life and should be protected - they all know real life women who have made the difficult decision to have an abortion. They know these folks are not equatable with someone who shoots a 7-11 attendent and flees with the money. If you believe forcing them to make that equation will help end abortion - good luck.

I sincerely believe that my looking at pornography is adultery - as surely as if I actually had sex with another woman. This is absolute for me, but not for the secular culture - I can not enforce that by law. Similarily, my wife and I both believe that our aborting our last child before she was born would have been the same as murdering a born human.

If you really believe that you can bring 70% of the population to the view that women who have abortions should be tried for some form of homocide - good luck. South Dakota had more wisdom than that.

The implications of that are that if you live in a state where abortion is illegal; and you find that one of your neighbors flew to California to have an abortion - you must turn her into the police for murder and the police must jail her; try her; convict her; and perhaps jail her for life. That is why South Dakota opted for protecting the life of the unborn, and punishing the doctor - but leaving the mother alone.

Is that just pragmatism, or a recognition that while we want to protect unborn children we wish to offer grace and mercy to women facing a difficult decision that they decide unwisely?

I fear the need to punish women who have had an abortion is far more based on an Old Testament view of punishment and justice; and an unwillingness to let God deal with the mother as He sees fit.

[Franklin]

1) "If you really believe that you can bring 70% of the population to the view that women who have abortions should be tried for some form of homicide - good luck."
I Do. Will it happen over night? No. But why do I think that? Because 50-60 years ago virtually everyone believed that abortion was murder and and they would have laughed at you if you said abortion would be supported by a majority of the people. We can change that back.

2)"They know these folks are not equatable with someone who shoots a 7-11 attendant and flees with the money"
That was the whole point of the post. You DON'T equate the two. you take each one on the merits of the case.

3)"The implications of that are that if you live in a state where abortion is illegal; and you find that one of your neighbors flew to California to have an abortion - you must turn her into the police for murder"
Well this is just plain silly. you can't be tried for doing something legal in a state if you happen to go into a state where it is illegal. This would cause all sorts of chaos. would you be extradited to the state where it is legal to be tried under the statues of the state where it is illegal?

3)"unwillingness to let God deal with the mother as He sees fit." Does that mean that you are unwilling to let God deal with the guy who shoots the 7-11 clerk as He sees fit?

[doug t]

"Is that just pragmatism, or a recognition that while we want to protect unborn children we wish to offer grace and mercy to women facing a difficult decision that they decide unwisely?"

Our laws are not the Bible, though they should get their power from the morality of God. But the state is a secular institution under control of both moral and immoral people.

I think we should be "wise as serpents and shrewd as asps" when dealing in the public realm and that's where pragmatism comes into play. It's why Corey TenBoom hid Jews in the walls of her house and lied to Nazis instead of shooting them in the head and revealing her operation.

Like the Devil, we too can employ the systematic desensitization of ideas in the public sphere. Sometimes incrementalism is all we have and I'll take that over incrementalism in the opposite direction.

Each side votes and passes laws or appoints judges that slowly chip away at laws that do not line up with God's morality to the degree that we are aware of it at this time in history.

In secular politics, the perfect is the enemy of the better.

[jchfleetguy]

Doug:

""They know these folks are not equatable with someone who shoots a 7-11 attendant and flees with the money"

That was the whole point of the post. You DON'T equate the two. you take each one on the merits of the case."

Actually no: the 7-11 attendent may have not intended in advance to kill the attendent - it might be manslaughter. However, the women who secures an appointment in California, gets on the plane, carries out the killing, and returns home to her life has, on the facts of the case, committed pre-meditated murder. The post would treat her as any other pre-meditated murderer - for instance, the guy that hires a hitman to kill his wife.

Steve is right. If you are going to take this approach - this is the outcome.

"Well this is just plain silly. you can't be tried for doing something legal in a state if you happen to go into a state where it is illegal. This would cause all sorts of chaos. would you be extradited to the state where it is legal to be tried under the statues of the state where it is illegal?"

Since when? What of the Kansas teenager arrested for statuatory rape because he went to Nebraska to marry a girl who was underage in Kansas? What about arresting the pervert for going to Asia to have sex with children when he came back to the US? It wasnt illegal in Thailand. Sorry - crossing state lines to commit a crime has never been a shield.

And, if that is your position, are you saying that only those women without the resourses to go out of state are going to jail for murder? Please.

[Amy]

>>I fear the need to punish women who have had an abortion is far more based on an Old Testament view of punishment and justice; and an unwillingness to let God deal with the mother as He sees fit.

Jchfleetguy, I think you're misunderstanding the nature of government, here. Can you point to anywhere in the New Testament where God says the government is no longer His instrument of punishment and justice toward those who break the law? (See Romans 13 where Paul says the government *is* his instrument for this.)

[jchfleetguy]

Hi Amy

Romans 12 is kinda of linked to this discussion as well.

I understand the purpose of government from both a secular and God's perspective.

That the government has the right to punish, doesnt mean it must. Also, Christianity is not in its essence a legislative religion - there is no New Testament call to legislate our moral precepts into law. In fact, the strong implication is that the law is incapable of making us moral; and that legal and illegal are not really applicable categories to Christian morality. It may restrain our actions but it is our heart that matters - and not our actions - to God.

Here we are not talking about the Christian duty to obey government: you are talking about a Christian duty to legislate our morality as a first step to us obeying that law. Please point out any passage in the New Testament that says we should do that.

[Amy]

>>you are talking about a Christian duty to legislate our morality as a first step to us obeying that law.

No, that wasn't my point at all. We're talking about what punishment the government would impose on someone who broke the law if abortion were made illegal. You said punishing someone who broke this hypothetical law would be "an Old Testament view of justice."

I pointed to Romans 13:4 (I probably should have taken the time to look up and reference the verse--sorry for the confusion) which says, "But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for [the government] does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." In other words, even in the New Testament, the government is an instrument of punishment and justice toward those who break the laws. The purpose of the institution of government has not changed because of Jesus.

Obviously we need to change people's minds through arguments, and that's what we do here! And obviously, abortion won't be made illegal until a majority of people think it involves the taking of an innocent human life. But if this is accomplished, and people accept that a fetus has rights, the government has not only the right, but the mandate to bring about justice through punishment for those who kill unborn children. (Actually, this occurs already. If a man kills a mother and her unborn child, he is charged with two counts of murder.)

[jchfleetguy]

Amy,

I agree with that - although is the death of the unborn child chargable in every state? I would be surprised if it was.

Law can also do as South Dakota did; and explicitly exempt someone involved in a crime from punishment. I happen to think that making abortion generally illegal in the US will require that exemption for the mother. Does a Christian's opposition to abortion, and a desire to see it illegal, need to include a desire for the punishment of the woman? I think Steve is premising that it does. My premise is that one does not require the other.

[doug t]

"Here we are not talking about the Christian duty to obey government: you are talking about a Christian duty to legislate our morality as a first step to us obeying that law. Please point out any passage in the New Testament that says we should do that."

jchfleetguy,
I have a hard time swallowing a complete split between Christian morality and state morality. Here's my challenge; if Christianity is designed by God to have no influence on government issues then it wouldn't matter how I voted anyways. The government could punish women for having abortions by executing their entire town, or could reward a woman by giving her a car and God would just shrug and say, "It's not an institution I'm interested in...I just want the hearts and souls of men."

The actions of our government are NO DIFFERENT than any of our other actions when our governments are made up of us. The people serving in office have works and fruits to demonstrate the condition of their hearts as much as the rest of us.

I think the parable of the Good Samaritan is two fold; 1. God cares about the condition of the hearts of men who might not care for the less fortunate. 2. God also wants to help the less fortunate. Voting for a government that will either create less fortunate people or less is probably important to God. A society that rewards those who help those less fortunate is probably important to God.

I don't see God's rule as stopping at the local church level. He put THE WHOLE WORLD in our care. God cares about what we do with government, the environment, our space program, our schools, parenting, laws, etc. But I mean that he cares solely on the basis of doing good works and being a proper citizen, I don't mean that Christ wants us to elect Pat Robertson.

God cares about the whole of man, including man's governments.

[doug t]

"Does a Christian's opposition to abortion, and a desire to see it illegal, need to include a desire for the punishment of the woman? I think Steve is premising that it does. My premise is that one does not require the other."

As an incrementalist, I would gladly take that first step of making abortion illegal and punishing the doctors without punishing the woman. That would be a huge improvement today that would save millions of lives which is a stand-alone good thing.

[jchfleetguy]

Doug

We are probably a gnat's posterior away from agreement - and will probably get there if we try.

You are correct. In a democracy part of our duty to obey the government is to be the government as a voter and a participant. Then, we indeed carry our morality into the public arena. I will also never agree that I cannot state the source of my morality in that arena.

This gives each of us that struggle between which of our precepts we think need to be legislated, and which do not. Which are higher level revelation given to Christians; and what are general revelations everybody can be expected to know.

Certainly, as Bonhoeffer (and Peter) pointed out - as Christians there are laws we cannot follow; and indeed governments which violate that general revelation we can be expected to oppose.

It has been a pleasure talking to you; and indeed everyone here.

[Lyndon]

Would the mother really be charged with some form of homicide unless she actually tried performed the abortion herself? I mean, if you hand me a loaded gun and tell me to shoot your kid, I don't have to do it and I'm certainly not going to.

[alan aronson]

Hi jchfleetguy, you have me confused. Did the south Dakota legislature pass another anti-abortion law? Last I heard they all failed.

"HB 1293: The journey of this year's abortion ban was effectively ended in the Senate State Affairs committee by a vote of 8-1. The bill would have banned nearly all abortions in South Dakota; but these legislators listened to their constituents and stopped it in its tracks. Supporters of the abortion ban have pledged to introduce another bill next year.

HB 1296: This bill, sponsor by Roger Hunt (R-Brandon), would have created more bureaucratic hurdles for women seeking abortion care in South Dakota. Luckily, the Senate Health and Human Services committee recognized that the bill would interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Additionally, the bill would have set a dangerous precedent by allowing the legislature into personal, private medical decisions. The bill was defeated in committee 5-2.

SB 171 and 172: These bills perpetuated the idea that women who are terminating a pregnancy, no matter what the reason, can't possibly know what they are doing. Thankfully, the Senate Judiciary committee killed the bills 4-3."

http://www.ppmnsaction.org/learn/news/south_dakota_2007_legislative_wrap_up_20070307

"Since the charge for killing born human beings is understandably complicated by various factors,..."

A woman enters into a series of actions over a period of time that results in her or her agent hiring a doctor to perform an abortion. There is no way this isn't premeditated. There is no great mystery here. We are talking about things in general, not specific cases. Steve, why are you so reluctant to say the obvious? One might have a case for second degree murder or manslaughter if we were dealing with a self induced abortion that was performed in a manner inconsistent with premeditation, but if a third party is involved and the exchange of money as well as subtrifuge and planning then it's murder one.

[jchfleetguy]

Alan,

Might be my bad. Was this the law that was overturned by initiative?

http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/abortion/sdabortionlaw06.html

If so, it makes it more interesting because it means the original, before the overturn, included that passage - it wasn't an appeasement to the voters after the defeat.

I had heard the legislature had passed a new bill that they thought the population would accept, and I ass+u+me d that when the other guy said "new" abortion bill he meant the 2nd legislative act.

[alan aronson]

Hi jchfleetguy, that was the 2006 law that was repealed by the iitiative process in November, 2006. It appears that attempts to pass another law failed decisively this year.

The 2006 law failed to make exceptions for rape and incest and was unpopular. It was planned to use this as a challenge to Roe but opponents took it to the people instead.

[Franklin]

jchfleetguy,
>>Actually no: the 7-11 attendent may have not intended in advance to kill the attendent - it might be manslaughter. However, the women who secures an appointment in California, gets on the plane, carries out the killing, and returns home to her life has, on the facts of the case, committed pre-meditated murder.

Possibly; however there may be (and in most cases probably are) other facts including her understanding of what she is doing, what pressure she is under and her mental state is (does she understand that she is killing a human? many women sadly do not understand this). This is why we have Judges instead of looking up the crime and sentence on a spread sheet. But in any case she would not be prosecuted in her home state if the crime was not committed there...

>>What of the Kansas teenager arrested for statuatory rape because he went to Nebraska to marry a girl who was underage in Kansas?
I do not know this case, but I assume he took his 'wife' back with him to his home state and had relations with here there and therefore broke the law in Kansas and was subsequently arrested.

>>What about arresting the pervert for going to Asia to have sex with children when he came back to the US? It wasn't illegal in Thailand.
Again my understanding was he was already charged with crimes in the US (if this is the case I am thinking of) and Fled to Asia to avoid punishment, he was arrested upon his return to the US (because he wanted 'confess' for a different crime he didn't commit in a sort of deranged publicity stunt) although he may have been extradited for crimes committed in the US prior to leaving should he have been discovered in Asia.

>>Sorry - crossing state lines to commit a crime has never been a shield.
Sorry, but it is. Not a shield, just not illegal. Take this case. WI speed limit on the interstate is 65, My state MN is 70. can I be arrested in WI because I was going 70 until I hit the border? NO because the laws only apply to the jurisdiction they are intended for. Have you ever heard of anyone being arrested for doing drugs or prostitution while they were in Amsterdam? This is simply a fact.

>>And, if that is your position, are you saying that only those women without the resources to go out of state are going to jail for murder? Please.
Until we can convince all 50 states to outlaw infanticide then this will be an unhappy consequence. More probably however those without the resource will keep their babies.

[alan aronson]

"More probably however those without the resource will keep their babies."

Or we will revert to common practice prior to the expansion of abortion rights in the 1960s. We should never forget that the pressure for change was in part a response to the increasing ubiquity and acceptability of abortion.

BTW, I love the casual manner in which Franklin would force motherhood on a person who lacks the resources to organize a trip to California, New York or Canada.

As I recall the person extradited from Thailand was in prison there for sex crimes against children.. His timely confession and removal to the U.S. got him out of prison.

California still has a felony murder rule, so in CA at least, we would be dealing with a murder charge.

Franklin, it would seem you are an attorney. Do you see a qualitative difference with the inclusion of "hate crimes" in the list of circumstances that can allow an enhancement in the sentence as opposed to the rest of the list?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

[alan aronson]

"California still has a felony murder rule, so in CA at least, we would be dealing with a murder charge."

This refers to the 7 - 11 store example.

[doug t]

"BTW, I love the casual manner in which Franklin would force motherhood on a person who lacks the resources to organize a trip to California, New York or Canada."

I would force motherhood (or a potential adoption decision) on any person who has the resources to have sex. Being poor has never been (outside of Democrat/Marxist circles) an excuse to dismiss morality.

A poor living baby is better than a poor dead baby. Is this the new reason why poor states need government sponsored abortions...because they can't afford a flight to New York? Truly, the unborn have less rights than your average Tic-Tac.

[Franklin]

aronson,
>>...Or we will revert to common practice prior to the expansion of abortion rights in the 1960s.

Some of this would happen, of this I have no doubt. It is our charge to increase the unacceptability of abortion, we do need to change the culture here. I understand that. Changing the laws would help that cause and save lives in the process.

>>I love the casual manner in which Franklin would force motherhood on a person who lacks the resources to organize a trip to California, New York or Canada.

I would not, could not 'force' motherhood upon anyone, I do not have that power. Motherhood and Fatherhood happen at conception through natural and biological means. Those means I certainly was not a party to in determining the circumstances through which they do come about. (although I would not have dared argue with Him who in His wisdom did create those circumstances). However Knowing what they are, I can say that the only one whom I have been blessed to help confer motherhood upon is my wife and mother to my children.

...And I would hope California,New York and Canada would outlaw infanticide as well, because Yes it would be unfortunate that Women with enough resources would be able to kill their children.

>>Franklin, it would seem you are an attorney. Do you see a qualitative difference with the inclusion of "hate crimes" in the list of circumstances that can allow an enhancement in the sentence as opposed to the rest of the list?

No. I am not an attorney, I defer to those who are if I am in error. As far as hate crimes, if it were up to me, I would eliminate all hate crimes entirely, because they do two things 1)Create a protected class that violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment 2)It becomes the thought police -- we start to enter 1984 territory here where you are charged by what you think.
I also don't see any circumstances where unborn children are victims of so-called 'hate' (at least no circumstances where such laws are passed).

[Franklin]

one last thought on 'forcing' things upon people.

Would you 'force' parents to feed/clothe/house (take your pick) their children or give them an 'out' through infanticide once they are born?

Why do you force me to share the road with so many drivers during rush hour, couldn't I simply lock up or kill some of them to speed up my commute?

[alan aronson]

"Some of this would happen, of this I have no doubt. It is our charge to increase the unacceptability of abortion, we do need to change the culture here. I understand that. Changing the laws would help that cause and save lives in the process."

I've seen this claim several times. How does one then explain the fact that abortion became common and acceptable when there were laws then in force against it? Why would it be different this time?

[Franklin]

aronson,
>>How does one then explain the fact that abortion became common and acceptable when there were laws then in force against it?

1) I would argue that for the most part it didn't. It was thrust upon us by one court decision, if it was becoming popular would have seen states making attempts at legalizing it, which to my understanding was not happening (at least not in a large degree) it was the one decision by a few men in robes that did the most to make it acceptable in the culture.
2)Having said that I do acknowledge that the culture was moving in that direction. To this I agree with Pope Paul VI In Humanae Vitae (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html esp. #17) That it (mostly) started with birth control but we don't start at the ideal, we take incremental steps back to the ideal changing the culture a bit at a time.

Why would it be different? I suppose it can only be different because we know know our history, if we don't I am sure we are doomed to repeat it.

[jchfleetguy]

Franklin,

First, the woman going to California: she initiated a conspiracy to commit a crime in her home state by calling the abortion clinic in California, securing tickets, traveling to the airport, boarding the plane. These are all acts in furtherance of a criminal act; and performed in a state where the act was illegal. I am not a lawyer either, but I think a conspiracy to engage in a criminal enterprise is a no-brainer here.

Actually, the US passed a law making it illegal to travel to other countries to engage in sex with children. He was arrested in the airport on his return based on interception of emails, etc.

The US was very much in the process of loosening abortion restrictions in 1972. Four states had already legalized completely, I think 15 had softened, and there were bills pending in the legislatures of, I believe, all but 4 states in the country. The standardized legal act making the rounds legalized abortion in the case of threats to the life and health of the mother, health of the child, rape and incest.

That movement toward liberalization of the abortion laws is one of the reasons cited for why the Supremes thought Roe would fly - even though it was such a bad decision: they expected it to be accepted as the already outworking will of the population.

They were wrong huh

[Franklin]

jchfleetguy,
>>First, the woman going to California: she initiated a conspiracy to commit a crime in her home state by calling the abortion clinic in California, securing tickets...

Since there is no crime their is no conspiracy to commit a crime.
I can call a Fireworks establishment in WI to buy fireworks that are illegal in MN, give them my credit card # and drive to WI to pick them up then set them off in WI. And I have broken no law, nor conspired to break any law. That the way these things work.

>>Actually, the US passed a law making it illegal to travel to other countries to engage in sex with children...

Fair enough. I'll defer to your knowledge since I am not as familiar with the case. However it seems still from your description that it was the US law forbidding travel for those purposes that he broke, and I assume that is what he was charged with, not for pedophilia itself.

of the top of my head (this idea had not occurred to me before our current conversation and is largely hypothetical at least at the moment) I would not be in favor of similar laws prohibiting state travel for abortions, but I would need some time to digest this idea before I could come to solid defensible position.

>>The US was very much in the process of loosening abortion restrictions in 1972. Four states had already legalized completely...

Thank you for your corrections. I did just a little research. (some good info can be found here:http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/abortl.htm)
In 1973 there were four states that allowed abortion on demand: NY, AL, HI and WA. Only NY allowed it for non residents. NY was working on reenacting the abortion laws, but was vetoed by the Governor. Referendums to legalize Abortion in MI and ND went down to defeat with large majorities. The tide was moving in that direction (as I admitted to earlier), but it was not all powerful.

I still ague that the decision was a huge factor in changing the culture toward abortion. The states were trying to cope with the 'problem' (which is where it should have stayed) and with one stroke the SCOTUS changed the law in 46 states. Had that not happened (if you'll permit me to prognosticate retroactively for a moment) we would have saved may lives and several states would never have legalized abortion (as several states still have their laws on the books today) and the cultural shift would never have been as significant as it had gone especially by the mid 80's. Today the tide is turning in the right direction (I believe), I'm just doing my part to keep pushing :)

[doug t]

"I've seen this claim several times. How does one then explain the fact that abortion became common and acceptable when there were laws then in force against it? Why would it be different this time?"

We have a far more robust sense of life beginning at conception than we did back then. You're looking at the pre-ultrasound era. The family clinic we support says if they can just get the girls to get an ultrasound that about 75% will give up getting an abortion on the spot. That shows what an informed consumer will tend to "choose".

I also think that stricter marriage laws of the past where it was harder to get a divorce or harder to live as a "tainted woman" put more pressure on people to have abortions.

While abortion eventually became more common and acceptable, it became rampantly so well after Roe came on the scene...which coincided with the sexual revolution.

But my original point still stands, that we don't look to ever-changing popularity status to determine if the unborn is human or not. It would'nt matter if everyone believed it or nobody believed it. It wouldn't matter if our culture supported the death penalty for mothers having an abortion or rewarding them with free trips to Paris.

"But my original point still stands, that we don't look to ever-changing popularity status to determine if the unborn is human or not. It would'nt matter if everyone believed it or nobody believed it. It wouldn't matter if our culture supported the death penalty for mothers having an abortion or rewarding them with free trips to Paris."

Agreed, in this country we are free to believe what we want to. Passing laws and coercing our fellow citizens into actions based on those beliefs is another matter. Laws will not be successful unless an overwhelming majority supports them. In order for that to happen any law needs more then a theological basis.

[doug t]

" In order for that to happen any law needs more then a theological basis."

Well said. Being theologically correct isn't enough, which is why the general public needs to be informed about the logic of Pro-life positions (hint: it's not so government can take over a woman's body).

The good news is that I think those who oppose abortion are better informed about the "why" than ever before. Those who support abortion that I speak with are almost always completely ignorant of the Pro-Life logic.

...and it doesn't take an overwhelming majority to overturn Supreme Court decisions. It didn't take a majority to put abortion in place, end slavery, give the woman a vote and it won't take a majority to overturn it. But it will take strategy and by that I mean it takes more than good intentions of Pro Life voters.

[Tim]

We need to remember that all of the abortion specific laws were nullified with Roe, unless new ones specific to abortion are in place, there will likely be a default to homocide statutes already in place. Alan can probably speak to the legal protocols better than I. The courts can't just make it up as they go. That's what happened in Roe. It's not fair to expect the courts to do that. It's the job of the Citizens to do that through their elected legislators. In the post above one said 'they weren't a lawyer but it seemed to them'. That's a huge problem. It shows a lack of basic understanding of how the legal system is supposed to work. Just the bad conclusions on Dred Scott shows how poorly the average citizens understanding is. Go the Cornel Law School web site, type in Taneys name and read the Scott decision. The main issue before the court in that time was Scotts political status. He and his family were slaves. The U.S. Constitution protected that institution in the states where it was legal prior to the 13 and 14 Amendments, Missouri being one of the slave states. Under the U.S. Constitution and the Missouri Constitution Scott was the property of his owner. Like abortion, it was a state matter, the Federal Government had extremely limited jurisdiction at the time. Trying to blame Taney for laws in the states is unfair. He had no mechanism to change, enact or enforce such actions. You can't blame the Roe Court for 'legislating from the bench' and turn around and blame Taney for not doing it.
I have two questions for those who think that the Immancipation Proclamation 'over turned Scott.
Explain territorial jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Alan no fair, I know you know. I would like the others opinions before you way in please.
Alan, a couple of months ago you had said Taney was wrong on fact. Could you explain what you were referring to please?
I would like to thank everyone for staying involved with this issue.
Steve, the way everyone took your meaning wrong is exactly why we should strive to understand how our legislative and judicial processes work. Ambiguous language in statutes are very dangerous. When we take abortion from the public debate into the legislatures, language takes on a whole different character. Again though, thanks for taking the issue on and providing a forum to bring these issues to the front.
BTW, Taney had neither subject matter nor territorial jurisdiction to rule any other way in Scott.

[doug t]

"BTW, Taney had neither subject matter nor territorial jurisdiction to rule any other way in Scott."

Tim, this is baloney. Our Declaration of Independence speaks well of a higher law that is above the law. When a government is oppressive we lean on the higher natural law...the first things...to throw off our oppressive laws. There's ALWAYS another way to decide if it is grounded in better, more free positions.

The Nazi's defense at Nuremburg was "We were only following the law" and our courts gave them the death penalty saying that they ignored "the higher law"...not of the United States, but the general revelation of God. THAT'S why Dred Scott doesn't stand today and why judges of good conscience can hold to Stare decicis and still overturn Roe and Casey. Because the U.S. law is not the highest law in the land. It derrives it's power from the highest law in the land.

Those states that choose homicide or non-homicide when Roe is overturned is still inconsequential to the fact that Roe was poorly decided and should be overturned.

[Tim]

Doug,
Are we a nation of laws or not?
To say that the current state statutes aren't relavent is pure ignorance.
Do you even no what sublect matter and territorial jurisdiction means?
Slavery was protected in the U.S. and state constitutions where slavery existed at the time. Taney was bound by the laws at that time. You complain about the courts legislating from the bench, and then blame Taney for not doing it. Make up your mind.
And I'll remind you that the U.S. isn't a theocracy. The responsibility for our laws rest on you and I as Citizens. As Christians we derive our understanding from the scriptures, but when you start taking actions based on 'higher power' arguments you run up against Romans 13. The Nazis took power because the Christians and other citizens stuck their heads in under their pillows.
Scott doesn't stand today because of the 13th and 14th Amndments. Scott was never overturned, it was nulified by Amending the Constitution. Those who forced the Amendments may or may not have done so from a Biblical view, but God worked through the Amendment process.
Our founders 'threw off' an oppressive ruler only after years of trying to go through the accepted protocols. We don't throw off bad laws, we work within the culture and political system to bring change through the established government. Again read Romans 13.
Your ignorance about jurisdiction and what constitutes a courts competency to hear a matter is a real problem. As a citizen in this nation, and particularly as a Christian, you should be more aware of how our system works. Or are you just going to 'throw off' everything you don't like? There are no lone wolf citizens or Christians.
Go to the Cornell Law School web site and read Scott v. Sanford and tell us what Taney said.

We should probably kick this upstairs to ver. 3.0

[doug t]

"Or are you just going to 'throw off' everything you don't like?"

10,000 people died since you spewed your ignorance all over me.

I agree that laws are great things and that responsible Christians should be a proper citizen, but a whole lot of Christians sat around arguing politics while the Jews were packed up on trains across the contintent.

The more political patience you show while people are being killed you basically demonstrate with your actions that you don't really think they're very human at all.

[Fighting the Wonderland Cat]

All laws are theological. To say otherwise is to be ignorant of worldview issues. Most of the laws in our country are not intent to make one moral, but rather to protect a victim from harm. To say that it is only your belief that should not be pressed on another through law is absurd. You could say the same for murder in general. The real problem is that the people arguing for punishment of murder post-birth vs. no punishment pre-birth don't really think the pre-birth act is as wrong. Of course, this is a ridiculous position, but it is influenced by all of the propaganda that treats the unborn child as less human. The government isn't bound by the personal commands of Christ to forgive and turn the other cheek (else it shouldn't punish any crime or it would be in violation of Christ's command). The government is there to punish for crimes, so if abortion is a crime that harms a victim, then it should be punished accordingly whether the brainwashed people here think it is absurd or not.