I read the other day on a blog post on here where a person posted a very popular blog on how to stump the anti-abortionist. The quesiton he posed was, “If abortion should be illegal, then what should be the punishment for those who get illegal abortions?”
Just think about that for a second and see if you can feel what he’s trying bring about in you.
The purpose is to make the anti-abortionist realize that they do not agree that this should be severly punishable by law like in the case of murder. Something about it makes them feel uncomfortable and that uncomfortable feeling is the proof that it shouldn’t be illegal because consequence doesn’t seem appropriate. That then leads him to prove his point that abortion should not be illegal because you just agreed it’s not punishable by law. The problem is, people say abortion is murder and if it is, shouldn’t they be punished as murderers? Seems too severe, seems to prove his point that abortion isn’t murder at all, even though he is still not pro-abortion himself.
So there are two points:
1-”You” (the anti-abortionist) just proved that abortion shouldn’t be illegal because illegal things must be punished and you don’t feel that it should be.
2- “You” also just proved by your reponse to the question that you don’t really believe that abortion is murder because you don’t feel that they should be punished as murderers.
3- A third point that was made in general by the post and the people that commented on it was mainly that the people who don’t believe in abortion do so mindlessly and don’t understand their own arguments. They posted a script of an anti-abortionist being asked this question and it ended with them being dumbfounded.
I’m going to take this point by point. This is way too hard to reduce down into a blog so I realize that many make break down my arguments and gather implications that are incorrect just because I can’t be thorough enough in short blog but I will do my best. To be clear, I do think abortion is wrong and I don’t support it. I do believe a baby is a baby from conception. Some of my arguements will be coming from a law perspective because this is viewpoint of the original blogger.
Okay…here I go…
Point 1: “You” proved that abortion shouldn’t be illegal because you don’t think or feel comfortable with abortionist being punished.
When I first heard this question, I did get this feeling. But I got that feeling not because I don’t think broken laws are punishable but because the death penalty and life in prison would seem very severe which is the punishment for murder, typically at least. Why did I get that feeling? I’ll explain that in the second point. But lets be clear, if this became a LAW, breaking it should be punishable in some degree just like any other offense. I would thus support a penalty for breaking this hypothetical law we are talking about just like I support fines and tickets for speeders and jail time for robbers etc. But what makes us feel uncomfortable about punishment for someone who gets an abortion, is an understanding for who the person who is getting the abortion. We don’t see people who get abortions as going to clinics saying, “HaHaHaHaHa! I’m going to kill this destroy this baby!” which IS how we see the stereo-typical murderer but we’ll discuss that in the second point.
The question, all emotion side here is, if abortion was illegal should there be punishment for breaking the law. The answer of course would be yes because the law was broken.
Point 2- “You” also just proved by your reponse to the question that you don’t really believe that abortion is murder because you don’t feel that they should be punished as murderers.
That is not what that proves. I think we both emotionally and judicially make a distinction between murder and taking a life. How so? Well emotionally, do you look at a paranoid schizophrenic man who kills the same way that you look at a man who was jealous of his ex-wife so he murders her boyfriend? Do they both scare you? Yes. Should they both be taken off of the streets? Yes. But you don’t look at the crazy man as heartless. You look at him as crazy. It’s the man who is a “normal-ish” type of person who goes and kills out of hate, greed, or power that makes you scream “Lock him up!” Why? Because the intent. Crazy people are just crazy, evil people have no excuse but hate and their evilness. One could help it. One of them could have decided to stay home and not go buy that gun and settled for slashing her tires. One couldn’t because they are crazy and don’t have the mental compacity to be anything but crazy. Justice looks different between these two. The question is not wether or not there should be punishment and judgement but rather, how it should be applied.
This is because murder takes on different punishments by law and the law is what we are talking about here. I believe that the consequence boils down to intent. If I intentionally plan to kill you then it’s usually life in prison, murder in the first degree. If I drive drunk and accidently kill you, which is still murder, then it’s manslaughter. A lesser charge. The difference is intent which I believe is the difference between murder as we know it and murder via abortion. I don’t believe a person who gets in abortion realizes or agrees with the idea that it’s the act of killing wether it is or not. Therefore, the intent is different. It’s considered ‘okay’ and ‘not murder to them’ so it’s not the first degree violent, spiteful killing of the first degree murderer. I’m not saying it’s not violent, I’m not saying that I think intent or view point changes the morality of the decision. I am saying though that legally speaking from the viewpoint of the blogger who posted the question, that intent is why the LAW wouldn’t treat an abortionist like a murderer and also why anti-abortionists in general would not support such a severe punishment of someone who got an abortion.
Is the person who gets an abortion intentionally taking a life? Yes. Does her view point on wether or not she feels that she is taking a life change that a life was still taken? No. Is she a danger to soceity and going to go kill you tonight in your house because she didn’t want to be pregnant? No. So do I think we should treat people who get abortions like dangerous criminals who threaten our well being? No. But do I think there should be some sort of consequence for tresspassing a law and doing something wrong? Yes. I realize that not everyone agrees with me that it is wrong but you would have to agree that law breaking should be punished. That is what we are talking about here so agreeing on the wrong-right issue has to be put aside. The blogger asked the question if it was ILLEGAL, what should we do legally with anti-abortionists. I am telling you that law breaking should be punished and how its punished boils down to intent. What should the punishment be? I couldn’t tell you that and I don’t want to be the one deciding for anyone, for any law.
Point 3- The third point that was made in general by the post and the people that commented on it was mainly that the people who don’t believe in abortion do so mindlessly and don’t understand their own arguments. They posted a script of an anti-abortionist being asked this question and it ended with them being dumbfounded.
I really think these out-right comments and implications ruffle my feathers the most. It’s the least logical of all of their arguments and it’s a very simple one.
Do people get their beliefs handed to them and never study about them or seek out answers to tough questions? Of course, which is a shame. And people are right to point out, as people do to many Christians, that they don’t even know their own Bible because that is wrong and we/people should seek to educate oursleves. HOWEVER, someones inability to explain something doesn’t immediately discount what they can’t defend as wrong. That would be like someone not believing that Physics are real and then asking me to defend my view point. I would stutter and stammer over every word I can’t explain so would they then be able to say, “Ha! Told you it wasn’t real!” That’s ridiculous. My inability to explain why the sky is blue doesn’t change my accuracy of my belief that it is so.
Furthermore, these people went to this anti-abortion protest and asked the protestors that question. You can’t go up to most people and ask them a weighted ethical question on the spot and expect an immediate eloquent, well thought out question. I had an answer to that question but I had to think through all of the implications and questions and answers it raised in my own mind first. I will probably continue to do so. Maybe the people they asked really don’t know what they feel about the subject. Maybe they couldn’t defend their position BUT even well-educated people could’ve had a moment of pause when asked a question they have never heard before. Heaven forbid. So I don’t believe it is right for them to say that these people don’t even know what they believe. I’m sure they’re right many times and many times, I’m sure they’re wrong.
Lastly, in fairness to the dude who wrote the “How to stump the anti-abortionist” post, he himself is doesn’t support abortion but he supports it being legal to chose abortion. Hope I got that right for you man. Only fair that I tell you that part of his view point as well since he isn’t here to speak for himself. I would’ve posted a link to his blog but I couldn’t find it anymore in the Hawt posts.
Anyways, I read his blog over a week ago and kind of stewed things over in my mind. While doing so my husband was reading a blog by John Piper on desiringgod.org that spoke about abortion and I decided to read it for myself. I’ll leave you with more great straight-forward questions and statements from him, from a pro-life perspective. My comments that I added are in parenthesis.
1. Existing fetal homicide laws make a man guilty of manslaughter if he kills the baby in a mother’s womb, except in the case of abortion. (Example: Scott Peterson was charged with 2 counts of murder: Lacey, his wife, and that of his unborn son.)
2. Fetal surgery is performed on babies in the womb to save them while another child the same age is being legally destroyed.
3. Babies can sometimes survive on their own at 23 or 24 weeks, but abortion is legal beyond this limit.
4. Living on its own is not the criterion of human personhood, as we know from the use of respirators and dialysis. (Living on it’s own argument is a popular defense of abortion because they say real humans/people are not dependent to live while a fetus cannot be human because it can’t survive on it’s own.)
5. Size is irrelevant to human personhood, as we know from the difference between a one-week-old and a six-year-old. (This comes from the argument that people make that a child at conception and up until the legal time abortion is allowed, is not fully human merely based on size.)
6. Developed reasoning powers are not the criterion of personhood, as we know from the capacities of three-month-old babies. (From the argument that the child in the womb cannot think and reason like a person/human can.)
7. Infants in the womb are human beings scientifically by virtue of their genetic make up.
8. Ultrasound has given a stunning window on the womb that shows the unborn at eight weeks sucking his thumb, recoiling from pricking, responding to sound. All the organs are present, the brain is functioning, the heart is pumping, the liver is making blood cells, the kidneys are cleaning fluids, and there is a fingerprint. Virtually all abortions happen later than this date.
9. Justice dictates that when two legitimate rights conflict, the limitation of rights that does the least harm is the most just. Bearing a child for adoption does less harm than killing him.
10. Justice dictates that when either of two people must be inconvenienced or hurt to alleviate their united predicament, the one who bore the greater responsibility for the predicament should bear more of the inconvenience or hurt to alleviate it.
11. Justice dictates that a person may not coerce harm on another person by threatening voluntary harm on themselves.
And lastly, questions he poses:
Are you willing to explain why a baby’s right not to be killed is less important than a woman’s right not to be pregnant?
Or are you willing to explain why most cities have laws forbidding cruelty to animals, but laws oppose forbidding cruelty to human fetuses? Are they not at least living animals?
Or are you willing to explain why government is unwilling to take away the so-called right to abortion on demand even though it harms the unborn child; yet government is increasingly willing to take away the right to smoke, precisely because it harms innocent non-smokers, killing 3,000 non-smokers a year from cancer and as many as 40,000 non-smokers a year from other diseases?
And if you say that everything hangs on whether the fetus is a human child, are you willing to go before national television and defend your support for the “Freedom of Choice Act” by holding in your hand a 21 week old fetus and explaining why this little one does not have the fundamental, moral, and constitutional right to life? Are you willing to say to parents in your town who lost a child at that age and held him in their hands, this being in your hands is not and was not a child with any rights of its own under God or under law?
Hope you enjoyed this post wether you’re pro-life or not. Go give your mind a rest now. =0)