Interesting article

[oiuyt]

For those that have a subscription, Anna Quindlen's The Last Word article in the August 6th issue of Newsweek poses an interesting question.*

Based on a YouTube video (from context, it's clear it's this one), where an interviewer asks protestors outside of an abortion clinic in Libertyville, ILL that IF abortion were outlawed (which the protestors favor) what the punishment should be given to women who, nonetheless, get an abortion. The protestors don't handle the question particularly well.

Ms. Quindlen suggests that having an answer to this question should be necessary for anyone supporting the illegalization of abortion.

[T]here are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can't countenance the first, you have to accept the second. You can't have it both ways.

-B

* Actually it does whether or not one has a subscription, it's just easier to read it with one. That said, I'd imagine pretty much every library in the country with a magazine section has a copy.

[Philistine]

From the article:

[T]here are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can't countenance the first, you have to accept the second. You can't have it both ways.

Why can't you have it both ways?

That's generally the way it works now. It's not a criminal act for a woman to get an abortion, rather it's a criminal act for someone (not a doctor) to perform one--and it's often criminal should he perform one that is not allowed.

Similarly, fetal homicide laws generally have an exception for the mother.

We have it both ways now.

--Philistine

[Philistine]

Here is Quinlan's article from Newsweek.

Reading it, my earlier post is a bit of a non-sequitur, since what she's really asking is if you believe abortion is murder, why shouldn't we treat the woman as if she were involved in the murder (and recognizes my point that we don't).

There is a bit of a logical disconnect there, given the syllogism: all those involved in a murder should be punished, abortion is murder--therefore women having abortions should be punished. But I think the logical problem is with the first premise (all those involved in a murder must be punished) rather than the second.

OTOH, I still think it's not an uncommon position to have the dichotomy, on the other side, there are fetal murder laws, in many cases those who wouldn't consider abortion murder, do consider a stranger killing a fetus (or someone doing it against the mother's will) murder, at least at later stages of development.

There are contradictions when accepting either practice if you try to extend the laws to where they would seemingly logically go.

There are similar situations of such "logical inconsistent" laws that are accepted by most people.

--Philistine

[chefencer]

Escher would say: "Everything I say is a lie. I am lying."


Tangential, but funny:
cognitive dissonance

[keith]

There is a bit of a logical disconnect there, given the syllogism: all those involved in a murder should be punished, abortion is murder--therefore women having abortions should be punished. But I think the logical problem is with the first premise (all those involved in a murder must be punished) rather than the second.

There is only a logical problem if you do not accept abortion as murder*; the parallel that is often drawn is with killing a child. Or more accurately procuring someone to kill your child. If you are going to try a Doctor as the assassin it is very hard to explain why the person who hired them should be viewed as innocent.


*or wish to argue over what type of 'murder' it is.

[Philistine]

[QUOTE=keith;593839]There is only a logical problem if you do not accept abortion as murder*; {snip}/QUOTE]

No. What the article is saying is that for those people interviewed, who firmly believed abortion is murder, they generally did not feel that the woman herself should be tried as a murderer if abortion were made illegal.

Thus, the "problem" of believing something is murder and not thinking a responsible person should be punished.

--Philistine

[keith]

No.

this was a response to your statement of logical inconsistency in Quindlan's position.

The logical inconsistency of many anti-abortion activists was assumed

[lindajdunn]

this was a response to your statement of logical inconsistency in Quindlan's position.

The logical inconsistency of many anti-abortion activists was assumed

I can think of many possible reasons for that response and the most obvious one is that it would be political suicide to advocate trying a woman for murder for having an abortion. Their objective is to eliminate abortions and the best way to do that is to make them unobtainable.

[dcmdale]

Linda is correct that both sides of the debate are quite savvy. This question is one of a stable of questions that are well known to both sides. Pro-life people know better than to give a sound bite that will allow their opponents to paint a picture of thousands of teenage girls sitting on death row. It is a mature debate: there are similar questions that pro-lifers throw as the "safe and legal" crowd, with similar results.

Leaving aside the intense political reasons for ambiguity on these questions, there is a practical issue that both the "pro-life" and "abortion, safe and legal" political machines are coalitions and there are many opinions within them. Because the result of Roe came by (constitutionally questionable) judicial fiat rather than through the compromises that make up the messy legislative/political process, my own view at least, holds that the decision pushed the moderate perspectives on either side of the line of demarcation into extremist camps. The corollary, of course, is that the camps that publicly present extreme positions actually have many moderate opinions within them. The answer to this question within the right to life organizations would range from "Yes! They are murderers. Send them to the chair!" to "Prosecute providers for abortion (as a specific crime less than murder) and don't prosecute kids. Abortion is wrong and should be illegal, but early abortion in particular, is somehow different than say 'murder for hire'" to those who would allow early abortion, but not late. "Abortion, safe and legal" groups range from those who feel very similar to many pro-lifers about the morality of abortion, but oppose the extremist positions to those who would consider abortion a completely ethical, moral, and legitimate form of family planning right up to and including actual delivery.

Frankly, neither side has a plan for, "What if we actually won?" "Winning" would cause their coalitions to disintegrate. As I have said before, the political groups on both sides have a strong financial incentive to keep the discussion alive and radical.

While I do believe that there is some ground for moderates on both sides to talk, the legal philosopher in me sees a common thread among many of the political debates of the last century: prohibition, drugs, "bedroom" rights of various types, smoking, and "victimless" crimes in general. In Anglo-American law, there are really only 2 statuses for an activity: legal or illegal. For the most part there is a fairly bright line between them. If something is illegal, society has declared it, "bad," and usually has decreed some level of penalty for engaging in it. If it is legal, society has said that it is ok to engage in that activity, and, therefore, because has the right to invoke the law to stop you, to some degree at least, protected.

I think that the common element in all of these discussions during the last century is that society is really trying to carve out a middle ground: we don't really want to say that it's ok, but we also, as a society for many issue-specific reasons, don't see the legal system as the right place to deal with it.

Abortion fits that model. Very few of even the most rabid pro-lifers advocate putting teenage girls on death row. Likewise, many pro-choice advocates are personally uncomfortable with abortion and themselves view it as "taking a life" and struggle more with what to do with situations later in term and more flippant in attitude.

(Note: I have made a lot of opinion statements here. I recognize that. I make them based on my interactions with both pro-choice/pro-life individuals and organizations. YMMV. )

[mrbiggs]

Here's a somewhat unrelated question, but watching the youtube video made it think about it.

Why is it OK for the anti abortion people to use those signs with the extremely violent images of abortions in public? Isn't that disturbing the peace or some such? If I had children, I wouldn't want them seeing an aborted fetus or any other type of gross medical procedure or its results.

Not to mention that it doesn't really support their cause necessarily. There were pictures of a birth in my high school biology textbook, and I had to sit down for 15 minutes after seeing them. However, that doesn't mean that I'm against birth.

I'm not necessarily "pro-life," I just think that this protest method is offensive and inappropriate.

[Inquartata]

Frankly, neither side has a plan for, "What if we actually won?" "Winning" would cause their coalitions to disintegrate. As I have said before, the political groups on both sides have a strong financial incentive to keep the discussion alive and radical.

What?! No 'exit strategy', you mean?! Egad, Bush must be in charge of both groups, then!

Seriously, you have hit the nail on the head. The same thing applies to a lot of thorny policy conflicts---the sides develop vested interests in fighting the good fight. Winning might well mean having to get a life, and seeing 'the cause' wither away...

[Gav]

I can think of many possible reasons for that response and the most obvious one is that it would be political suicide to advocate trying a woman for murder for having an abortion. Their objective is to eliminate abortions and the best way to do that is to make them unobtainable.

In that case they don't have much grasp of history...

[dcmdale]

In that case they don't have much grasp of history...

As a matter of history, of course, you are right. There were periods in history where it is somewhat surprising that anyone managed to live out a natural life.

Linda, I think, is referring to the current U.S. political climate. I don't think that prosecuting girls who have abortions as murderers would fly well today. In 20 years, who knows? The public is fickle.

[Philistine]

As a matter of history, of course, you are right. There were periods in history where it is somewhat surprising that anyone managed to live out a natural life.

Linda, I think, is referring to the current U.S. political climate. I don't think that prosecuting girls who have abortions as murderers would fly well today. In 20 years, who knows? The public is fickle.

My take on Gav's comment was that he was commenting on Linda's statement that the abortion opponents believe that the best way to eliminate abortions is to outlaw them.

--Philistine

[dcmdale]

My take on Gav's comment was that he was commenting on Linda's statement that the abortion opponents believe that the best way to eliminate abortions is to outlaw them.

--Philistine

Wouldn't be the first time I got someone's intent mixed up.

I took Linda's comment as meaning that open advocacy of harsh punishment for the involved girls was political suicide. While there clearly are advocates of that “murder is murder is murder,” that position would not be universally held within that movement. I don’t even think that it would be hard to find examples of the extreme position; however, my understanding is that, as with most organized protests, abortion opponents prep the demonstrators on how to deal with press and police in the course of protests.

Obviously, “outlawing abortion” is part of the pro-life agenda, but as you pointed out, there can be flexibility in how that is accomplished.

[dcmdale]

Why is it OK for the anti abortion people to use those signs with the extremely violent images of abortions in public? Isn't that disturbing the peace or some such? If I had children, I wouldn't want them seeing an aborted fetus or any other type of gross medical procedure or its results.

You certainly aren't the first person to object to their signs, but they aren't that different in impact (or lack thereof) from the pictures of mangled kid's bodies subtitled "You tax dollars at work" used by anti-war protesters. Democracy requires that political expression be fairly unfettered. Disturbing pictures have a history of catalyzing political change. http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm_intro.html Whether the pictures used by the protesters will produce that change is anyone's guess.

[mrbiggs]

You certainly aren't the first person to object to their signs, but they aren't that different in impact (or lack thereof) from the pictures of mangled kid's bodies subtitled "You tax dollars at work" used by anti-war protesters.

True. In some ways, those are even worse because I think that those are sometimes disrespectful of the troops on top of being unpleasant.

[lindajdunn]

I think it would be political suicide to declare "abortion is murder and all women who have abortions should be tried for murder". For one thing, far too many women -- even those who claim to oppose abortion for any reason -- can usually imagine circumstances in which someone they love might feel pushed into this. Treating the women as victims embraces rather than alienates the majority.

What the anti-abortion groups are doing in America now is attempting to make abortions dificult to obtain. In some states, the distance to an abortion clinic makes it a hardship to make multiple trips, as some places require.

In Indiana, they're trying to enact a law to force doctors to tell women that life begins at conception.

One of the problems with abortion is that many people firmly believe life begins at conception and thus many birth control methods are actually destroying life. Others believe that life does not begin at conception, but much later, and that abortion is not murder.

The bottom line is that this is a battle of definitions.

When does life really begin?
When does it end?

We're battling at both ends.