Question on the abortion bill, SB 1(ss)

[ljk]

Are these true?

1.) There is no requirement of filing a police report for rape pregnancy?

2.) Any county can be a sanctuary county if the prosecutor says so?

 

[chipbennett]

I think you already conceded the point in post #47. NOT punishing women who have abortions, for the pro-life side, is about optics, and about it being the only viable way to advance our position. Like you said, we have to think about saving lives first, and if we decide to torpedo our cause by pushing for something the vast majority of the public would find abhorrent, that would be just plain silly.

No, I don't concede that not punishing women is only about optics. There is nothing to be gained here from punishing women. The pro-life agenda - the holistic agenda - requires love, grace, and changing hearts.

But this has nothing to do with whether or not it's a logically consistent position. The fact that the public finds outlawing abortion without punishing women more palatable has nothing to do with them thinking it's a logically/intellectually consistent position, and everything to do with the fact that the vast majority simply don't give a care whether their morals are logically or intellectually consistent.

But if we are to discuss logical consistency, I have to agree with twangbanger that I find it very difficult to logically justify a position that states abortion is murder, but a woman seeking one should never be punished. The case you made earlier that women should not be punished, because they have been manipulated for decades into believing that unborn children are not human beings with rights, simply doesn't hold water. If you apply that logic consistently to other historical situations where the public was lied to on a massive scale over a long period of time to convince them that a certain category of human beings were not really people, you will find yourself arriving at some rather disturbing conclusions.

Being a Christian, I believe that, ultimately, any just and necessary punishment will be meted out by Someone far above my pay grade. (And in that regard, I need concern myself far more with how I'll fare on that day.)

The abortion debate, for me, has always been about saving the lives of the innocent unborn, and nothing at all about punishing those who have had abortions. My position is intellectually and morally consistent, though it requires a perspective from grace.

 

[chipbennett]

I suppose if holding someone liable for a criminal act, makes me a "zealot", then ok, I`m a "zealot". I know you and I have discussed this in this thread, but I`m still just left wondering which crimes we will make non-punishable by law? If there`s no criminal prosecution, then what`s the point? And yes, I`ve read your explanations, but I just could not disagree more passionately that a criminal act ought not have any criminal consequences.

Please note: I'm using "zealot" in quotation marks/scare quotes here.

Ultimately, the point is to end the opportunity for, much less, the promotion/encouragement of, elective abortions.

But, to attempt to answer your question (beyond what I've already answered): criminality generally requires mens rea. With elective abortion, given the culture ingrained over the past 50 years, that element is, by and large, absent with elective abortion. We would be much better served by driving for a culture change in the other direction - an effort for which imprisoning women would be counter-productive.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

No, I don't concede that not punishing women is only about optics. There is nothing to be gained here from punishing women. The pro-life agenda - the holistic agenda - requires love, grace, and changing hearts.


Being a Christian, I believe that, ultimately, any just and necessary punishment will be meted out by Someone far above my pay grade. (And in that regard, I need concern myself far more with how I'll fare on that day.)

The abortion debate, for me, has always been about saving the lives of the innocent unborn, and nothing at all about punishing those who have had abortions. My position is intellectually and morally consistent, though it requires a perspective from grace.

Okay, I was typing out a long response to this, but in trying to work through it all in my head I think I might be getting a better handle on what you're trying to say.

At first I thought your argument was mainly supported by two things:
1) We shouldn't punish women who seek abortions because we need to show them grace an mercy, and if any punishment is actually deserved it will be handed out by God on judgement day
2) We shouldn't punish women who seek abortions because they have brainwashed for a long time into thinking the unborn are not human

I found these positions to be logically inconsistent because
1) Grace and mercy, and punishment to be meted out on judgement day, are both equally applicable to ANYONE who conspires to commit murder, and not just abortion, so unless you oppose punishment under the law for ANYONE who conspires to commit murder, I find this argument intellectually inconsistent
2) I find this logic objectionable because it would lead us to some pretty heinous conclusions if we applied it consistently. For instance, would you have supported suspending punishment of people who conspired to murder blacks in the South for a period of time after the Civil War?


HOWEVER, after re-reading some of you posts, it sounds to me like maybe your argument goes something like this:
1) Punishments should only be imposed under the law as a means of discouraging people from committing crimes and thus harming others. Punishments should NOT be a means of exacting vengeance, nor should we feel compelled to impose punishments because we feel like someone "deserves" it (this is where the Christian perspective on grace and mercy, and God being the ultimate judge, comes in.)
2) Given that a) The goal of punishments under the law is only (in the case of murder) to save lives by discouraging people from committing murder, and b) In the case of abortion, seeking to impose punishments on pregnant women conspiring to murder their unborn child, with current public opinion, would actually severely hamper the pro-life cause and lead to more unborn lives being lost due to abortion laws being repealed or not going through, then, c) We can conclude that punishments to pregnant women under the law would do the exact OPPOSITE of what they should do, and thus we should oppose them.

Does any of that come fairly close to representing your line of thinking?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Are these true?

1.) There is no requirement of filing a police report for rape pregnancy?

2.) Any county can be a sanctuary county if the prosecutor says so?

1) Correct.

2) Yes, sort of, maybe, and we'll have to see. If I understand the bill correctly, it sets up some sort of committee to monitor the situation of county prosecutors refusing to enforce the bill and thus setting up an abortion "sanctuary" in their county, and recommend actions if such a thing happens. So the short answer is "yes", but I think what the bill is trying to say is the legal equivalent of "don't make me come over there."

 

[Leo]

In 1970, when Rockerfeller signed abortion into law in New York, the average Joe Citizen was shocked that there would be so many people being almost militant about their desire to kill babies. Some supported this so hard they even expressed financial windfall as New York would become the center of this procedure.

I know the media jacks up every issue for the left agenda, but even discounting that, I am shocked at how many people have decided that they have the right to kill anyone that inconveniences them. In fact, most of the proponents that have shouted in my face really inconvenienced me. How far do they want to take their agenda?

The next time you go out, look around the restaurant, take note of those sweet old ladies, the soccer moms, the waitresses, the teenagers, and consider how many of them support or participate in taking a life at their whim.

 

[gregr]

In 1970, when Rockerfeller signed abortion into law in New York, the average Joe Citizen was shocked that there would be so many people being almost militant about their desire to kill babies. Some supported this so hard they even expressed financial windfall as New York would become the center of this procedure.

I know the media jacks up every issue for the left agenda, but even discounting that, I am shocked at how many people have decided that they have the right to kill anyone that inconveniences them. In fact, most of the proponents that have shouted in my face really inconvenienced me. How far do they want to take their agenda?

The next time you go out, look around the restaurant, take note of those sweet old ladies, the soccer moms, the waitresses, the teenagers, and consider how many of them support or participate in taking a life at their whim.

I`m baffled by all of this. I`m baffled that anyone could think that a woman who kills her baby in violation of the law shouldn`t be criminally punished. Same for the doctor. We are a nation of the rule of law. I`m baffled that anyone can be alright with killing the baby. And even if one doesn`t believe that it`s a baby at conception as I do, whatever they may believe it to be, it is a living thing. And they`re alright with killing this particular living thing. They`d probably be aghast at the cavalier, wanton killing of a pet for sheer convenience, but they`re not only perfectly fine with killing this living thing, but they`re militant about their perceived right to kill it. I guess I`ll keep speaking out about my personal belief that criminals need to be criminally punished, regardless of what they may have been programmed to believe. They understand that breaking the law has consequences, and if they knowingly break the law, they need to bear the consequences of that willful act.

 

[chipbennett]

Okay, I was typing out a long response to this, but in trying to work through it all in my head I think I might be getting a better handle on what you're trying to say.

At first I thought your argument was mainly supported by two things:
1) We shouldn't punish women who seek abortions because we need to show them grace an mercy, and if any punishment is actually deserved it will be handed out by God on judgement day
2) We shouldn't punish women who seek abortions because they have brainwashed for a long time into thinking the unborn are not human

I found these positions to be logically inconsistent because
1) Grace and mercy, and punishment to be meted out on judgement day, are both equally applicable to ANYONE who conspires to commit murder, and not just abortion, so unless you oppose punishment under the law for ANYONE who conspires to commit murder, I find this argument intellectually inconsistent
2) I find this logic objectionable because it would lead us to some pretty heinous conclusions if we applied it consistently. For instance, would you have supported suspending punishment of people who conspired to murder blacks in the South for a period of time after the Civil War?


HOWEVER, after re-reading some of you posts, it sounds to me like maybe your argument goes something like this:
1) Punishments should only be imposed under the law as a means of discouraging people from committing crimes and thus harming others. Punishments should NOT be a means of exacting vengeance, nor should we feel compelled to impose punishments because we feel like someone "deserves" it (this is where the Christian perspective on grace and mercy, and God being the ultimate judge, comes in.)
2) Given that a) The goal of punishments under the law is only (in the case of murder) to save lives by discouraging people from committing murder, and b) In the case of abortion, seeking to impose punishments on pregnant women conspiring to murder their unborn child, with current public opinion, would actually severely hamper the pro-life cause and lead to more unborn lives being lost due to abortion laws being repealed or not going through, then, c) We can conclude that punishments to pregnant women under the law would do the exact OPPOSITE of what they should do, and thus we should oppose them.

Does any of that come fairly close to representing your line of thinking?

I think that sounds pretty reasonable. The people who support abortion differ from those who oppose abortion in a very significant way: one side sees the unborn as a living human being, and the other side does not. That difference is, essentially, an impasse in finding common ground/consensus. Thus, one side sees criminal punishment as a just response to the crime of murder, while the other side sees criminal punishment as cruel and unjust. Bearing in mind that my ultimate purpose is to save the innocent lives of the unborn, I prefer a course that leads to that outcome. Understanding the impasse that exists, the only way to achieve my ultimate purpose is to address that impasse. As such, I see criminal punishment for abortion as something that will only serve to drive a further wedge between the two sides and reduce the opportunity the effect cultural change.

Also, as a practical matter, I don't see a societal benefit in filling prisons with (mostly) young/poor/disadvantaged women (any more than I see a societal benefit in filling prisons with people who smoke marijuana).

 

[breakingcontact]

Wacko lefties are pointing to extreme edge cases to draw attention and scare folks.

Death cult

 

[Shadow01]

Except for the part where all abortions must be performed in a hospital. All abortion clinics will close - or, at least, cease to provide abortion procedures.

What’s required for a clinic to call itself a hospital?

 

[Shadow01]

No, I don't concede that not punishing women is only about optics. There is nothing to be gained here from punishing women. The pro-life agenda - the holistic agenda - requires love, grace, and changing hearts.


Being a Christian, I believe that, ultimately, any just and necessary punishment will be meted out by Someone far above my pay grade. (And in that regard, I need concern myself far more with how I'll fare on that day.)

The abortion debate, for me, has always been about saving the lives of the innocent unborn, and nothing at all about punishing those who have had abortions. My position is intellectually and morally consistent, though it requires a perspective from grace.

With enough words we can make this same justification for not charging anyone when they commit a murder. It’s either a crime worth charging when you willfully with premeditation take the life of another human or it’s not.

and how does not charging women get justice for the child that was aborted? How do they seek Justice when we as a society say their life wasn’t worth putting the mother in prison?

 

[chipbennett]

What’s required for a clinic to call itself a hospital?

Not my area of expertise, but it appears that a facility calling itself a "hospital" incurs statutory licensing requirements.

 

[chipbennett]

With enough words we can make this same justification for not charging anyone when they commit a murder. It’s either a crime worth charging when you willfully with premeditation take the life of another human or it’s not.

and how does not charging women get justice for the child that was aborted? How do they seek Justice when we as a society say their life wasn’t worth putting the mother in prison?

I consider this to be an unserious, reductio ad absurdum argument.

There is a fringe minority who think that women should be charged criminally due to abortion. IMHO, it's not worth arguing the point further. You're welcome to advocate for that view, and try to gain sufficient support for it. So, good luck with that.

 

[Shadow01]

I consider this to be an unserious, reductio ad absurdum argument.

There is a fringe minority who think that women should be charged criminally due to abortion. IMHO, it's not worth arguing the point further. You're welcome to advocate for that view, and try to gain sufficient support for it. So, good luck with that.

I’m advocating justice for a life taken. How it was taken is of no concern. My point is we either prosecute murder or we do not. Making up excuses of why prosecuting is bad can be done for ever murder circumstance if you put in the efford

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I consider this to be an unserious, reductio ad absurdum argument.

There is a fringe minority who think that women should be charged criminally due to abortion. IMHO, it's not worth arguing the point further. You're welcome to advocate for that view, and try to gain sufficient support for it. So, good luck with that.

I’m advocating justice for a life taken. How it was taken is of no concern. My point is we either prosecute murder or we do not. Making up excuses of why prosecuting is bad can be done for ever murder circumstance if you put in the efford

Forgive me for jumping in, but as a third party to this conversation I feel like there's a little bit of misunderstanding going on here.

I feel like, in a sense, chipbennett's argument can and hypothetically should be applied to any sort of murder, regardless of whether its abortion or otherwise.

For instance, suppose you lived in a society where the vast majority of people believed that humans with green eyes are not persons, and have no rights, and can be killed at any time. Now, if you were part of a movement who sought to gain recognition under the law for the rights of people with green eyes, and you had reached a point where many parts of the country were starting to finally pass laws that gave at least some protection and rights to green-eyed people, HOWEVER, the vast majority of the public, even among those open to recognizing the right to life of green-eyed people, were still, for some reason, staunchly opposed to prosecuting anyone who conspired to murder a green-eyed person, and wanted to only punish the person who actually committed the act of killing, then, in such a scenario, it would make logical sense to NOT push for laws that punish people conspiring to murder green-eyed people.

The key point not to miss is that it hinges on what is going to be the most effective means of protecting innocent life. For most murders, the best means to attain that end is going to be imposing harsh punishments on anyone who commits or conspires to commit murder. But in the case of abortion, as in the hypothetical case above, since the vast majority of society would staunchly oppose any law that imposes punishments on a woman seeking abortion, pushing for such a law would have the exact opposite effect, by lessening the chances of implementing laws that make abortion illegal.

This whole viewpoint starts from the assumption that punishment under the law is about preventing the law from being broken, NOT about exacting justice. That's why this argument is at an impasse. Shadow01 keeps referring to the fact that it would be justice for a woman who seeks an abortion to be punished. But for chipbennett, this is entirely beside the point, because it is not our job to seek justice for past crimes, except as a means for deterring future crimes and thus protecting potential future victims. If, in a certain case, punishing certain perpetrators of the crime would actually turn the majority of potential supporters against your cause, then it makes no sense to push for laws that punish them, unless you believe that imposing justice on past perpetrators is a more important cause even than protecting innocent lives that will possibly be murdered going forward.

Please correct me if I've misrepresented anyone here, but this is the way it seems to be to me.

 

[Shadow01]

Forgive me for jumping in, but as a third party to this conversation I feel like there's a little bit of misunderstanding going on here.

I feel like, in a sense, chipbennett's argument can and hypothetically should be applied to any sort of murder, regardless of whether its abortion or otherwise.

For instance, suppose you lived in a society where the vast majority of people believed that humans with green eyes are not persons, and have no rights, and can be killed at any time. Now, if you were part of a movement who sought to gain recognition under the law for the rights of people with green eyes, and you had reached a point where many parts of the country were starting to finally pass laws that gave at least some protection and rights to green-eyed people, HOWEVER, the vast majority of the public, even among those open to recognizing the right to life of green-eyed people, were still, for some reason, staunchly opposed to prosecuting anyone who conspired to murder a green-eyed person, and wanted to only punish the person who actually committed the act of killing, then, in such a scenario, it would make logical sense to NOT push for laws that punish people conspiring to murder green-eyed people.

The key point not to miss is that it hinges on what is going to be the most effective means of protecting innocent life. For most murders, the best means to attain that end is going to be imposing harsh punishments on anyone who commits or conspires to commit murder. But in the case of abortion, as in the hypothetical case above, since the vast majority of society would staunchly oppose any law that imposes punishments on a woman seeking abortion, pushing for such a law would have the exact opposite effect, by lessening the chances of implementing laws that make abortion illegal.

This whole viewpoint starts from the assumption that punishment under the law is about preventing the law from being broken, NOT about exacting justice. That's why this argument is at an impasse. Shadow01 keeps referring to the fact that it would be justice for a woman who seeks an abortion to be punished. But for chipbennett, this is entirely beside the point, because it is not our job to seek justice for past crimes, except as a means for deterring future crimes and thus protecting potential future victims. If, in a certain case, punishing certain perpetrators of the crime would actually turn the majority of potential supporters against your cause, then it makes no sense to push for laws that punish them, unless you believe that imposing justice on past perpetrators is a more important cause even than protecting innocent lives that will possibly be murdered going forward.

Please correct me if I've misrepresented anyone here, but this is the way it seems to be to me.

So the ends justify the means?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

So the ends justify the means?

Short answer: While the ends cannot always be used to justify the means, in this case, Yes, they do.

Long answer: That phrase is usually used in the context of using a means that is evil to attain an end that is good. I don't believe in using evil to achieve good, and seeing as he also comes from a Christian perspective, I doubt chipbennett does either. This comes back to the key difference is mentality that I keep emphasizing here, which is that we (meaning myself and, I'm presuming, chipbennett) do not see a failure of society to impose just punishments for crimes as inherently evil. Failure to impose punishment for crime is only evil insofar as it leads to further destabilization of society and encouragement of future crimes, thus harming future victims. But from our perspective, there is no moral obligation on the part of society to seek vengeance for past crimes purely for the sake of seeking justice for the victims, because that job belongs to God, who will ultimately see that just punishment is meted out for all crimes.

To put it another way, I don't see showing mercy to a murderer as inherently evil; rather, it can actually be a good thing. In this case it really does depend on the "end", that is, it depends on what can prudently be discerned as the outcome of showing mercy. If showing mercy will result in the murderer feeling encouraged to commit murder again, and/or in others seeing leniency towards murderers and thus also being encouraged to commit murder, then showing mercy can be a bad thing. But if punishing certain murderers will ultimately lead to society perceiving our cause as overly harsh and judgmental, whereas showing mercy would bring others to support our cause and ultimately help lead us in a direction which will protect more innocent lives in the long run, than showing mercy is absolutely the way to go.

As a matter of fact, I would take it one step further, and say that mercy is not only morally good when the end achieved is good, but is actually a good thing in itself. Showing mercy should be the default, from a Christian perspective, and punishments should only be imposed when necessary for the good of society.

So, to sum up, the means here, which is showing mercy, is not inherently evil. Actually, it is good, as long as it can be done prudently. And yes, you can extend this argument to any murder. As a general rule, I believe that mercy should be shown to the greatest extent possible without harming society by encouraging crime. And I think that's the key difference in our understanding here.

 

[Shadow01]

Be sure to explain that to the aborted infants that paid the ultimate price and will not see justice. I’m sure they will agree with you.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Be sure to explain that to the aborted infants that paid the ultimate price and will not see justice. I’m sure they will agree with you.

If you are right that they will see no justice, you must believe that God doesn't exist (or that he sucks at his job, if he does) in which case I will never have any opportunity or need to explain anything to them.

Aside from that, I think it is a pretty poor take that our aborted brothers and sisters would value vengeance for their own lives over protecting the lives of their innocent brethren going forward.

 

[chipbennett]

Forgive me for jumping in, but as a third party to this conversation I feel like there's a little bit of misunderstanding going on here.

I feel like, in a sense, chipbennett's argument can and hypothetically should be applied to any sort of murder, regardless of whether its abortion or otherwise.

Murder is the most heinous act one human can perpetrate upon another. For believers, human life is sacred, and the intentional, unjustified taking of human life is perhaps the most abhorrent act of sin. I am pretty sure we all (at least, all who are believers) agree on that point.

From a legal perspective, murder requires a premeditated, intentional act, undertaken with mens rea. By and large, those elements are not all satisfied when an abortion is committed - even though the act remains no less heinous as the taking of a human life. For 50 years, society - particularly, the young women encouraged to have abortions - has been taught that abortion is not the taking of a human life, not a heinous act, and nothing ore than a medical procedure on a lump of cells. At most, except for the fringe-extreme (the ones Rush Limbaugh referred to as "feminazis", who knowingly and intentionally ended human life through abortion), one could argue for callous indifference in undertaking an action that resulted in the death of another - i.e. manslaughter.

This is why, to me, we need to engage in a cultural-influence effort, not a criminal-prosecution effort.

For instance, suppose you lived in a society where the vast majority of people believed that humans with green eyes are not persons, and have no rights, and can be killed at any time. Now, if you were part of a movement who sought to gain recognition under the law for the rights of people with green eyes, and you had reached a point where many parts of the country were starting to finally pass laws that gave at least some protection and rights to green-eyed people, HOWEVER, the vast majority of the public, even among those open to recognizing the right to life of green-eyed people, were still, for some reason, staunchly opposed to prosecuting anyone who conspired to murder a green-eyed person, and wanted to only punish the person who actually committed the act of killing, then, in such a scenario, it would make logical sense to NOT push for laws that punish people conspiring to murder green-eyed people.

The closest real scenario was the long fight to end slavery and to establish and protect the human rights of former slaves/racial minorities. Even so, abortion is an entirely different matter, in that it involves the very unique relationship between mother and unborn child.

The key point not to miss is that it hinges on what is going to be the most effective means of protecting innocent life. For most murders, the best means to attain that end is going to be imposing harsh punishments on anyone who commits or conspires to commit murder. But in the case of abortion, as in the hypothetical case above, since the vast majority of society would staunchly oppose any law that imposes punishments on a woman seeking abortion, pushing for such a law would have the exact opposite effect, by lessening the chances of implementing laws that make abortion illegal.

Exactly.

The vast majority of murder in the US happens for one of two reasons: gang/drug-related violence, and domestic violence. The perpetrators of such murders, statistically, will repeat their actions. Accordingly, imprisoning such murderers is as much a matter of separating such violent actors from free society, so that society is protected from their would-be violent acts.

That's simply not an issue with respect to abortion.

This whole viewpoint starts from the assumption that punishment under the law is about preventing the law from being broken, NOT about exacting justice. That's why this argument is at an impasse. Shadow01 keeps referring to the fact that it would be justice for a woman who seeks an abortion to be punished. But for chipbennett, this is entirely beside the point, because it is not our job to seek justice for past crimes, except as a means for deterring future crimes and thus protecting potential future victims. If, in a certain case, punishing certain perpetrators of the crime would actually turn the majority of potential supporters against your cause, then it makes no sense to push for laws that punish them, unless you believe that imposing justice on past perpetrators is a more important cause even than protecting innocent lives that will possibly be murdered going forward.

I think, generally, I don't believe in imprisonment as a means of getting "vengeance" for past criminal acts, much less, the efficacy of imprisonment as a means of reforming violent criminals and reducing recidivism of their violent acts.

Vengeance is the responsibility of God, and violent criminals, as a rule, cannot be reformed.

Similarly, imprisonment will not teach society that the unborn is a human being, fully endowed with all natural rights. Imprisonment will not teach society that abortion is an unjust taking of that life. Imprisonment will not show those who would seek abortion that there are other, viable alternatives when faced with an unintended pregnancy. Imprisonment will not change behavior of those who engage irresponsibly in the single act that leads to pregnancy (number of partners, choice of partners, decisions regarding contraceptive options, etc.).