Posts
If Abortions Were Illegal, What Would the Penalty Be?
By Izzy Grinspan / July 31, 2007
Amazing story from Anna Quindlen in Newsweek about the question anti-abortion activists never actually answer: If abortions were made illegal, how would you punish women who have them anyway? A group called the AtCenter Network made a video surveying protestors at an anti-abortion rally in Libertyville, IL and found that none of them had given any thought to the matter.
Says Quindlen:
Lawmakers in a number of states have already passed or are considering statutes designed to outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned. But almost none hold the woman, the person who set the so-called crime in motion, accountable. Is the message that women are not to be held responsible for their actions? Or is it merely that those writing the laws understand that if women were going to jail, the vast majority of Americans would violently object? Watch the demonstrators in Libertyville try to worm their way out of the hypocrisy: It's murder, but she'll get her punishment from God. It's murder, but it depends on her state of mind. It's murder, but the penalty should be … counseling?
For some reason the AtCenter Network people have disabled embedding, so you'll have to go to YouTube to watch the video, but it's SO worth it. When you're done, come back over to Jewcy's loving embrace and let us know your thoughts. Mine: Uh, isn't this why we have a separation between church and state?
POST A COMMENT
"Either come up with a serious argument for your position, or quit embarassing yourself."
The ‘serious argument’ is essentially (1) members of the public who obtain abortions expose themselves to serious health risks; (2) those risks are drastically reduced if and when licensed practitioners conduct the abortion, or, by way of legalised abortificients; (3) abortions will be obtained to some degree or another irrespective of whether the practice of abortion is legalised, merely by reason of its availability; (4) accordingly, criminalisation of the practice will not necessarily decrease the number of abortions, but it will expose those who obtain them to much higher risk of death and medical complication.
Kok–
So sorry that the subtlety of my humor is lost on you, but I do think that provoking you into hurling one foolish argument after another has been pretty amusing. Granted, not the most amusing thing I’ve seen this week, but don’t underestimate your own ability to generate an inadvertent laugh or two.
Also, tolerating people’s religious practices where they don’t directly affect me is absolutely not the point of the establishment clause. I am not obliged to tolerate cruel animal sacrifices, even though I am not affected by them, precisely because the test is not (and never has been) whether I am affected, but rather, whether there is a legitimate societal interest that might override the particular religious interest at stake. I submit that protecting a human life is very obviously such an interest, and, however much you may wish to sacrifice your child to Baal of the Furnaces, and however little that might affect me personally, I’m still going to lobby my representatives to outlaw the practice, and I’m pretty sure that your first amendment challenge to that law is going nowhere.
As to the thoroughly asinine argument that, if I’m opposed to abortions, I should abstain from having them, this makes no more sense than saying that if I’m opposed to the notion of child sacrifice, I shouldn’t sacrifice them. Unless you can establish with some degree of scientific certainty that a human life does not begin in the womb (and you can’t), then what remains is a policy debate on the value of abortion versus the value of the life/potential life that is gestating in the womb. And that is not something that you can dismiss as mere religious claptrap unworthy of your esteemed attention.
To return to the subject of humor, you’ve just about worn mine thin at this point. Either come up with a serious argument for your position, or quit embarassing yourself.
Koka–I never said the Jewish position is monolithic–our sages are going to speak about any number of rare or irrelevant situations. The liberal "rabbis" are great at distorting the reality and deriving phony halacha based upon shadings of the law which do not relate to abortion as birth control. Abortion as birth control is not applauded in our tradition–how could it be?-we cannot even spill our "seed" needlessly–so how can we flush a one month old fetus down a sink? But I know full well that ":rabbis" from the liberal deonominations do it all the time–I heard it on TV just as I indicated above and Rabbi Levin had to shake his head in disgust as the phony rabbi was allowed to say that Jewish law applauds all of it. Duh…that liberal rabbi is lying. Am I "excommunicating him? I have no such power–I am merely saying that the facts are clear–such people do not know the law and are ignorant and he is mis-representing Judaism. Such people have ex-communicated themselves. This person comes on TV and says he is so proud to be a Jew because being a Jew means you support gay marriage and abortion. This is called fraud and it is an obscenity and an insult to Judaism.
Under Jewish law, it is true that a woman (normally a married couple) can get approval for an abortion based upon something other than the life of the mother. Indeed, it is true a kind of mental anguish which a pregnancy presents can justify an abortion in a particular instance. Kosher rabinnic authorities, under very limited terms, can extend the rodef principle regarding the psychological condition of the mother. Grave mischief has come from this reality as non-kosher rabbis have tried to invent circumstances so if *any" mental anguish can justify an abortion–they see reason that *every* reason be allowed. But this is not the way the law works and if we can allow one thing and disallow another in almost every context of the law–why is it when we are speaking about the fundamental issue of human life–"choice" can only be totally free so abortion on demand rules and any restriction–even so called "partial-birth" abortion is a threat to a supposed "right" to an abortion? It makes no sense. I appeal to the Left to gain a bit of needed perspective here.
Further, why do we suddenly have such a need for abortion? For about 190 years–no one would ever suggest that an abortion is a "constitutional right" and no one came up with such a notion. It was only until our culture fell apart and the family unit begun to decline and our social mores deteriorated to the point that women gave the green light to men to have "free" promiscuous contact with them that abortion BECAME a need. Only as soon as it became a need did people begin to argue it needs to be a right. Take on this point, someone, please. Show me that I am mistaken–but of course I am not mistaken since it is a waste of time to be mistaken.
Concerning the tragic death of the 50 million–to repeat the obvious reality yet again–how many of them are legitimate even under liberal terms? Speak to the point, please. Let’s not quibble over "data" for purposes of this discussion it simply does not matter if we are off by some small percentage here or there. Have it YOUR way–let’s imagine that 20% of US abortions are legitimate and involve a serious excuse. That leaves over 40 million abortions–a huge human toll–that are unjustified. That is the number I need to highlight–while we honor the excused instances. Confront the reality please and do not ignore it by saying we do not know if the right number is 38 million, or 42 million which are needless abortions. It does not matter–we do not need statistical accuracy and elaborate surveys and data collection–we know the main reason abortions are carried out is for reasons of birth control. Some young unmarried girl wants to look good in her prom dress and does not want to be bothered with the consequences of her poor sexual choices.
Women today are so very rarely threatened with pregnancy–it is a statistical anomoly. They are surely threatened by abortion–many dozens have died from abortions, hundreds are maimed, thousands have their fertility threatened and have sure psychological trauma. So abortion is a clear problem for women. Pregnancy–nope–very, very rarely is a woman threatened. And when that woman is threatened–any Orthodox Jew or Conservative Christian, every court–everyone with a pulse– knows the woman takes precedence.
So let’s get back to the 50 million. Please stop bopping and dodging. Abortion is not rare–it is taxpayer funded and all the education presented has not stemmed the tide. When states are free to more heavily regulate abortion–then we will see a whole heck of a lot fewer women who wish to destroy their babies. In the democratic process–we can be sure that women with legitimate reasons to seek abortions will have abortion available to them. The reality is that today, 40 million plus needless abortions have defiled this once great nation and something needs to be done about that.
Kokapelye, Thanks for the debate. You have some great points. Here are some thoughts on those. (1) Regarding your reference to Shemot, the interpretation you cite no doubt has wide approval. However, the passage also indicates a penalty of "life for life," and with our modern scientific understanding of when life begins, surely there’s room to interpret the willful destruction of a life in the womb as punishable by someone else’s life, thereby making them equally valuable. (2) Regarding the release from the OBGYN doctors, I don’t have it handy, but will definitely look for it and post it on this forum as soon as I find it again. I heard it on multiple national news radio broadcasts about a month or two ago. So, I’ll look for it, as it’s definitely critical in the argument. (3) Not sure why you keep attacking me, saying that I have something against women’s ability to make decisions… I’m not saying that at all. I’ve personally been influenced and misled by friends, family, society, etc. on issues and situations that I didn’t take the time to research, evaluate and consider on my own. I just went along with people I trusted until I had a chance to look into the issue/situation more. I’d think almost everybody does that. Haven’t you? So, when a woman faces an unplanned pregnancy and everyone from their loved ones to society is saying not to worry about it and just have an abortion, sometimes all that influence can play into her decision. Even I, at one point, was influenced to think that abortion was a woman’s right. (4) You’ve clearly done your scientific homework, and I appreciate that. Let’s just put it this way, under normal circumstances, at the moment of conception, what exists at that moment is a unique human life. [And I'm saying "normal circumstances" because it'd be unethical to base an argument on a rare exception where life is at stake. It'd be like saying 0.0001% of patients with detected, stage 1 melanoma ultimately die from the disease, therefore we're going to stop treating it all-together.] That life can never be a frog or bird or horse or plant or anything else except a human being. And that life will divide and grow into an embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, child, teen, adult, unless its life is interrupted by an outside force, including abortion. So, the scientific argument is just saying that at no point in the evolution of that human life should it be allowed that someone can decide that the human being has no right to life. Otherwise, what’s to stop a group of people from one day saying, for example, we feel there is an overwhelming overpopulation of 40-50 year olds in our country and they’re really becoming a burden on us, so if any of them should be killed or commit suicide, no punishment will be issued to those involved because it’ll save us the burden of having too many of them around.
Kokapelye, In your "vi a yid" comment above, you caution against uniting with pro-life Christians.Your points are out of context and show a general misunderstanding on the pro-life Christian opinion. First of all, as a disclaimer, it’s impossible to group all pro-life Christians into one group. But let me address some of the beliefs you say "many" pro-life Christians have. (1) They oppose abortion even to save a mother’s life. This is completely untrue. They value the mother and child equally. If a truly critical risk to the mother’s life exists from a pregnancy complication, they opt for a treatment to the condition with the least risk to the child. In this case, the child may die as an unintended consequence of treating the mother. With abortion, however, your treating the mother’s condition by intentionally killing her child, which is never morally right when an alternative exists. And science has shown that so far, alternatives have always existed, and no known circumstances exist in which modern medicine provides no other alternative besides abortion. (2) They consider any contraception other than the rhythm method to be morally equivalent to abortion. This is only partially true. Performing an act that intentionally kills a child, as in abortion, would be morally equivalent. Science shows that a fertilized human egg is a unique human being. Religion says that every human being is imbued with a soul. Contraceptives like the morning after pill, iud’s and birth control pills can either chemically destroy a fertilized egg or prevent it from implanting, which causes it to die. If a person was aware of these facts and chose to use these types of birth control anyway, they accept the fact that every time they have sex, they may be knowingly killing one or more of their children. That’s where the moral equivalence to abortion comes in. What’s not morally equivalent are other forms of contraception. They are still considered morally wrong because they deny the gift of life and are essentially equivalent to masturbation, but they are not on par with killing a child. (3) They believe heterosexual, married couples who cannot/shouldn’t conceive for medical reasons should not have sex. This is only partially true as well. If medicine says the couple cannot conceive but they trust that with God, all things are possible, they can have sex, being open to life, and praying for a miracle child to defy medical odds. It’s happened before. If the couple should not conceive, they could still practice NFP and have sex with the same 99.9% probability of not conceiving as any contraceptive could offer while still respecting life-giving gift they’ve received. But, if the couple is closed to life, and just wants to have sex to effectively use each other for masturbation, then again, that’s where the moral wrong comes into play.
My mistake, Taerlin, you believe that “the life of the woman and her child have EQUAL value” [caps original]. However, in a Jewish context —e.g., Je?cy— that argument does not fly. The starting text for Jewish discussion of abortion comes from Shemot —that‘s Exodus for the gentilim— 21:22-23. This has been interpreted consistently to mean that the death of the embryo or fetus is considered a property damage similar to the loss of livestock, whereas the death of the woman is considered murder. In Jewish Law, the fetus gains equal standing with the mother only once “its greater part has come forth” [Mishnah, Oholot 7:6].
Which “association of OBGYN doctors” released that statement, Taerlin? I couldn’t find a similar statement at the websites of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, or the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Surely termination is still necessary for ectopic pregnancies. Are sure you didn’t get that from your proctologist?
Again, I was mistaken Taerlin. You didn’t write that women typically cannot make decisions on their own, only that pregnant women are more easily influenced than other people. I s’pose pregnant women should be restricted from voting so their decisions aren’t based on any bad influences.
Taerlin, your nonreligious argument against abortion may refer to science, but it is still flawed. Not every product of conception is a unique human being with a unique complement of chromosomes [“unique DNA,” which you wrote, would mean that personhood is dependent on possessing novel mutations, prob'ly not what you meant, Taerlin]. The tissues of blighted ova, choriocarcinomas, and hydatidiform moles possess human karyotypes but are decidely not human beings. And as long as we’re talking logical conclusions, Taerlin, by resting your argument on genetic uniqueness it would be reasonable to abort one of a pair of monozygotic twins.
Finally, I’m afraid we can only award you one Godwin point, Taerlin. The judges weren’t in agreement whether the historical referent in your last comment was a reductio ad Hitlerum. Better luck next time!
Hold on to your hats DC fans, Friedman had discovered Bizarro World Squared! On Bizarro World Squared abortion exists quantum-like in a state of being simultaneously forbidden and permitted by Jewish law until observed by Firedman whereupon its end-state is determined by Friedman’s rhetoric. Also, apparently any (Bizarro Israeli)² law is in “strict violation of Jewish law.” Okay, mebbe that’s just ordinary Bizarro Israel.
Wow Friedman, do you even read the responses or do you just mark names and jump in when it’s your turn? Or do you “skim” like Morganfrost? Yes, there is variability in the “non-Orthodox” approach to abortion, but above I noted that such differences of opinion also exist among Orthodox poskim. How is it that you can excommunicate Jews, Friedman? I didn’t realize we Jews had a pope and least of all that the Jewish Pope would be you.
I’m curious as to how you calculate the antiquity of Orthodoxy and its modern tenets, Friedman. Rabbinic Judaism did not become de facto normative Judaism until after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. As a movement, Orthodox Judaism did not really define itself as such until the Haskalah. But even if we posit an Oral Torah going back to Moses, Talmud —considered the codification of the Oral Torah— records rabbinic opinions supporting therapeutic abortion [Mishnah, Oholot 7:6; Yevamot 69b; Hullin 58a; Niddah 44b]. Post-Talmudic authorities such as Rashi, Rambam, Maharit, R.Yair Chayim Bacharach, and R. Jacob Emden [Ya‘avets] continued to debate halakhah, giving a range of responses to abortion. [For detailed discussions, see David Feldman (1974) Marital Relations, Birth Control, and Abortion in Jewish Law, and Daniel Schiff (2002) Abortion in Judaism.] In short, prior to the Haskalah, there is ample documentation that historical Judaism was by no means as monolithic as you paint it in regard to abortion and other aspects of reproductive choice.
Your claims outside the Jewish world are also highly suspect if not plain wrong, Friedman. How do you figure that only of 2% of abortions in the US are for therapeutic reasons? The CDC does not collect data about the reasons for terminating pregnancy. The Guttmacher Institute and others have no studies that can be extrapolated to the entire US population. If Planned Parenthood were to collect such data, it would not be published in order to protect patient confidentiality.
To which sex education are you referring, Friedman? The abstinence-only programs advocated by many conservatives don’t appear to be working: “Over the past 25 years, Congress has spent over $1.5 billion on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, yet no study in a professional peer-reviewed journal has found these programs to be broadly effective. Scientific evidence simply does not support an abstinence-only-until-marriage approach” [SIECUS Fact Sheet, 2007, with research citations]. Moreover, in 2006 at the peak of governmental promotion of rigid abstinence-only sex education, both the pregnancy rate and abortion rate began to climb for women aged 15—19 [Guttmacher Institute, 2010].
Finally Friedman, you’re confusing abortion with infant exposure, a practice of many ancient societies, including Greece. Infant exposure involved abandoning a postpartum infant, mebbe to be adopted but most likely to die of natural causes, e.g., starvation, exposure, being eaten. Interestingly, exposure as an infant is a recurring theme in the lives of heroes, including Moses our Teacher.
Skimmed?! So I guess that means you didn’t read any of Section Eight of the majority opinion for Roe v. Wade or the link to Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah? You can call me perverted, Morganfrost, but you are the one that’s perverse! [Look it up.]
You also seem to have missed the part about tolerating your fellow citizens’ religious beliefs/conscience where they do not directly affect you, Morgie, which is the point of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. I’ve already argued that there is no consensus regarding abortion, religious or otherwise. Even within a single religious-ethical tradition, i.e., Judaism, there is no consensus [contrary to Friedman]. Let me make this simple: If you’re opposed to abortion, don’t have one.
To answer your curiosity, Morgie, I judged your lack of humor from your writing. I may have been quick to judge, for all I know you may have a lifetime subscription to MAD magazine. I s’pose abbreviating my username to “Kok” might be considered humorous in some circles, but all in all, your writing strikes me as the work of a humorless person.
Kokapelye, you mentioned this in one of your posts: "There may be opposition to abortion that is at root nonreligious, but I have yet to see it." Others may have offered a response to this already, but if not, here’s a thought… The most compelling, nonreligious argument that I’ve heard is based on the science of when human life begins. Specifically, science has proven that a unique human being with complete, unique DNA is formed at the moment of conception. From that, you can draw the logical conclusion that to intentionally destroy that unique human being through abortion is to say that certain classes of human beings intrinsically lack the right to live. And history has shown just how destructive that sort of logic can be. So, ultimately, out of interest for self-preservation, a nonreligious person would be against abortion.
Thank you Taelin for your comments. To repeat–I am being very generous to suggest that one million of the 50 million abortions were medically necessary although the number is surely bigger than zero. Most abortions are birth control.
Join me in speaking out against "rabbis" with phony ordinations that say all abortions are acceptable under Jewish law. I heard that said last night on TV–the Orthodox Rabbi could not get in his voice to say the phony "rabbi" was mistaken.
And of course Kaka is incorrect to say it is only a religious argument–you are right again. To be pro-life is not merely religious or Jewish–it is something a non-religious person can deduce through his own understanding of the right thing to do. But when people complain–that is a "religious" argument–it is a smokescreen and there is truly no way to take a society such as America, predicated on Biblical ideals and ferret out those things which are NOT in some manner "religious."
Kokapelye, you’re wrong on both assumptions. (1) The life of the woman and her child have EQUAL value. When complications exist in the pregnancy that threaten either life, a doctor’s role should be to make every effort to help that individual. That said, there are rare cases in which pregnancy complications threaten the life of the mother and no treatments are available that guarantee the safety of the child. In these rare cases, it is necessary to treat the mother knowing that the child may be harmed or may even die. The keys are that (a) the treatment is not intended to kill the child, but rather to heal the mother, and (b) all other treatments that have a higher probability of ensuring the safety of the child have been exhausted. Additionally, the association of OBGYN doctors recently released a statement that there are absolutely no circumstances in which it is medically necessary to perform an abortion to save the life of a mother. So, abortion can never be considered as a "treatment" for any complications. (2) I never said anything to the effect that women cannot typically make decisions on their own. I said they could be influenced. Don’t think it’s possible? Take a look at Nazi Germany. If that many people could be persuaded to think it was ok to round up, abuse, torture and slaughter millions of Jews, how much easier is it to take a frightened pregnant woman and influence her that it’s totally fine to abort her child?
Levitt8, I’d argue that your reply is false. "It’s made safe by the abortionist." The baby in the womb who’s being dismembered and sucked through a vacuum tube is in no way "safe." But, I’m sure you’re not thinking of the baby in your statement. You’re thinking of the woman. But, even there, your argument is false. If you do research on the effects of abortion on women, you can find that thousands of women suffer from post-abortive depression. There are numerous clinics and organizations setup to treat these women. Also, many women have been physically injured and require hospitalization. Numerous studies link abortion to problems with not being able to have children in the future. They also link abortion to an increased risk of breast cancer. And to top it off, several women have died from having an abortion. So, it’s never "safe" for anyone involved.
"I’m glad I amused you, Morganfrost, your life seems to have little humor it, as it is."
Kok– I skimmed your post. I contemplated pursuing this further by pointing out how amusing (you keep doing it!) it is that you seem perfectly willing to acknowledge that the government can have a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals, but no interest at all (save an unconstitutional one in establishing religion) in preserving the lives of unborn babies. How perverted is that?!
I think I’ll just let things stand. I am curious, however, as to the source of your familiarity with the extent of the humor I have in my life… was that serious, or were you just babbling the first thing that came to mind? Ah, never mind; I think I know. Have a nice day!
I can’t Ride My Motorcycle with out a helmet… (In California)
This is a CIVIL matter… But, ALL things "Should be!"
DIPRAVITION OF RIGHTS . "The Right to life" & "Liberty"(when no danger to public.)
Same Action to depriver as commited on the Victom!
Koko–Jewish law is clear–(except where non-Orthodox "Rabbis" which to cloud it)–all abortion is forbidden under Jewish law except to save the life of the mother.
If America was under Jewish law–at least 49 million of the 50 million abortions (again, to be very generous) would be totally forbidden and this is why there are never any abortions in our Orthodox Jewish community–and this is a community thousands of years old. Any Israeli law is in strict violation of Jewish law and any Rabbi in Israel will tell you that all abortion is immoral–except in those very rare cases when the baby becomes a rodef.
Pro-Choice advocates have been saying they wish to make abortion "rare" and they have not come close to succeeding. Dead babies are piling up and our nation is being gravely impacted by this practice. The left owns public schools–they own "education" for the past 40 years. Recently, sex-ed has reached overwhelming proportions and it seems the more the left talks about sex-ed–the more abortions have become necessary. So when was all of this NOT NEEDED–when abortion was illegal–except to save the life of the mother.
The Jewish left stood in solidarity with Tiller the late-term specialist who murdered hundreds and thousands of late-term babies–almost all for reasons of birth control. See my comments on this subject–since you love to go through my record on Jewcy.
Almost all abortion is for reasons of birth control. Statistically insignificant–there are no abortions to save the life of the mother or for matters of rape and incest.
Re-read my point about the Jewish left. It is apparent that our Jewish community is seen by the body politic to have two causes (perhaps three if we are to now be soiled with the phony cause of homosexual activism)–abortion rights and Israel. My point here is that it is not necessary for the Jewish left to be so deep in the bllod of the 50 million. Where Jewish tradition so strongly opposes abortion–it defames us to be so inextricably linked with this practice of birth-control via baby killing. It is very Greek and not at all Jewish. I implore our community to stop it and hold on–if it must– to every other sick liberal cause. It is as if they stand in common cause with life–the rest of the agenda will quickly fall and all Jews will become Republicans. Standing by cheerleading the death of 50 million as a "fundamental right" to create a barrier of fear of becoming Republican is no good excuse.
As to the law–note the Texas provision which is similar to all proposals that strictly honor the life of the mother exception. "When necessary" is a practical standard–see this link which shows positions on both sides:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/abortion.htm
…have been greatly exaggerated.
Agreed. The US Constitution has not changed meaning over time. That is, with the exception of amendments, the Constitution has not changed. However, as the people develop new legal concerns, new questions are asked of the Constitution. It is up to the judiciary —particularly the Supreme Court— to answer those questions by examining and interpreting the Constitution.
While the power to make law is reserved to the legislature, Antonin Scalia may not be the best source to cite against judicial activism, Zeevico. Observers have noted that Justice Scalia has committed his fair share of judicial activism [e.g., Young 2005; Cohen 2005].
I must disagree with the view that the American Constitution has somehow changed in meaning after its enactment, so that it now protects abortion rights. Laws do not change in meaning according to the political preferences of the judiciary. The Constitution was not understood as having this effect on its enactment so it hardly does so now.
As Antonin Scalia has put it: ‘There is plenty of room within this system for “evolving standards of decency,” but the instrument of evolution…is not the nine lawyers who sit on the Supreme Court…but the Congress…and the legislatures of the fifty states.’ ( Justice Antonin Scalia, “God’s Justice and Ours” (2006) 156 Christian Law Review 1, at page 4)
My own view is that abortion should be legal, but in my view that is a political question which, in America, ought to be decided by the legislatures of the States.
As a Jew, Friedman, how can you reconcile your psak with Talmud permitting abortion? Reiterating what I wrote above, the strictest Orthodox posek not only allows abortion to protect the life of the woman, but requires it. Other Orthodox poskim are more lenient. How can you prohibit a Jew from following the advice of their rabbi? For that matter, in Israel, an officially Jewish and democratic state, the Penal Code regarding abortion is more lenient still [Clauses 312-321].
It is difficult to interpret what you mean sometimes, Friedman [e.g., “... do not be deluded into thinking the radical pro-life position is the foundation of being a good liberal”]. You appear to be for protecting the right of a woman to protect her own life in the case of a troubled pregnancy [the rodef principle?] and are against using abortion as birth control. Those two positions are well within the pro-choice camp. Most, if not all, pro-choice advocates want to see abortion become unnecessary —except for those that are medically required— because of education about and availability of appropriate contraception.
Finally, Friedman, I distrust your confidence that the government will protect the right to a medically necessary abortion without Roe v. Wade. You advocate that we Jews make common cause with pro-life Christians. Have you heard what some pro-lifers think about abortion, birth control, and sex? Many oppose abortion even to save the mother’s life, and they consider any contraception other than the rhythm method to be morally equivalent to abortion. My wife, who volunteers at Planned Parenthood, has been told by pro-lifers on numerous occasions that if a heterosexual, married couple cannot conceive or should not conceive for medical reasons they should not have sex. I imagine the Roman Catholics learn these particularly un-Jewish beliefs from their priests, but I have no clue where the Protestants get these ideas. I have yet to hear national pro-life advocates or pro-life politicians admit that they have taken an extreme position to allow for bargaining space in the inevitable compromise. Note that I did not write that all pro-lifers hold these beliefs. But enough of them do that I am unwilling to let a plebiscite decide reproductive choice.
I am pleased to support MorganFrost’s common sense approach here and the pro-life community merely wants to turn this question back to the people. If some states wish to keep abortion legal, it can be regulated more liberally in some states than others in the same manner other laws are also regulated more harshly or liberally in various states. In some states, if you cut down a tree in your own backyard, you will be fined and punished. In some states, if you commit capital murder, you might end up on death row and executed–in others–the most you can get is life in jail and in some states, some murderers are able to murder–get released quickly, murder again, then get released to murder again.
There truly is no "right" to an abortion and abortion is regulated in all states. The Constitutional reasoning for Roe is specious and I hope and pray it is overturned by a future court. Yes, the abortionist must pay and the woman who gets an abortion would also be fined and punished–in the same way all violations of the law are punishable. It is humorous that the author of the entry finds it impossible to conceive that punishment is appropriate–the same person would have zero trouble with the notion that a person or group of people who tried to protest Planned Parenthood directly (and not 100 feet from the entrance) could also be subject to punishment.
Further, as a Jew, abortion is seen clearly and profoundly as a moral wrong and yes, there is great evidence to back this up. As Jews, we need to join in common cause with the Christians who have the position they have largely because of the Jewish position (although they altered it somewhat) to make abortions a rare occurence in modern America. Now is the time to do it and Jews need to unite to stop legal abortion in America that has led to over 50 million dead babies–perhaps only 1% justified (to be generous). Conservatives and liberals could easily agree on this matter–one might think. It is tragic that the Left has so succeeded in brainwashing its followers to believe that the death of 50 million babies is a necessary sacrifice to honor their ideology.
I am here to reach out to my liberal brethren to say you can still have a liberal tilt in favor of government power and control but draw a line at the UNNECESSARY death of an unborn child. Yes, the state will always protect the right of a mother to protect her own life in the rare circumstance of a troubled pregnancy. Let’s come together to insist that is written into our laws in all 50 states. But using abortion as mere birth control must also be opposed and please do not be deluded into thinking the radical pro-life position is the foundation of being a good liberal. To be a liberal with sanity begins with opposing the unnecessary killing of babies. It is as if the liberal Jews are afraid to give the Catholic church any support on principle. But Jewish babies are also aborted and to be pro-life is really no "sin"–it is, in fact, a high imperative. Ignore the Church–just drop your support for abortion on demand because it is the right thing to do.
Please do not be afraid to stand up against this horrific procedure.
Nothing you have written indicates that I mischaracterized your arguments, Morganfrost. To continually ignore Constitutional protections of minority rights over blind majority rule, as you have done, reeks of mob rule by ballot box. As for mischaracterization of Roe v. Wade, read Section Eight of the majority opinion [first two paragraphs, in entirety, bold face mine]:
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights,Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation,Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 [p153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.
I’m glad I amused you, Morganfrost, your life seems to have little humor it, as it is. However, my church-state argument is especially persuasive because it is based on the First Amendment and subsequent rulings. So, yes, permission without mandate is not coercion: retaining legal abortion in no way requires anyone to violate their religious beliefs/conscience by having an abortion, it only requires that they tolerate their fellow citizen following their own religious beliefs/conscience. If the government has no compelling interest beyond satisfying the religious beliefs/consciences of part of citizenry, the Constitution does not permit such interference. In other words, the First Amendment not protects our free exercise of religion, it protects us from others’ religion. That is why your kitten example falls flat. Legislation against animal cruelty is not based on yours or anyone’s religious sensibilities [Wait! Did you write that you may have religious sensibilities?!] but a compelling governmental interest to prevent the torture of animals. See Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) for how the Supreme Court decides animal cruelty/religion cases.
Okay, so you did mean Article One of the US Constitution. Did you also read Article Two and Three? Then you should know it’s the Executive Branch that executes the law, the Congress that legislates it, and it is the courts that rule on the constitutionality of the law —impose is such an ambiguous word in this context.
No I wasn’t attempting to define legislative power re: reproductive choice by a means of a private survey, rather it was a serious of observations. First, I observed that agnostics/humanists such as yourself [religious sensibilities?!] are rarely seen protesting in front of Planned Parenthood. Second, I noted that the most vocal pro-life protesters are of the “scorched earth” variety. That observation prob’ly goes for most of the national pro-life advocates and pro-life politicians. Believe me, you don’t want to know what some of these folks say about birth control and sex. Oh here’s another observation for you, Morganfrost: if you sincerely support abortion when necessary to save the mother’s life, then you are pro-choice.
Also, I was not trying to define “humanism” or “life” for you, Morganfrost. It’s just my experience with other humanists and fairly extensive reading on humanism as an anthropologist makes it hard to comprehend how willing your are to impose your views on others. And no, “ through the legislative process” is not a good answer because you have failed to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest in the restriction current reproductive choice.
At my age, it’s nice that somebody finds me cute, but I don’t see how the conclusion of my previous comment was an “appeal to the majority.” An appeal to authority, perhaps, but since the context was the US Constitution, I cannot imagine a better authority.
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/members.html
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/11/28/no-god-and-no-abortions.html
http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
Sigh.
Go back and read what I wrote again; sound out the big words. Perhaps the gross mischaracterization of my arguments with which you occupy your first four paragraphs was inadvertent. By the way, you also mischaracterized the Roe court’s holding with regard to the ninth amendment (you’re on a roll!).
Your attempt at salvaging your church-state argument was amusing, but unpersuasive. In a nutshell, you argue that it’s ok for a set of religious views allowing for the destruction of a human life to be enforced, but not ok for religious views prohibiting such destruction to be enforced. Your theory is that by merely permitting without mandating such destruction, there’s no real legal coercion. Were you being serious about this? What about a law which prohibits animal cruelty? Animals have no rights under the constitution, and any distaste I may feel for someone who sits at home and quietly tortures kittens may be rooted in my religious sensibilities. Would you say that, as long as I’m not compelled to be cruel to kittens, I have no right to demand that such cruelty be outlawed for others, too?
And, yes, Kok, I meant read Article I, not the first amendment. Article I deals with legislative power, and you seem to be under the impression that our laws should be imposed by unelected judges. Legislatures make the laws we want– and even the most activist judge (see, e.g., Roe v. Wade) wouldn’t attempt something so farcical as to strike down a law on the grounds that the ethics it expressed had religious underpinnings (see the kitten example, above).
Your attempt to define the extent of legislative power on abortion by your private survey of pro-life protesters is an intriguing constitutional theory, but I’m not sure where you’re going with it. Moreover, you’ve not only attempted to define my humanism, you’ve even gone so far as to stick me with your definition of a human life.
For the record, I would support abortion where necessary to save the mother’s life (if you could find such a case), but then, so would many other pro-life people. Exactly what percentage of abortions do you think are "necessary" to save the mother’s life? The fact is that this argument is nothing but a dodge. As you’re already aware, Roe guaranteed– invented, really– a "right" to abortions for no reason at all regardless of the mother’s health.
You ask how, as a humanist, I can impose my beliefs on others. Short answer: through the legislative process.
I note that you ended up your disquisition with what some folks might call an "appeal to the majority." Cute!
Gee whiz Morganfrost, I was just titling my comment by the technical term for an appeal to majority argument. Are we to limit ourselves to purist Anglish? You first.
Perhaps you decline to discuss the status of your argument, but unless you can muster something better than democracy equals majority rule and nothing more, your argument rests on the claim that most people agree with you. As such, that argument is inherently fallacious.
But lets ignore the structural weakness of your argument for now. As you describe it, your argument equates democracy with mob rule. Democracy in the US is not a mob rule: there are protections built into the system to protect minority rights, which is why I referenced the Bill of Rights and why I quoted Thomas Jefferson.
Apparently your skimming of the Bill of Rights hasn’t granted you accurate recollection of its contents or context. Yes, I’m quite aware we have a Constitution, in fact the Bill of Rights is part of that Constitution. And yes, you are correct, the Bill of Rights nowhere specifically mentions abortion. In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court ruled that due process [Fourteenth Amendment, not the Bill of Rights] must respect abortion as part of a right to privacy; however, the majority opinion also supported the District Court’s earlier ruling that decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is among non-enumerated rights retained by the people in the Ninth Amendment [Bill of Rights].
My church-state argument is neither disingenuous or bizarre. Granted various religious organizations are strongly pro-choice. Their pro-choice stance in no way invalidates the US protecting the right to choice because such protection does not enforce abortion nor does it prevent women from carrying a pregnancy to term, i.e., it neither establishes a “religious” conviction nor prohibits the free exercise thereof [First Amendment/Bill of Rights]. [By the way, did you really mean to recommend reading Article One of the US Constitution, Morganfrost, the one that describes the powers and organization of Congress, or did you mean the First Amendment?] On the other hand, if legal abortion were ended for no other reason than the religious sensibilities of some citizens, this would prohibit the free exercise of conscience for other citizens. In view of the First Amendment, that would be bizarre.
So, you’re a "pro-life" agnostic, Morganfrost. Good for you. I have to admit such a combination is unexpected. One doesn’t see many agnostics marching in front of Planned Parenthood. I’m a little puzzled by your operationalization of “humanist” regarding reproductive choice. Are you against abortion in all cases, even to save the life of the women? Since you are a humanist, you may not be aware that “no abortion, no exceptions” is position of those folks marching in front of the Planned Parenthoods. As a humanist, how do you rationalize risking the actual life of a woman against a latently potential human life? This seems like crapshoot humanism. Coming at this from another angle, as a humanist, how can you impose your beliefs, secular as they are, on another human being?
You can vote on whatever you want, Morganfrost, and swear on the Bible, the Bhagavad G?t?, Dianetics, or the Skeptic for all I care [I have back issues of the Skeptic if you’re in need]. It’s a free country. However, a pro-life plebiscite is unlikely to be enacted because a sufficiently compelling interest to restrict existing reproductive choice cannot be demonstrated. It’s a free country.
Assuming that my argument was an "appeal to majority" (a question which I decline to explore with you at this time), I should hardly be inclined to dismiss appeals to the majority as inherently erroneous in a democracy. Yes, we have a Bill of Rights (and even a Constitution, which I commend to you, particularly Article I), but the basic rule of law in this society allows for policy to be set by majorities. That is the whole idea of a democracy. It seems you would like the limited and carefully defined exceptions (the Bill of Rights) to swallow the rule.
For the record, the Bill of Rights (which I have had occasion to skim, now and then) says absolutely nothing about abortion. Moreover, Roe v. Wade doesn’t even pretend to rely on some far-fetched notion of the separation of church and state (and the Roe Court wasn’t shy about stretching a point).
Indeed, your church-state argument is utterly ludicrous and is, in fact, nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to promote your policy views by condeming someone else’s as "religious" and therefore banned from the legislative process (itself a bizarre notion). If the Reform Action Center, the Episcopal Church and various other religious organizations are strongly "pro-choice," could we then say that abortion must be outlawed to avoid having that particular set of religious preferences foisted upon us under the guise of law? By the way– Jesus advocated the paying of taxes ("Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s"). Why don’t you go tell the IRS that you don’t have to pay taxes because the income tax system is nothing more than an unconstitutional imposition of Christian dogma?
Finally, I’m "pro-life" and I’m also an agnostic (there, now you’ve seen it– a "humanist" who thinks human life is inherently valuable– will wonders never cease?). Can I vote for pro-life policies if I take an oath on the Bible that I don’t believe the Bible is true and that my views on abortion are humanist rather than religious?
Your “simple answer,” Morganfrost, is an appeal to the majority, a fallacious argument. Even in a democracy, the will of the majority is not always the best way to make policy, hence the Bill of Rights, etc. Or, as Jefferson said more eloquently: “Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
Which brings us to your “by the way”: The separation of church and state argument is most cogent to the topic of abortion. And, in a Jewish webzine, it is most apropos. The Torah says next to nothing about abortion. A pair of verses in Mishpatim is interpreted to prohibit abortion, but also that causing the death of a fetus is not murder. Historically and currently there are a variety of halakhic opinions regarding abortion, but the Jewish baseline is that abortion is not only permitted but mandatory to save the woman’s life.
The movement to end legal abortion is based on the beliefs of socially conservative Christians. [As a side-note, many of today’s vocal non-Catholic anti-choice protesters come from Protestant denominations that had little or no official stance on abortion until the issue became politicized.] There may be opposition to abortion that is at root nonreligious, but I have yet to see it. Ending legal abortion in the US would establish the religious dictates of one group as the law of the land, an unconstitutional move if ever there was. Retaining legal abortion does not establish the religious dictates of one group over another, it would not force socially conservative Christians to have abortions against their conscience, and would only inconvenience these socially conservative Christians by thwarting their attempt to establish a particular stripe of Christianity.
What if we outlaw animal cruelty? Or marijuana? Or breaking and entering? Or theft? Or cheating on your taxes? Wouldn’t we have to come up with punishments for those crimes, too?
The simple answer to this question is that, where the citizens of a democracy believe that a particular action is bad and should be criminalized, they are free to pass a law which both: a) criminalizes the act; and b) prescribes a particular punishment. I’m not sure that I can see why abortion should be any different. I suppose the same citizens could also decide that abortion is great, and that we should all pay a special tax just to make sure that every woman could get a free abortion as soon as she wanted one. That’s democracy, right? So, why are the pro-abortion people so frightened of how it works?
By the way– the "separation of church and state argument" on the abortion topic is pretty foolish. You could object to laws against murder and theft on the same grounds, couldn’t you?
Taerlin also assumes 1) that the life of a woman has less value than that of a fetus and 2) that women “typically” cannot make decisions on their own.
taerlin writes " And the act is only made possible by the abortionist…"
Patently false. It’s only made safe by the abortionist.
The answer is simple: You severely punish the abortionist, and give the woman a minor offense. It’s like a drug crime. The dealer receives a severe punishment, while the user receives a relatively minor offense.
The killing of an unborn human being is performed by the abortionist. They are sworn to protect life and treat it to the best of their ability, not to end it. They are also more aware, by virtue of their doctoral education, of the fact that what they are doing is the willful destruction of a unique human life. The abortionist is therefore the most culpable, and subject to charges of murder in the first degree.
The woman, on the other hand, is a willing participant, so not entirely without fault, but she is typically persuaded by outside influences: fear, anxiety, pressure from friends/family/partners, etc. And the act is only made possible by the abortionist. Therefore, if it was illegal, she should only receive a relatively minor offense.
While we’re at it, why don’t we jail the man who inpregnated the female. I mean, he obviously did or said something that drove the woman into the state where she thought the murder of her own child was something reasonable. I say we give him 10 to life as well. And if the woman’s parents raised her in such a way that she had issues related to men and/or sex, put them away too! We can have all these bad influences out there on our streets. Our streets! What about the children!?!
I know that sometimes a women has abortion because they panic and or decieved into believing this is the only option for me. I doubt abortion doctor is going to even mention adoption has a option. I doubt George Tiller did because he made money off aborting unborn babies. George Tiller know very well that abortion is something that can scare women, mentally, physically and have health problems. He only wanted to make money. I’m strongly pro-life male but I also understand when a women panics and get a abortion there will be guilt for the rest of her life. Even if the women didn’t panic and purposely wanted to get abortion, she may exerience regert and quilt. Sometimes she is pressuared by a male, family member to get a abortion. I’m so glad that there pregrency centers that offer post abortion consuelling to women that regret their decison. One center is care net. This is a christian organization that runs these centers. I’m sure are other centers that maybe ran by Jewish organizations, other religions or even religious affliation. I understand that women sometimes panic so they get a abortion or use the abortion pill. They end regretting it lot. They are never told about adoption. Let’s be real, you think abortion doctor is going to mention the idea of adoption automatically, no.
If a women is scared believing this there only option then sadly, she makes the wrong decison. If she was told about adoption then she would be more likely to put the child up for adoption. A woman goes to a pregrency, she is more likely to keep the child or put the child up for adoption. I’m disturbed by abortion and it is sickening to me unborn babies are aborted. It also sickening to the abortion industry lies to women about abortion being safe and having no mental affects if the procedure is perfomed by pill or surgical. A women who panics does not alway think rational and I doubt abortion provider like Planned Parenthood is automatically going to mention adoption has alternative. If adoption was heavy funded by the government so that Women where scared or panic would know that would be a better option. If abortion was illegal if for rare cases like Life death of mother, then adoption would need to be funded a lot so that women who panic about being pregreant would not result to back ally abortionists. We do need to push adoption a lot more. I have never heard a single women that regreted putting there child for adoption. I have heard and read a lot stories about women, who regret thier abortions whether it is the pill or surgical.
I’m not sure it would the best decison to throw a woman is prison or use the death pentaly on them even if it was illegal. They should be offered consuelling because maybe they regret. The doctor should be held accountable and so should abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.
im a hard core pro-life myself and i have to tell you that yes abortion is murder so i think the women should be held responsable for it… they are the ones asking to perform abortions on themselves right? and the doctors should be punished as well because they are actually performing the murder but with a lesser charge.. because it wasnt the doctor's idea… is like a hiring a hitman… so i would say for the woman who perform abortion the punishment should be like for murder life in prision or death penalty and for the doctors a couple years in prision for helping them in such a henious crime!! is just fair
wants to make abortions illegal, and the problem is to figure out the most applicable punishment for women who abort their pregnancy, Jill Filipovic asks:
If the anti-choice's argument is that a fetus is a person with full DNA etc., then abortion is technically murder, and isn't the punishment for murder often life in prison, sometimes even execution? Should we execute women who have abortions?
Dan Freeman commented above on the possible persecution of doctors who perform abortions. Filipovic addresses this issue:
Some anti-choicers argue that doctors should be punished, not women. So I'll ask this:
How much time should doctors do?
Do you support executing doctors who perform abortions?
Do you support jailing them for life? For a few decades?
Where does it end?
If a fertilized egg is a full-fledged person under the law, what other legal activities — other than abortion — would have to go? We know that most "pro-life" groups already oppose fertility treatments and the use of contraception. Would we make those things illegal? What would the punishment be?
Just an example to toss out there – in "liberal" New York state, if a doctor performs an abortion on a woman in the third trimester and the abortion is not necessary to attempt to save the woman's life, it's a class D felony (Abortion in the First Degree). Up to seven years in jail. It's a crime if the woman performs a "self-abortion" on herself in similar circumstances, but only a misdemeanor. Says interesting things about where they want to place blame.
And if the woman dies in such a case (regardless of malpractice or not), the doctor is guilty of first degree manslaughter. That's the same crime if you catch your spouse in bed with someone else, freak out, and shoot him or her. Decade plus in jail.
…it should be capital punishment! ;-) (<– since it seems people don’t get it when I’m being ironical, this is a mark for it.)
I’d be interested to know, however, whether the same people who are opposed to abortion are in favour of capital punishment…
I think if you asked them what the penalty should be for doctors who perform abortions you would get much more definitive responses with severe punitive recommendations. I doubt if they would extend that same Christian humility. One of the underlying rationales for banning abortion is that the women don’t know what harm they do to themselves. But doctors, they will argue, should know better. It’s patronizing.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!