Idaho GOP candidate calls for executing women who end pregnancies

[Derec]

Humans become persons some time AFTER we are born.

Is that the law in Sweden?

So according to your logic it should be ok to kill the baby after it has been born?

If newborns were not persons, it would not be murder to kill them. It can be not ok on other grounds. You can't just kill a dog, but because a dog is not a person it is not murder.

 

[Copernicus]

Derec, I have a serious question for you. Do YOU personally consider abortion to be murder? Don't hide behind a conditional. I just want your personal opinion.

No, but I do think there should be restrictions in later pregnancy. And I am not hiding behind the conditionals, I am posing legitimate scenarios. For example, if all abortion is banned, why should the doctor be the only one prosecuted for a crime?

But all abortion is not banned, and Roe v Wade took the position that the government had no legitimate interest in the embryo/fetus until the third trimester, which is late pregnancy. There have been a large variety of opinions on the matter over centuries of debate, although the opinions that have counted have always been in the heads of those who could never actually become pregnant.

When does a pregnancy create a bona fide "person"?

That's the big question, isn't it? I do not think it can ever be adequately answered scientifically, but legally there must be some cutoff, or several. Since the process is continuous, a better approximation is to have more than one cutoff rather than a single one (like conception as pro-lifers want or birth as pro-choicers want). We can all define "murder" in different ways, as our individual moral codes instruct us. However, there is a legal definition that is the only one available to the government to enforce. It is a definition that depends on the existence of some clear sense in which the act affects the common welfare.

It's like with growing up. That is a continuous process and a 17 years and 364 days old human is not significantly different than the same human at 18 years and 0 days but legally there is a difference. A sane legal system puts several cutoffs in because it is insane to treat a baby legally the same as a 17 year old just because they are both minors. Same should be the case with pregnancy. A zygote is not the same as a third trimester fetus, (no matter how much both extreme sides rant that they are) and they should not be treated the same legally.

I think that you are approaching this from the wrong angle, because you are mixing up legal with moral issues. You should read the opinions that SCOTUS justices handed down in the  Roe v Wade case, if you haven't already. They examined these very issues and linked the state's interest in abortion to the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment. That is, they said that there was no interest until at least the third trimester. Historically, that period was when what used to be called "quickening" took place in the pregnancy, and past generations (before modern medicine) tended to agree that that was when personhood began to be defined. Viability outside of the womb has always been a strong consideration.

Basically, a secular government needs to have a civil rationale for defining what a "person" is, and that turns out to be when the individual becomes legally recognized. So governments usually do not bother with birth certificates or death certificates for miscarriages, nor do parents usually assign names until birth. Fetuses have no civil rights, because they cannot exercise those rights in any meaningful way. IOW, there is no way in which the early termination of a pregnancy actually causes harm to the government or the citizens of that government who are not part of the related family of the pregnant woman or the woman herself. Governments that force women to bring pregnancies to term do not make special provisions to provide for the care and welfare of the offspring. So the government--your elected representatives--have no standing in the pregnancy and no right to determine its outcome. That is actually how the law has been applied in our society.

Contrast that with the killing of babies, children, and adults, all of whom have civil protections and rights under law. Personhood is a legal status in the eyes of the government. Individuals, of course, can have different usage for that term, but that is something that they have to deal with outside of the legal system. Women who do not want abortions should not be forced to have them, unless it can be shown that the government has some compelling reason to force the termination of the pregnancy. Similarly, women who do not want pregnancies, for whatever reason, should not be forced to maintain them, unless it can be shown that the government has some compelling reason to force the pregnancy to term.

 

[Malintent]

There is no animal stupider than a Christian.

stupider isn't a word.

Says who?

No dictionary says what isn't a word.

You don't say what isn't a word.

A word is just a group of letters that has a meaning.

Are you saying stupider has no meaning? You can't make out the sentence?

The boxes some minds exist in.

I think this is the most exflastiating post I have read in a very long time. Agree?

 

[untermensche]

I think this is the most exflastiating post I have read in a very long time. Agree?

If you know what that means it's a word.

If somebody else knows too it's a word that can be communicated.

 

[Malintent]

It is the woman's decision to make. Nature (or God, if you want) provides an arbiter for the question of ending a pregnancy: the woman.

That is only her decision to make if the embryo/fetus is not classified as a human person. And then you should not be able to charge somebody with murder for killing this unperson, if you are consistent.
There is much extremism on both sides of the abortion question. I am certain that if the pro-abortion side were less militant, the discussion on general legality of abortion would have died down by now.

What is an example of extremism on the "pro-choice" side? I am not aware of any.
I detect a "good people on both sides" argument on the way.

 

[Emily Lake]

Killing people expressly because killing people is wrong...

Unless there is strong reason to believe that the killer will kill more people if left alive, that particular approach has always been a bit baffling to me.

 

[Emily Lake]

It is traditionally held that "stupider" isn't a word.

Oxford seems to disagree... and I don't recall that tradition from my own childhood. Although it's difficult to say for sure, since calling someone "stupid" was rather frowned upon in the first place. My grade school didn't really cover the grammatical variations of everyday insults.

- - - Updated - - -

Care to explain, or are we just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Are you familiar with the core concept of 'Internet Discussion Boards'?

 

[Emily Lake]

Im no lawyer. But cearly the law treats the crime of murder as a crime against the victim. That would be the fetus and NOT the mother. So if the fetus is not a legal person it is not murder. It could make sense to invent another lesser crime against the mother who wanted to bring to term a fetus. But you just can not call killing a fetus murder if the fetus is not a legal person.

The law has to treat everyone the same.

Let's get a bit crass here. If you kill my cat, then you're a killer. If I kill my own cat, I've made a decision and am not a killer. It's a tasteless analogy... but I can make it tastelesser (come on, Lord Kiran, you know you want to take that bait, yes?). If I toss my TV out of a second story window in a fit of impotent rage, then I've decided to destroy my TV. If you destroy my TV then you've committed vandalism. Heck, if I decide to get all edgy and emo about it and cut off the last knuckle of my pinky finger, that's just fine... but if you cut off the tip of my finger, we're gonna have some problems.

I can do what I want with my own property; you cannot do what you want with my property. And until such time as a fetus reaches a stage of development that can reasonably be considered independent of the mother... that fetus exists at the discretion of the body in which it is being brewed. It's good form to discuss such changes with the contributing sperm donor, of course, but still it's ultimately up to the oven to decide when she's had enough of that bun.

- - - Updated - - -

It is the woman's decision to make. Nature (or God, if you want) provides an arbiter for the question of ending a pregnancy: the woman.

That is only her decision to make if the embryo/fetus is not classified as a human person. And then you should not be able to charge somebody with murder for killing this unperson, if you are consistent.
There is much extremism on both sides of the abortion question. I am certain that if the pro-abortion side were less militant, the discussion on general legality of abortion would have died down by now.

What is an example of extremism on the "pro-choice" side? I am not aware of any.
I detect a "good people on both sides" argument on the way.

Extremism on the pro-choice side would include terminations at any point pre-delivery, as opposed to being limited to early stage.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Whenever the subject of abortion comes up, I ask people "can you explain to me your opponent's position from their point of view." Most people can't. On both sides.

People who are pro-life think abortion is murder. Not "killing a clump of cells." They think it is murder. They actually think that. You're probably saying "well duh" to my statement, but if you actually think about it you'll realize that you've never appreciated that they think it is murder.

This GOP candidate, he is consistent. It is the law that murderers get punished. Therefore he wants to extend that law to a group that he feels is committing murder and getting away with it.

Choicers are saying "that kook wants to kill women." No, that kook wants to punish people he mistakenly thinks are murderers. The kookiness isn't that he wants to punish people he sees as murderers, the kookiness is that he extends the label "murderer" to cover people who have abortions.

And before you say it, the death penalty doesn't compare. Only convicted criminals (of a very small list of serious crimes) qualify for the death penalty. Last time I checked, it wasn't a felony to be a fetus.

 

[Emily Lake]

That's a fair point. I am certainly more pro-choice than anything else... but even I have some qualms. And I understand that pro-life folks genuinely believe that a fetus is a life, and for most of them a sacred life at that - an innocent baby who has done no wrong, a life that all right-minded humans should seek to protect. I understand that perspective. I also understand the perspective of fathers who have contributed to the creation of that fetus, and who want to be part of that child's life. It's not as black and white a topic as many people cast it as. There's a lot of nuance in there. So while I will defend the right of women to have agency over their own bodies, from a legal standpoint... I'm not nearly so well-defined when it comes to the ethical standpoint of abortion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's a fair point. I am certainly more pro-choice than anything else... but even I have some qualms. And I understand that pro-life folks genuinely believe that a fetus is a life, and for most of them a sacred life at that...

Some pro-life people might, but the pro-life movement doesn't give a fuck about the fetus or the baby. Otherwise, they'd promote condom use.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Whenever the subject of abortion comes up, I ask people "can you explain to me your opponent's position from their point of view." Most people can't. On both sides.

It has to be so hard to be so enlightened.

People who are pro-life think abortion is murder.

That'd be some people that are pro-life think abortion is murder and don't give a fuck once a baby is born. Others think that abortion is murder and care to quality of life of the infant/child/adult. Others that are pro-life want to control the sexual habits of people, hence being against all forms of birth control, short of abstinence.

You're probably saying "well duh" to my statement, but if you actually think about it you'll realize that you've never appreciated that they think it is murder.

So wise, so wise.

This GOP candidate, he is consistent. It is the law that murderers get punished. Therefore he wants to extend that law to a group that he feels is committing murder and getting away with it.

Except the law of the land says it isn't "murder". So saying that you want to punish people for committing an act that isn't actually a crime is legally known as "fucking crazy".

Choicers are saying "that kook wants to kill women." No, that kook wants to punish people he mistakenly thinks are murderers. The kookiness isn't that he wants to punish people he sees as murderers, the kookiness is that he extends the label "murderer" to cover people who have abortions.

Thanks for the wisdom. He isn't a kook because of A, but because of B.

And before you say it, the death penalty doesn't compare. Only convicted criminals (of a very small list of serious crimes) qualify for the death penalty.

And many of them actually committed the crime too!

 

[Emily Lake]

That's a fair point. I am certainly more pro-choice than anything else... but even I have some qualms. And I understand that pro-life folks genuinely believe that a fetus is a life, and for most of them a sacred life at that...

Some pro-life people might, but the pro-life movement doesn't give a fuck about the fetus or the baby. Otherwise, they'd promote condom use.

I get what you're saying... but I don't think it's a particularly accurate understanding of where the other side is coming from.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's a fair point. I am certainly more pro-choice than anything else... but even I have some qualms. And I understand that pro-life folks genuinely believe that a fetus is a life, and for most of them a sacred life at that...

Some pro-life people might, but the pro-life movement doesn't give a fuck about the fetus or the baby. Otherwise, they'd promote condom use.

I get what you're saying... but I don't think it's a particularly accurate understanding of where the other side is coming from.

The "other side" is coming from numerous different directions which include varying amounts (or none) of 1) Humanitarian 2) Religious 3) Political 4) Authoritarian.

The Pro-Life movement itself is generally political with authoritarian religious roots.

 

[Playball40]

Uh there is. ALWAYS HAS BEEN.

Derec, I have a serious question for you. Do YOU personally consider abortion to be murder? Don't hide behind a conditional. I just want your personal opinion.

No, but I do think there should be restrictions in later pregnancy. And I am not hiding behind the conditionals, I am posing legitimate scenarios. For example, if all abortion is banned, why should the doctor be the only one prosecuted for a crime?

When does a pregnancy create a bona fide "person"?

That's the big question, isn't it? I do not think it can ever be adequately answered scientifically, but legally there must be some cutoff, or several. Since the process is continuous, a better approximation is to have more than one cutoff rather than a single one (like conception as pro-lifers want or birth as pro-choicers want).

It's like with growing up. That is a continuous process and a 17 years and 364 days old human is not significantly different than the same human at 18 years and 0 days but legally there is a difference. A sane legal system puts several cutoffs in because it is insane to treat a baby legally the same as a 17 year old just because they are both minors. Same should be the case with pregnancy. A zygote is not the same as a third trimester fetus, (no matter how much both extreme sides rant that they are) and they should not be treated the same legally.

 

[RavenSky]

It is the woman's decision to make. Nature (or God, if you want) provides an arbiter for the question of ending a pregnancy: the woman.

That is only her decision to make if the embryo/fetus is not classified as a human person. And then you should not be able to charge somebody with murder for killing this unperson, if you are consistent.
There is much extremism on both sides of the abortion question. I am certain that if the pro-abortion side were less militant, the discussion on general legality of abortion would have died down by now.

Hold on to your hats, folks, but I agree with the underlying point Derec is making... or at least what I think is the underlying point he is trying to make. He buries it under his typical anti-women, anti-liberal, anti-everyone rhetoric so it is difficult to be sure.

IF I am understanding correctly, Derec's point is that if a fetus does not have legal personhood status, then how can we convict anyone of murder for attacking the woman and causing the death of her fetus.

And I agree with that point.

However, it isn't liberals that pushed feticide laws.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was first introduced in Congress in 1999 by then-Congressman (later Senator) Lindsey Graham (R-SC). It passed the House of Representatives in 1999 and 2001, but not the Senate. In 2003, the bill was reintroduced in the House as H.R. 1997 by Rep. Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania. It was ultimately co-sponsored by 136 other members of the House before it passed by a vote of 254 in favor to 163 against on February 26, 2004. After several amendments were rejected, it was passed in the Senate by a vote of 61-38 on March 25, 2004. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 1, 2004.

Republicans all the way through. Democrats were able to get an amendment through that explicitly exempted abortion from this law, but the anti-abortion zealots made no secret of the fact they see these laws as a step towards overturning Roe v Wade.

As to Derec's last comment:

I am certain that if the pro-abortion side were less militant, the discussion on general legality of abortion would have died down by now.

yeah... back to horseshit with that one.

First, there is no "pro-abortion" side.

Second, even the most extreme pro-choice advocate simply says that late-term abortions are a medical matter best left up to the woman and her doctor.

For the record, I do not think abortion is murder. But then neither should be killing a fetus by a third party. If you punch a pregnant woman in the belly and she miscarries, that should be assault and battery, possibly aggravated, but not homicide.

I agree, though I do think there should be some severe additional penalties beyond just assault and battery (as per your example). While I do not think the fetus should be accorded legal victim status leading to a homicide charge, by killing her fetus the attacker did extreme additional injury far beyond the assault/battery itself. The attacker, in effect, forced an abortion on her and that is a crime in and of itself.

 

[Arctish]

There is much extremism on both sides of the abortion question. I am certain that if the pro-abortion side were less militant, the discussion on general legality of abortion would have died down by now.

Like RavenSky, I agree with most of your post but on this point I disagree.

There have been multiple good-faith attempts to establish precisely when an individual human life begins and subsequent legal protections apply, and when it ends. The issue is extremely complicated. It affects everything from contraception to organ donations. Advances in medical technology and our understanding of the process of life, reproduction, and death hasn't clarified the issue. 'At what point does an ovum become a human being?' and 'At what point does a human being become a corpse?' are still open questions.

Speaking of end-of-life issue, remember Jahi McMath? She's still alive at the basic biological level, is perhaps responsive, and some parts of her brain appear to be undamaged and functioning normally. The end-of-life issues surrounding her case are inextricably entwined with the beginning-of-life issues at the heart of the abortion debate.

 

[laughing dog]

People who are pro-life think abortion is murder. Not "killing a clump of cells." They think it is murder. They actually think that. You're probably saying "well duh" to my statement, but if you actually think about it you'll realize that you've never appreciated that they think it is murder.

Condescending claptrap.

This GOP candidate, he is consistent. It is the law that murderers get punished. Therefore he wants to extend that law to a group that he feels is committing murder and getting away with it.

No, this GOP candidate is not consistent. The medical personnel who perform the abortion is the actual murderer, not the woman. So, if this GOP candidate was consistent, he would have also included the performer of the abortion. But he didn't. And I bet that was not an oversight because he is not alone in that omission. I have known and seen plenty of "pro-lifers" single out the woman for punishment for getting an abortion but not the abortion provider. For those "pro-lifers" (who do not represent all everyone in the pro-life movement) their rhetoric suggests they are more interested in controlling women or punishing women than either saving the lives of fetuses or punishing the "murderers of babies".

 

[Malintent]

... there is no "pro-abortion" side....

Actually, there is. That is the side I am on. I am of the opinion that a strong case FOR having a child should be a social necessity. I do not believe there is any natural right to reproduce. Sure, it is a goal, but one I am of the opinion that the entire discussion is outside the realm of government regulation. an entity is not a "person" until it is born. Period. Prior to birth, the fetus is a parasite that the mother has full authority over, no different than a cist or tumor.

If someone has some claim that their unborn tumor might have some day been born a healthy person, and therefore there is liability.. then MY claim that a $5 error in the amount of change I received from a vendor is really a multi-million dollar claim... because one day, I am sure, that $5 would have appreciated greatly though my awesome parenting, err, I mean investing.

 

[Copernicus]

And let's not forget the overriding factor here--what constitutes a "person" from the viewpoint of a secular government. The US government is not equipped or empowered to decide when a fetus is a "human being" from a philosophical perspective. It is only empowered to decide matters such as citizenship, civil protections, property rights, and other practical social issues. So the abortion debate is not really about the philosophical question. It is about the civil question. What are the consequences for the US and its citizens when a woman chooses to have an abortion?