on 4/14/00 5:26 PM, Bill Bartlett at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> I like it. Simply force them to take their argument to its logical
> conclusion, a conclusion which would be utterly repugnant.
Yep.
>>
>> Since no anti-choicer, not even the terrorist wing, advocates executing
>> women who have abortions (heck, they don't even advocate incarcerating
>> them), the conclusion is inescapable:
>
> Well.... It is not really an inescapable conclusion that the death penalty
> must be applied to those guilty of murder. We don't do that in civilised
> societies anymore. But aside from that little slip, your suggestion is a
> very good one, if it is murder then there is no need to criminalise
> abortion, because murder is the only appropriate charge.
>
> And, as you corectly point out, no jury is likely to ever convict for
> murder in those circumstances. In fact it is probably unlikely that many
> prosecutors would have the courage to even attempt a prosecution, given
> prevailing public opinion.
Nice to find us agreeing, Bill. (I think that would actually be the typical
case in a less contentious environment.) As for my "slip," I merely meant to
point out that, based on their own avowed policies, such a conclusion would
be inescapable for anti-choicers. Soliciting murder is a capital offense in
this country--or more precisely, a death-penalty-eligible offense. Sauce for
the goose, etc. But *I* certainly don't support the death penalty. I do
support consistent application of the laws, though (one of the problems with
the death penalty, as we all know).
While we on the subject of abortion jurisprudence, it might interest fellow
US citizens to know, if they didn't already, that even our conservative
Supreme Court rejects the idea of personhood for the fetus, by a very
substantial margin. On their last major statement on the subject, only 2
Justices--the Catholic Scalia, and his mini-Me, Clarence Thomas--adopted the
view that a fetus is a person entitled to due process under the 14th
Amendment. That makes it 7-2 against the "pro-life" position. The reason the
votes on abortion restrictions is so much closer is that 2-3 other Justices
base their reasoning ON Roe v. Wade's reasoning regarding reasonableness of
restrictions in the third trimester, not on overturning it. Not that that
should make anyone complacent. But it does give the lie to alot of the
anti-choice rhetoric about "personhood."
--
Tresy Kilbourne
Seattle WA
"The Clinton-haters and their friends in the media are like a cargo cult:
they keep expecting something to fall from the sky, and years of
disappointment never seem to awaken any doubt." - Joe Conason
|