How Much Time?

[Dan Wishengrad]

We all love to debate politics here in the Water Cooler, and there are some excellent debaters here regularly representing the left, the right and the middle. So let's tackle one of the biggest issues of them all, the one that is often "the litmus test" for American politicians -- abortion.

After watching a YouTube video with an interviewer trying unsuccessfully to get anti-abortion protesters to answer a simple question, Newsweek's Anna Quindlen recently wrote a thought-provoking editorial. The thrust of this piece was:

If the Pro-Life movement succeeds in having Roe v Wade overturned and thereby re-criminalizing abortion, there must be penalties then attached to women who have an illegal abortion in defiance of the law. You can't have crime without punishment. So how much time should these women serve? Quindlen wrote that there are only two logical choices: either hold women accountable for committing a crime by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act itself.

I have read some interesting follow-up pieces from the conservative and/or Christian media. Most argue that it is the doctor who is the abortionist and who deserves jail time, and not the woman at all. Somehow the women who would seek an illegal abortion in the post-Roe America are all dupes or unwilling victims of the evil abortionist, and should receive only counseling. Quindlen refers to this view of women as victims as "being in the wrong stirrups at the wrong time." But is this really fair? Do all women who seek abortions do so because a doctor convinces them to have the procedure? Or is it often the other way around? When a murder-for-hire case leads to a conviction, don't we sentence both the person who pulls the trigger as well as the person who hires the assassin to commit the act? Isn't this relevant legal precedent to this abortion debate?

It is very difficult to get a national pro-life politician to even answer this question. Most respond with something like "I haven't really thought about this to sort out the penalties." None has gone on record yet to actually answer the question. The two major party candidates who lead in the national polls over their challengers, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giulliani, both are confirmed pro-choicers. But there are many pro-life candidates, mostly on the right, who can't or won't answer the question. Christian conservatives are reportedly very troubled by the prospect of the GOP nominating a pro-choicer as its Presidential candidate, and are seriously weighing whether to support a third-party, Pro-Life candidate instead, if Rudy winds up winning the Republican nomination.

So, my friends and colleagues, let's discuss this intelligently here.

How much time?

[Dan Wishengrad]

Have to say that I'm disappointed that not even one of my pro-life/anti-abortion colleagues has dared to post an answer to this question here. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised, given that not a single pro-life CANDIDATE for office has answered the question either. Quindlen wrote that when you ask an anti-abortion protester this question they are always "gobsmacked", like you asked them to do "quadratic equations" or something. Here is a reprint of the article, which I couldn't seem to find on Newsweek itself:

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007 ... -jail-time

There are some very thoughtful pieces written in response by the pro-life side, including one in "Christianity Today" and numerous authors taking their turn in a "National Review Online" symposium, but none of these actually answer the question, turning instead on the abortionist (i.e. the doctor) and perpetrating the myth that women are just "victims" of abortion, or simply launching personal attacks on Ms. Quindlen for asking a "deceptive" or somehow "deceitful" question. Some of the scholars I read in these suggest (without stating an actual answer to the simple question) that there should not be any time served, that the point of criminalizing abortion is make a moral statement without any real penalties.

But if you really believe that abortion is murder (as many decent people do believe), can you honestly state that no penalty should be attached to such an act of murder?

C'mon those of you who disagree with liberal-wackos like me -- post an answer to the question, PLEASE!

[Jana]

The basic question has to be answered - is abortion murdering a child? If the answer is yes, then anyone who actively helps would be an accessory to murder, including the parent(s). Right?

I don't have the stats in front of me, but I believe recent reports have indicated that abortion has become both safer and rarer than ever before.

Nevertheless, in an age where we can save the lives of babies born at less than 5 months gestation through medical assistance, how can we also end the lives of babies at the same gestation, and why would we end the lives of babies at any length of gestation?

I keep thinking back to John McCain from 10 years ago, when asked what he would do if his daughter (age 13 at the time) became pregnant and might seek an abortion, he instantly said he would support her decision (implying that abortion was an option). Only later when there was a political uproar did he say the parents would make teh decision, and would not consider abortion.

So....what's good on the political front is not necessarily good when it's your own daughter who faces having a baby at age 13.

[Beta]

I'll answer Dan, because I like the way you discuss things. I'm pretty moderate, depending on the issue. It's a really tricky issue and who knows...I may change my mind.

Question: "How much time should a female serve in prison if they have an illegal abortion?" Correct?

Thoughts: Killing = killing = killing = killing = killing, etc etc etc you get the point. If someone were to walk up to a stroller and stab a baby in the face...they would get the maximum sentence by law (most likely). What changes when the baby is inside the mom? The baby isn't cute yet? Granted on the other end, when the baby is just a couple cells old...that is hard to define as life. I don't think science should play a role in it. If the mom is going to give birth (barring an accident) and something is done to prevent that life from being born...that sounds to me like it is preventing life. That baby would (barring an accident) be alive if that person didn't prevent him/her from living.

I don't wanna get into the side issues of "what if the birth would kill the mom", "child born with health problems", etc or any of those secondary issues since the main issue is most important, for now. I also know that the most important person to worry about is the child, if they are born. But we're JUST talking about the act of abortion itself...and not what happens afterwards.

Sentence: I look at abortion as murder, therefore I am saying that abortion should serve the maximum penalty for murder as defined by law. I am not sure how different states penalize people that kill other people. I'm pretty big on the death penalty for people that end innocent people's lives...but you want a # of years. I say life, since they are "unable" (see: lazy, worthless) of changing their lives and being selfless to raise a child...like every human in the history of Earth has had to do when they have a child.

If people understood the consequences of sex are damn real, maybe they'd be more careful about it...instead of having abortion to fall back on. I also think there should be solid adoption programs in place...but I am no expert on the matter. I just think killing someone isn't OK.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Sentence: I look at abortion as murder, therefore I am saying that abortion should serve the maximum penalty for murder as defined by law. I am not sure how different states penalize people that kill other people. I'm pretty big on the death penalty for people that end innocent people's lives...but you want a # of years. I say life...

Thank you Joe, for being brave enough to go on the record with an actual answer to the question -- something nobody else on the national scene seems willing to do.

I respect your opinion, and will confess I have mixed feelings about the issue itself. I am firmly pro-choice, but definitely wrestle with the moral conundrum here and don't hold to my personal belief as an absolute certainty. During my decade as a staffer to the California State Senate, I worked for three years for a man -- President Pro Tempore David Roberti -- who was by most definitions a true "Hollywood Liberal". But there was ONE exception to this record: Sen. Roberti was a devout Catholic and a strong opponent of abortion. The rest of the majority Democrats elected him as their leader, this one issue notwithstanding. I continue to watch whether the GOP will nominate a man who is so firmly pro-choice, and if so whether the Christian coalition will decide to vote for Gov. Giuliani anyway, despite his gutsy stand to not conveniently "change his mind", a la Mitt Romney.

I will add one thing: if anti-abortion crusaders who are running for office had the guts to say what you have said here Joe -- life in prison for the woman who has an illegal abortion -- then almost all will certainly be defeated in their quest for office, even in the "reddest of red states". The majority of Americans (as shown in virtually every poll) still favor the right of women to have a legal abortion, and many who do not would likely change their stance if a politician advocated throwing a woman in jail for life if she had an illegal abortion if that procedure was re-criminalized.

P.S. I am also very strongly against capital punishment, with no uncertainties at all. I realize I am in the small minority who espouse this position, but I believe state-sponsored execution is dead wrong.

[Beta]

I think it's a little scary that people in power just say whatever it is we want to hear so that they can get in office and then do whatever it is they want to...regardless of the public opinion.

(added)

I am not one to tell a woman what to do, esp with her body. But I think the whole "her body, her decision" thing ends when it involves "another body".

[BB]

Since I seem to be enjoying debate today I wanted to way in on this discussion with an interesting point that I heard the other day probably on some radio station in between sales calls on some political show. I don't even remember what it was.

This entire argument isn't Prolife or Pro- Choice. Everyone would choose life and choice. But nobody would choose to kill an innocent kid.

It is an argument about the start of a life. When does a person become a person? Is it at conception? Is it at hearbeat? Is it at sensation? Is it at birth? Is it at movement? Is it that first kick? Is it at the developement of a brain?

I think the tone of the debate would change if people could realize that this is what is truly at the heart of the issue.

I don't even know if I am completely decided one way or the other, but I do know that the 1st "trimester" is a stupid way to define a life.

[bjlaxman16]

Since not many will answer, I'll give my thoughts.

First off I want to point out that I do not have much knowledge about the political aspect of this issue.

I pretty much agree with all of what Joe said. I would not disagree with a life sentence for getting an abortion. Abortion is still, in my eyes, murder. I would think that this would finally get the point across that you have to be smart when it comes to having sex.

Obviously there are some situations that are a little harder to come to an agreement on such as rape, age, incest, etc. I won't get too much into these except for in the case of rape. I think that abortion may be ok in rape cases because the woman did not agree to having sex and should not necessarily have to be responsible for the consequences.

I also believe that the doctor that performs the procedure should also be punished. And since they are the ones actually committing the 'murder', they should also get a life sentence.

And I completely agree with Joe that it is 'another body'.

That's as far as I'm going to go, for now...

[Dan Wishengrad]

It is an argument about the start of a life. When does a person become a person? Is it at conception? Is it at hearbeat? Is it at sensation? Is it at birth? Is it at movement? Is it that first kick? Is it at the developement of a brain?

Perhaps one of our Chinese readers could chime in on this? According to James Clavell (I think from "Tai-Pan" or maybe "Noble House"?), the Chinese (going back 5,000 years) teach that a person's soul is not imprinted until a few days AFTER birth, and therefore a breathing, viable, full-term birthed baby is not yet truly "life" until it possesses a soul. I am NOT saying I believe this, but just adding to the discussion from something I remembered reading years ago... But the point BB brings up is important to the discussion -- when exactly does life truly begin? At conception? When the fetus is viable to live outside the womb on its own? Or is it at birth?

[Beta]

I mean, in my opinion I consider life to start as soon as the process begins (after conception). Because if we weren't to intervene...life would occur (barring accident, miscarriage, etc). And not "intervene" like using birth control, preventative measures or something...but rather straight up destroying what is to be your daughter/son.

Here's my question, if someone doesn't want to have their baby for whatever reason...why can't they give birth and put the baby up for adoption to a family that is able to take care of him/her? Forget about the mother...because any answer that doesn't put the baby's well-being ahead of the mother's is precisely what the hell is wrong with them in the first place (selfish).

(I edited this a couple times because I are bad at grammars)

[LaxRef]

Here's my question, if someone doesn't want to have their baby for whatever reason...why can't they give birth and put the baby up for adoption to a family that is able to take care of him/her?

I've always said that the anti-choice people should be required to adopt all babies waiting adoption before they can press forward the anti-abortion agenda. Until then, the idea that the babies should all be born and put up for adoption is a red herring.

I understand there is a demand for babies, provided they are white and healthy. Otherwise, not so much.

[Beta]

I understand there is a demand for babies, provided they are white and healthy. Otherwise, not so much.

Why do you think that is?

[BB]

Beta,
I have to agree with you somewhat, and my viewpoints have changed over time as I was completely pro choice; not really any longer.

I don't know if I have as much trouble with things like the morning after pill as it is still just a cluster of cells in my eyes.

I also don't see why they couldn't just give it up for adoption. I have seen that work so well and there are so many waiting.

Again I don't think there can be choice about a life, and I don't know what the answer is to when a life is started, because the same view is not shared by anyone.

[Zamboni_Driver]

Its a slow day, so I'll jump in.

I'll give my summary and then my argument -

Summary: Abortion is a necessary evil of a civilized society

Basis: Take two situations 1) teenage couple engages in un-protected sex and becomes pregnant or 2) a non-blood uncle rapes his niece and impregnants her. The resulting embryo are functionally identical and scientists looking at them under the microscope in a blind study could not tell you which situation the embryo was created. Since the biology is the same we either have to let both of them access to abortions or neither of them.

If we say that the second should have access (which is commonly held) but not the first, then we would be making our decisions on what is acceptable based on how the embryo was created not on a scientific definition of "life" or "viable life". Many would say that 1 had a choice and 2 didn't, but this provides evidence that they are not concerned for the baby, but have a desire to govern people's lifestyles. Immediately some would argue "what if my lifestyle was to sacrifice babies once a year, the government wouldn't let me." They would be right. Killing, even in the form of abortion, is a transgression against humanity in which you are preventing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But a civilized society could not demand that the woman in situation 2 keep her baby, and go through a life long constant reminder of her rape. Thus is is the existence of situation 2 that forces society to allow abortion for all both cases.

If you could guarantee a world without rape and incest, then you could free governments to outlaw abortion without creating double standards.

[Danny Hogan]

Forget about the mother...because any answer that doesn't put the baby's well-being ahead of the mother's is precisely what the hell is wrong with them in the first place (selfish).

may sound harsh but i disagree on that point.

Tough question you do not have to answer, but pick between the two:

1. Your wife dies during childbirth, baby lives.
2. Wife miscarries (lives), baby dies.

I honestly am not sure where i stand on the issue and think it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I'm in no position to judge another's decision.

One thing i can't wrap my mind around is that when someone kills a pregnant women, in some states that is double homocide while aborting a baby is legal.