Thursday, May 29, 2008

Finally!!! A "rebel conservative" says that women SHOULD go to jail for abortion!!!!

One conservative would consider jailing women who had abortions

Yes!! Consistency!

"Rebel conservative" says that if abortion is murder, women should go to jail for it (last two paragraphs):

"Blogger 'Harry834' asks an important question – If abortion is murder, how long should a woman serve for murdering her child?

This is a very crucial issue that the 'pro-life' movement needs to address. It would be intellectually dishonest to suggest the punishment would not include time in jail.
In my opinion, the length of time would depend entirely on the details of the case – as with any murder. There could be grounds for the charge could be reduced to manslaughter, on the grounds of diminished capacity; but she should face time in prison, otherwise it would be like a guy who murders his parents pleading for leniency because he is an orphan.

Whilst I thank Harry for his question, a more important question to ask, is how long should the person who carries out the abortion serve? In my opinion, life. They knowingly committed an act, with callous and cold disregard, it is pre-meditated murder - often for profit. Abortionists do not have the same feelings of perhaps being overwhelmed/scared etc that the mother does, there is no excuse."

----

Admire his honesty, but still a problem...

He implies that the doctor deserves a much harsher, and more certain, sentence than the woman. With the woman he paints examples of "mitigating circumstances" in that first paragraph quoted above.

My question: why the discrepency in punishments?

Rebel justifies the distinction by saying that the doctor "knowingly committed an act, with callous and cold disregard" and did it for "profit".

But if that's true, he's no different than a hired hitman. And the person who hired him - or her - was the pregnant woman.

Couldn't this woman be "callous and cold"? Like these women women who don't regret their abortions?

One of these women has commented here: "mellan kelly"

Also I'd also remind him that not every murderer will prove they had "diminished capacity". In fact the burden of proof is on the murder and her defense lawyer.

The good thing is that Rebel realizes this: "There could be grounds for the charge could be reduced to manslaughter, on the grounds of diminished capacity; but she should face time in prison, otherwise it would be like a guy who murders his parents pleading for leniency because he is an orphan." (from end of first paragraph)

Thank you, Rebel conservative for (attempting) intellectual honesty

Here's my other question:

Should "feelings of perhaps being overwhelmed/scared" necessarilly grant a murderer a lesser sentence?

I have a hard time with the fact that the hired hitman gets life in prison, but the person who hired him gets...ambiguity and mitigitating circumstances.

9 comments:

Janine said...

Harry, excellent posts. It doesn't make sense to give the woman a lesser penalty than the doctor. What if the doctor did it for free, or out of genuine concern for the woman? Unless he uses physical force, he can't perform the abortion without a willing patient so it is the woman that created the entire situation. And to re-iterate your point, she could be the cold and callous one - perhaps even more so than the doctor. Also, does diminished capacity even apply, or has it been successful when someone hires a hitman? Hiring a hitman is pretty serious and seems on the extreme side of pre-meditated.

H4736 said...

Yes, a prosecutor would have a field day. Between my arguments and MellanKelly's these pro-life bastards are fighting a two front war.

Charles Anthony said...

Both sides of this discussion seem to share the same flaw in reasoning:
Everybody seems to reflexively assume that every "murder" should be pigeon-holed with a pre-formatted punishment by the state.

H4736 said...

Well, there's USUALLY a punishment for murder, or at least mental institution requirement.

Yes, each case has to be diagnosed by the judge and jury, but my point is that abortion is given an automatic free pass with no consideration at all of jail time.

Real exemption would require an analysis of each case, and both prosecuor and defense arguing. But no, abortion is the only form of "murder" that doesn't get a trial or prosecution.

And that hypocracy is the main point.

Janine said...

I too agree with the trial process to determine the final crime. However, every time this question is posed the answers to Harry's posts have had a presumption that the doctor is guilty but the woman has mitigating issues. This may not always the case as the link about women not being sorry shows. If the answer to my question on diminished capacity is yes, that it is allowed as part of the sentencing guidelines when these crimes have succeeded, then I'm okay with that.

Janine said...

I am curious as to what the answer is...is diminished capacity allowed/or has it ever been successful in the case of hiring a hitman that actually results in murder?

H4736 said...

Silence...no responses. Janine we're talking to ourselves.

Why does that not surprise me?

Janine said...

Not surprising. I think you are correct that the prosecutor could have a field day. To clarify from my original comment on the example in your post - the doctor is not only hired for the ‘hit’ but the cooperation of the woman is involved in the carrying out of the ‘hit’. She delivers up the ‘victim’ and stages the ‘crime’ by proactively submitting to the procedure. These aspects could work against her ever getting anything less than the doc.

The doc, as much as the woman, shouldn’t be denied any consideration that might be applicable in sentencing given the cooperative nature required in the actual execution of this ‘crime’ – the doc is not necessarily the more cold blooded one.

H4736 said...

I agree. The doctor and the woman will each have their own defense lawyer, and each lawyer will be attempting to bargain with the prosecuotor. The bargaining strategy will focus on casting more blame on the other client.

So the doctor's lawyer will try to make the doctor look less guilty and the woman more guilty. Vice versa for the woman's doctor.

But BOTH "murderers" will be making their case for mitigating circumstances. That's what what happens when two people cooperate for a single murder.

I'm waiting for someone to respond, but it seems we're winning. I don't know what else to assume by the silence...