Saturday, November 07, 2009

The Hobgoblin Of Little Minds

Eric and I have been having some fun with human logic over at Classical Values. I started it with Defeating Libertarian Logic and then Eric chimed in with No Man Can?

So I have been getting all logical with my anti-abortion friends. Well I don't like it either. I just don't think it is a good place for government to be poking its nose. But for the sake of argument, and I love an argument, let me grant all the rabidly anti-abortion folk's premises and see where it leads.

Abortion is murder. Well that is obvious.

So what kind of murder is it? Murder one of course since it is planned and premeditated.

The penalties for murder one go right up to the death penalty depending on aggravating circumstances. Like was a lot of pain inflicted during the commission of the crime?

Well they are on about how the embryo screams during its demise so obviously a death penalty offense. And obviously the woman involved is an accomplice so by the logic of murder she would be subject to the same penalties as the doctor.

There is no statute of limitations on murder. So there are 20 million or so women we need to find and gas. Or inject. Or hang. We can start combing the medical records.

No. No. No. They say. We can't do that. It would be grotesque. So they come up with a penalty that is more akin to misdemeanor manslaughter. And the woman goes free.

So I say: it is not a very serious crime then even if we make it a crime.

No. No. No. No. It is very serious. You don't understand. It is not about strict logic. It is how we feel.

Well that was what I thought all along.

So what is your beef with those who feel differently? Uhhhhhhhhhhh.......

Cross Posted at Classical Values


RavingDave said...

I responded to your comment at classical values.

Here is my response.

MSimon Wrote: "I had some fun with the anti-abortion folks using logic.

Abortion is murder. Well that is obvious.

So what kind of murder is it? Murder one of course since it is planned and premeditated."

It's a shame that I wasn't able to comment timely on your remarks about this subject. I think that I would make a more formidable opponent logically than some you might try to befuddle.

You have created fallacies of false equivalencies, and grossly oversimplified your premise.

For example, who is wielding the murder weapon ? The woman, or the doctor ? At the least this would make a woman an accomplice.

A more accurate way of looking at this would be analogous to having a woman bring a retarded child to a Doktor for euthanization. You see, in both cases the woman is merely facilitating, not committing a murder.

Add to that, the complication that the 1973 court made this form of murder legal, just as the Chief Justice Taney declared slaves were property, and so you have immoral/amoral but legal, "justification" of it.

Funny thing, that I should mention the Taney court. The same people (abolitionists) who believed slavery was immoral, also believed abortion was immoral, and shortly after the civil war, the abolitionists managed to get the practice outlawed throughout the United States. The Warren court overturned the work of the people who overturned the work of the Taney court. Isn't that amusing ?

M. Simon said...

Dood. Believe it or not I did a little research. Premeditated murder is a death penalty offense - depending on circumstances.

An accessory to a crime is subject to the same penalties as the perpetrator. The woman is also culpable for soliciting murder although the penalties are less.


My point in this post and later ones on the subject is that none of the anti-abortion folks are willing to apply those penalties.

So the crime is not as serious as premeditated murder. In fact judged by the penalties universally suggested (so far) it is misdemeanor manslaughter for the doctor and the woman goes free.

i.e. the people who most seriously want to criminalize abortion do not take it as a serious murder offense.

And if, as a point of argument, I accept your premise you have only reinforced my point.


So why couldn't the R lawmakers accept a lesser rating from the NRLC and stop this bill? For misdemeanor manslaughter and the woman goes free.

And read my later posts on the subject. I have some fair evidence that it might have done just that.

M. Simon said...

BTW the Supreme Court Did not legalize abortion. It was already legal in some States. What they did was Federalize it.

It is pretty much accepted by the anti-abortion folks (that have discussed it with me in the last week or two) that it is a regional issue. So obviously the value is not universal. I think they acknowledge that the Moral Majority has lost its majority.

I think it is none of government's business. No one listens to me.

RavingDave said...

You are right of course about what the Supreme court did. They forced ALL states to comply with the morality of New York.

On the penalty side of the issue, again, you have the highest legal body in the land declaring this sort of thing isn't murder, even though many people feel that it is, and over time the public consciousness gets changed.

Obviously in the original Roe vs. Wade case, the state of Texas felt that it was a crime worthy of punishment. The Supreme court said no it wasn't, and so now we have the sociological fall out from that decision.

People are stuck in modern Zeitgeist. By my reckoning, the Doktor should be imprisoned or executed, and the woman should at least go to prison.

What kind of people are abortionists ? Joseph Mengele was one. Abortion is how Doktor Mengele earned his living after WWII.

Is there a person who deserved execution more than he ?

M. Simon said...

I hate to break it to you. But despite the misguided Federalism the Supreme Court did not force any one to do anything.

No one has to get an abortion. No one is forced to provide abortion services.

But as long as the Morality question is up: The Catholic Church has the only moral anti-abortion position. IMO. If you outlaw abortion you must provide for the children brought to term if the parent(s) are low income. i.e. more welfare.

That is an anti-abortion position I could support.

I don't believe any of the abortion foes that have ever commented on any of my posts on the subject have ever brought that up. I wonder why?

M. Simon said...


Be consistent. If we are going to be offing doctors for murder I say we should be offing their accomplices as well. 'Cause in ordinary murder that is how it is done. And you know abortion is premeditated murder.

Why should the initiator and accomplice get off lightly?

Executing a few hundred doctors a year and all the women we can get the doctors to finger and executing them would be a really good thing. It would limit the market for abortion a lot.

And Dr. Joseph Mengele? He provided services that were not requested.

I dunno. Thinking about this stuff seems to cloud your mind. Which on other subjects seems a lot more clear and rational.


Any way if abortion is outlawed as a doctor provided "service" women will just take pills. What you gonna do about that?

Start a drug war?

And suppose you catch the women buying the pills or using them. What you gonna do? Give them the death penalty too?