Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Abortion Is Murder

I'm having a little discussion with a commenter at The Other McCain about abortion. I know more than a few social conservatives read this blog so maybe they can help me out. Here is the comment I was replying to:

The Indentured Servant Girl said...

M. Simon: women were not, and would not be charged with murder for procuring an abortion. It is the doctors that the law goes after.
So I have a few questions.
You mean the women are not at least accomplices in premeditated murder? Then abortion is not really murder is it?

Suppose there is no doctor? Just a black market RU-485 pill? Or ergot? Or oxytocin? Or a heavy dose of birth control pills? Still not murder?

It would be really nice to see a person with real conviction arguing that abortion is murder. I have yet to find one.

The question for me is enforcement. How intrusive will the government have to get to make it work? Weekly pregnancy tests? (the Drug War precedent) And of course with new technology coming on line - maybe electronic sniffers to look for changes in the body? Then every miscarriage becomes a murder investigation.

Wouldn't it be safer for your liberties to keep government out of it and just convince women not to have an abortion?
So could one or more of my social conservative friends please explain it to me? If abortion is murder why wouldn't the woman involved be at least charged as an accomplice to premeditated murder? After all in these kinds of cases (the vast majority any way) the woman is not kidnapped against her will and forced to get an abortion. She is an active participant and pays money to get the job done.

So is abortion premeditated murder or not?

Well maybe pregnant women are not in their right mind. So I could see that as an out. Of course that argues that pregnant women ought not be allowed to vote. Maybe menstruating women too. In fact with the monthly hormone roller coaster ride I can see a lot of things women in their child bearing years should be denied the opportunity to do. You know how some women get PMS? We need laws to protect us from those she devils.

Or maybe the government should just stay out of reproduction all together. It might just wind up another expensive boondoggle like the Drug War.

Cross Posted at Classical Values


Unknown said...

Are you seriously going to play the "you're not consistent" game with social conservatives ? You ? Mr. drugs should be legal - that's good for free will ?

Let's ask you the same question : when do you consider something a human ?

Now let me give you the medical facts : a human infant starts processing pain signals within 3 weeks after conception (18th day, you can literally set your watch to it).

Would you consider something that has a human mind, thinks, and feels pain human ?

If I can kill it while it's in the womb, why can't I kill you ? I want to kill adults too, you see. The only really big difference between 6 month old feutus and an adult is the size and number of fat cells. (most types of cell division has already halted by then, and the brain is fully operational)

Why can I kill one and not the other ? Why does the size of the fat and bone cells matter ?

Why can't I kill adults ? Of course we all know the answer to that : you'd feel threatened, and you like being defended. Actually so does any pre-abortion baby, but it can be kept out of sight, and you're killing an entirely defenseless being. Who could mind doing someting like that ?

This post is in the vain hope that you actually see in what kind of terribly dangerous ethical territory one must go to even contemplate abortion. Abortion is killing human beings for convenience. Apparently that's allowed as long as they can't fight back according to you "social" "progressives".

I wonder. When muslims stone a woman, for an imagined crime, they're actually comitting a much more moral act. After all someone at least thinks that woman has done something wrong, even if many don't agree. And there is the absurdly unlikely chance that the woman survives, something which is not granted these babies.

So tell me ... which human beings can I kill ? Where is the line and why ? This post barely scratches the surface of all the massive moral inconsistencies required to turn a blind eye to abortion.

(oh and for your obvious question : the docter is the killer, doing the act. The woman is an accomplice, granted, but that's not the same thing. And you can never prove what happened if a pregnancy terminates, nor should you try)

Unknown said...

And by the way. No docter has ever gotten a medical degree without swearing the oath of hippocrates.

Medical knowledge was only collected on the condition that it would not be used for a number of things, one of those things is abortion.

So what is the value of an oath ? Clearly, to you, it's nothing at all. If convenient, drop it.

M. Simon said...

I'm pretty consistent about drugs. They are self medication.

The NIDA says addiction is a genetic disease:

Addiction Is A Genetic Disease

Is Addiction Real?


PTSD and the Endocannabinoid System

Mice PTSD Max Planck
Fear memories, the amygdala, and the CB1 receptor

Police and PTSD

PTSD Pot Alcohol & Substance Abuse

Better Than Viagra

A well known secret


Class War

Treatment vs Recreation

Round Pegs In Round Holes

The War On Unpatented Drugs.

Schizophrenia and Tobacco

LEAP video
Law officers discuss prohibition

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman

Drug War History


I grant you all your points. Now please explain why women who have abortions should not be prosecuted for premeditated murder?

Which was my original question.

Either it is premeditated murder or it is not.

As I said. I have yet to meet an abortion foe with the courage of their convictions. You have a lot of company.

M. Simon said...

Well maybe we are getting some where.

Doctor performed abortions should be outlawed and chemically induced abortions should be ignored.

Is that your position?


I still think the woman should be charged. If you pay some one to do a murder for you the law says you are guilty of murder. And people are regularly convicted for it.

Why is abortion different?

M. Simon said...

So what is the value of an oath ? Clearly, to you, it's nothing at all. If convenient, drop it.

That is between the doctor and his conscience. Or the doctor and his medical society.

Of course if you can get enough people to agree with you we can make it between the doctor and the law.

Unknown said...

"I still think the woman should be charged. If you pay some one to do a murder for you the law says you are guilty of murder. And people are regularly convicted for it."

That's not actually true. That specific crime is "conspiracy to commit murder", not "murder". Only the person that actually pulls the trigger is a murderer.

I doubt you will find disapproval of aborting mothers lacking in America, though.

Perhaps you're wanting to dress this as somehow equivalent to allowing guns.

"That is between the doctor and his conscience. Or the doctor and his medical society.

Of course if you can get enough people to agree with you we can make it between the doctor and the law."

If you think morality is the majority's view then what could you possibly have against witchunts and stonings, not to mention execution for dissenters (like me & you) ? After all the majority of humans alive today live in societies where such are practiced, so they are more popular. Clearly they're moral and lawful for that reason, right ?

Do you think whatever's popular should become law ? If you look at this worldwide, say bye-bye to secularism, or western law, or abortion, since they're all serious minority positions.

Seems like such a *good* idea, to let morality depend on the idiocy "du jour". You might want to google "Goethe", and tell me what those Germans should have done when suicide became popular. Seems a cool thing to mandate by law, though. It'd be interesting to watch the results. Not all that moral though, no matter the opinion about that at the time.

And obviously, surely the nazis were right. After all, talk about majority opinion !

And let's exterminate Israel. After all, those defending Israel are, at best, 350 million people. That leaves 5,7 billion. Some 1.3 billion of those want to see every last Jew executed, and it's a popular opinion with another 500 million. The rest, frankly, don't care either way. So surely it would be moral, lawful and generally good to exterminate Jews ?

So what were you saying about that principle about making law from popular opinion ? I don't think you've thought this through.

M. Simon said...

Do you think whatever's popular should become law

That is generally the way it works around these parts. Is it right? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.


The Nazis didn't open their death camps until the ground had been prepared. The murdering didn't start until there was further preparation.

Of course the Church had prepared the way with centuries of anti-Jew agitation along with ignoring the occasional pogrom.

Now before Roe different states had different laws so it seems that there is a difference of opinion as to abortion being murder. And even then it was not treated as murder one.


I searched "solicitation to murder penalty" and this is the first thing that came up:

penalty for soliciting murder

Conviction on a solicitation of first-degree murder charge carries a maximum penalty of life in prison.

And that penalty is also the same for the Brits.


Of course a woman getting an abortion is not just soliciting murder. By putting herself in the hands of the murderer she is aiding and abetting.

Seems like that is a death penalty offense.

At law, an accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offense. For example, in a bank robbery, the person who points the gun at the teller and asks for the money is guilty of armed robbery. However, anyone else directly involved in the commission of the crime, such as the lookout or the getaway car driver, is an accomplice, even though in the absence of an underlying offense keeping a lookout or driving a car would not be an offense.

An accomplice differs from an accessory in that an accomplice is present at the actual crime, and could be prosecuted even if the main criminal (the principal) is not charged or convicted. An accessory is generally not present at the actual crime, and may be subject to lesser penalties than an accomplice or principal.

In older sources, an accomplice was often referred to as an abettor. This term is not in active use, having been replaced by accomplice.

At law, an accomplice has the same degree of guilt as the person he or she is assisting, is subject to prosecution for the same crime, and faces the same criminal penalties. As such, the three accomplices to the bank robbery above can also be found guilty of armed robbery even though only one stole the money.

The fairness of the doctrine that the accomplice is as guilty as the primary offender has been discussed many times, particularly in cases of capital crimes. On several occasions, accomplices have been prosecuted for felony murder even though the actual person who committed the murder died at the crime scene or otherwise did not face capital punishment.


So the woman is definitely an accomplice and by law should be subject to the same penalty as the doctor.

But suppose there is no doctor and the woman induces an abortion from black market chemicals?

Logically if we treat abortion as murder she should be subject to the death penalty.


But there is always the possibility that by making abortion a question for government action that what was once outlawed may become mandatory.

My opinion is that we are safer if it is outside the sphere of government action.

That limited government thingy we hear conservatives mouth so much.


Are you a limited government guy?

M. Simon said...

I should add though that not being treated as murder one all the elements of murder one are there.

So right off the bat it is not treated as a serious crime. And from there it is a short hop to not a crime.

We see that progression in the recent forty or so year agitation against the marijuana laws.

It went from mild penalties. And that didn't work. To harsher penalties and that didn't work. To milder penalties because the harsh ones didn't work. To a traffic ticket offense. And pretty soon it will be nothing.

The above refers to Calif. but it is pretty much how things go.