If abortion is murder, shouldn't the women be prosecuted?

[McCulloch]

I do think that abortion is murder because it is equivalent to murder, regardless of whether the fetus is a viable life or not.

So do you support criminal prosecution for the mothers who seek abortions? Even the ones who had been raped? Why not?

No, while the action is equivalent the punishment should not be. Killing a fetus is equivalent to killing a 2 yr old baby, but the mother who had the abortion should not be prosecuted because her intent is not equivalent to a murder's intent.

If abortion is murder, should the women seeking and getting abortions be prosecuted? What particular legal principle is being applied to excuse murder?



_________________
Note: for the purposes of this debate, assume that it has been shown that abortion is murder. This is not the place to debate whether this is true.

[Gayatheist]

If this is from a religious perspective, then shouldn't the "god" of the Judeo-Christian religion be prosecuted for all the spontaneous abortions (a.k.a miscarriages) as well as the billions of innocents he killed with his actions (such as the flood) according to the bible and assuming you believe it's real?!

Very often foetuses are aborted as they are just clumps of cells, should we also prosecute those who have treatment for cancer - after all they are destroying just the same?

[Everso]

Note: for the purposes of this debate, assume that it has been shown that abortion is murder. This is not the place to debate whether this is true.

One hell of an assumption but I'll go along with it for shits and giggles.

So the crux of your argument seems to be there is no justification for murder - no matter what. Please correct me if I am wrong.

So if that is your objection we have several things to consider. There are the many MANY times the bible tells of killing taking place in gods name.

Also consider the so called "Policeman's Dilemma". Policeman out and sees a car crash. The car busrsts into flames and ther is no way he can get near let alone rescue the person inside. Said person screams out as he burns asking the policeman to shoot him. So - is the policeman in the right to shoot that person?

Say yes and you are just cherry picking which murders you like.

Say no and it is true - to make a good person do wrong one simply need religion.

Everso

[McCulloch]

So the crux of your argument seems to be there is no justification for murder - no matter what. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If there were a legitimate justification then it would not be murder, but justifiable homicide. By definition, murder is not justified.

[Everso]

So the crux of your argument seems to be there is no justification for murder - no matter what. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If there were a legitimate justification then it would not be murder, but justifiable homicide. By definition, murder is not justified.

I see - so it is you that gets to decide what is justification and what is not is it? So you are not complaining about homicide - just that you and your code did not get to sanction it.

Everso

[realthinker]

So the crux of your argument seems to be there is no justification for murder - no matter what. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If there were a legitimate justification then it would not be murder, but justifiable homicide. By definition, murder is not justified.

I see - so it is you that gets to decide what is justification and what is not is it? So you are not complaining about homicide - just that you and your code did not get to sanction it.

Everso

There is no justification going on here. It's simple clarification of terms. Homicide is the causing of the death of a human. It's the recognition of the fact that one person caused the death of another, not a judgment of the propriety of that act. If homicide is determined to be murder it has been judged that the act was unjustified.

Until there is that judgment by an acceptable authority you have homicide, not murder.

[Everso]

OK

Just seen the post above about assuming it to be murder and therefore - by definition unjustifiable. Given this I will bow out as I do not agree with this and as stated - that is not the question up for debate.

Everso

[McCulloch]

Just seen the post above about assuming it to be murder and therefore - by definition unjustifiable. Given this I will bow out as I do not agree with this and as stated - that is not the question up for debate.

I deliberately used the word murder because it is the word often used by the foes of abortion. They say that it is murder, yet they are unwilling to face the consequences of their choice.

My message to those who would oppose the freedom of women to access abortion services: If you don't really believe that it is murder then stop being dishonest. There are way too many emotionally charged words being thrown about in this debate. You are not going to make headway with reasonable people if you constantly misrepresent your own position. If you really do think that it is murder, then advocate a position consistent with your claim.

[bobroonie]

If, if it was "murder" then yes they should be prosecuted.

But since they are not commuting "murder", they are not prosecuted as murderers.

[Prisoner of the Sun]

McCulloch wrote:

If abortion is murder, should the women seeking and getting abortions be prosecuted? What particular legal principle is being applied to excuse murder?



_________________
Note: for the purposes of this debate, assume that it has been shown that abortion is murder. This is not the place to debate whether this is true.[/quote]

Giving this question a logical bent:
If the above premise is true, then abortion is murder and both the woman procuring the procedure and the person performing it should be prosecuted.

I love these if...then scenarios. Easy to answer if the premises are assumed to be true. However, demonstrating that the premises are true...Ah, there lies the rub.

Tony.