Thursday, March 31, 2016

Abortion, Politics, Morals, Penalties

An Echo, Not a ‘Choice’ - WSJ:

There seems to be universal political agreement that even if Roe-V-Wade was overturned and states were allowed to protect the unborn, killing them should be a "victimless crime".

I'm CLEARLY not a politician  -- so that probably is the only "reasonable / non-crazy / winnable / etc" POLITICAL position. I'm surprised, but I'm surprised a LOT these days.

Morally though, it seems to me that taking the life of an unborn baby is either wrong or it isn't. If it is not wrong, then why would it ever be made illegal? If it IS made illegal, how did we get to the position that it is "politically insane" for there to be a penalty for breaking the law?

Let's say that Jamar Clark's (black man killed in scuffle for policeman gun in November up in Minneapolis) girlfriend decided that after probably being beaten many times, maybe with huge emotion, soul searching, reticence, etc that she was going to take matters in her own hands and kill the bastard.

Now depending on circumstance -- was he in the act of beating her, did she "fear for her life", etc, she may well get off with self-defense (and I'd be fine with that) ... however, if after a certain beating she just decide when she got up early to eviscerate him with a butcher knife, there would be a trial and a penalty. "Soul searching, thinking she had no options, etc notwithstanding.

I know I'm WAY out on a limb here -- even the WSJ asserts that "nobody holds the penalty position".

My question then is whether the battle for the unborn is not already lost then. Jamar Clark had a nasty criminal record, had beaten his girlfriend bad enough for EMTs to be called and was interfering with them forcing them to call police. This information was considered (as it should be) immaterial relative to his life being lost in a scuffle with police. He was "innocent until proven guilty". Had the officers been found to not have acted properly they would have been charged with some level of "manslaughter" -- or possibly even murder.

If a baby in it's mothers womb is NOT human life, then why regulate abortion at all? It can't be "killed" any more than your appendix can -- which is why pro-choice people hold the position that they do (at least the ones that care about morals).  No "tissue rights".

Is it possible for the pro-life position to have any moral standing but not deal with the question of there being a penalty for killing the unborn baby?

I can't see how.

 I don't say that the penalty for "first offence, especially underage, extenuating circumstance" has to be large, but we definitely live in a society where if an underage male is accused of ANY form of "sexual harassment", there is no compunction whatsoever for the system to identify them as a "sex offender" with a trail that may follow them for life.

I think Trump handled the question badly for sure, but I had never realized that the official position of the pro-life movement was that there could be no penalty for women getting an abortion if Roe V Wade was ever overturned.

Given that moral position, I can't imagine how it ever will be.

'via Blog this'

No comments:

Post a Comment