This country banned abortion and now, abortion promoters can’t believe their eyes!

[H. E. Panqui]

Some questions abortion prohibitionists rarely address: Somewhat precisely, What laws would you see enacted? What penalties for violation? (if it is 'murder' then it is first degree murder..?death penalty for 19 year olds?..what about 'accessories' to 1st degree murder?...family members, friends, etc. who knew about the 'murder' and didn't immediately report it to the proper abortion authorities?...

..oh what a wicked, stinking, gd fool web abortion prohibitionists weave...

 

[jmdrake]

Some questions abortion prohibitionists rarely address: Somewhat precisely, What laws would you see enacted? What penalties for violation? (if it is 'murder' then it is first degree murder..?death penalty for 19 year olds?..what about 'accessories' to 1st degree murder?...family members, friends, etc. who knew about the 'murder' and didn't immediately report it to the proper abortion authorities?...

..oh what a wicked, stinking, gd fool web abortion prohibitionists weave...

O what a silly straw man pro abortionist build by attempting to answer their own silly questions rather than simply asking them and by ignoring past and current abortion laws as a reference.

Look at Chile. You know, the example actually brought up in this thread? It is reported that women have shown up at the hospital with complications from abortions. Of course that was happening before the ban and at a higher rate, but that's beside the point. The is no evidence that these women are then charged with murder or any crime for that matter. The result of the current ban in Chile seems to be what the previous one was in the U.S. which is basically a regulatory one. A doctor found to have performed an abortion can lose his license. Most doctors would prefer to keep their medical license thank you very much. So the abortion industry, as an industry, can be regulated out of existence. Now will that stop some woman from sticking an iodine soaked rag up her vagina as osan suggested? Of course not. No law is 100% at stopping anything. And if your argument is "Well we should have no laws then", I can respect that. What I cannot respect is the stupid hypocrisy from your side that tries to treat abortion as some kind of special case. And I once engaged in that stupid hypocrisy myself. It isn't a special case.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

jmdrake becks: O what a silly straw man pro abortionist build by attempting to answer their own silly questions



'pro abortionist'...lol!..so i guess people who want drug prohibition ended are 'pro drugs'?!...

...maybe you should concern yourself with and be responsible for, sovereign, etc., over what goes on in YOUR womb...and keep your big government Republicrat nose out of others' wombs..

 

[euphemia]

To be quite honest, I would love to let someone's pregnancy be their business. However, the video very clearly says what I believe: Rights happen naturally and come with responsibility. If a couple engages in unprotected sex, they must be responsible for the consequences of that engagement.

Here's my point: When I look at the services on my government-forced, employer provided health plan, one of the services they provide is abortion. It's on my policy, so I pay into a pool so other women can have abortions. My doctors are not allowed to give me effective treatment for a severely arthritic knee, but other women can have abortions.

So other people and the government have made this my business. My dollars, paid for my own health care and maintenance, are being used to kill unborn babies.

Eight months out of the year I am in severe pain from (inherited) arthrits, but a young woman can end the consequences of her own choice without a single raised eyebrow.

Again, I would love for this to be none of my business. I gues pretty soon these same people will be paying into some sort of fund that pays me when I am no longer able to stand to do my job.

 

[osan]

Your entire stupid screed... STFU.

I must express my surprise at your tone. For someone who has shown some better than average smarts on so many topics, this hot-button issue appears to have knocked your sense of reason and your manners somewhere into left field, going for the boards. I do believe I was being quite civil, yet you come back at me with this. OK, if that makes you feel happy or vindicated, or what have you. But I will point out that it seems to me that you're angry with nothing more than the fact that I am not quite on the same page as you.

Get then plank out of your own undies "sir." Referring to a baby as a "thing" is an attempt by pro abortionists to lessen the emotional impact of calling "it" a baby.

I am neither a "pro abortionist", nor do I use any of their tactics. My choice of words was incidental, carrying no hidden purpose.

That's the same tactic used in warfare to justify killing the enemy, or in the case of modern warfare innocent civilians. Well call that "collateral damage" because it's less damaging to the collective psyche than to say "innocent women and children."

I will not speak for anyone but myself: this is not what I was doing, so now you have it from the horse's mouth. You can accept my word or you can call me a liar. Your choice.

Okay. Now you're just being stupid "sir". The claim is not made that the abortion ban caused the maternal mortality rate to go down. Rather it clearly did not cause it to go up. From the OP article.

From the OP:

Since Chile banned abortion in 1989, the number of maternal deaths decreased from 41.3 to 12.7 per 100,000 women (69.2% reduction).

Note that the author doesn't even have his own numbers correct. To wit:

Note that the graphed data places the mortality rate in 1989 ca. 12-13 per 100K and not 41.3. The year where that rate appears to have been about 41.3 was 1972, 17 years prior to the ban. All I am doing here is pointing out the glaring discrepancies between what the graph says and what the author writes. I will also note that it is not clear whether "maternal deaths" refers to those from abortion or the broader avenue. If not from abortion, then why does the article post the graph, above?

Prof. Elard Koch, a molecular epidemiologist and lead author of the study, says educating women enhanced their ability to access existing health care resources, and since those resources included skilled attendants for childbirth, that directly led to a reduction of maternal deaths during pregnancy and childbirth.

Your own quoted passage appears to credit something other than the ban for the decrease in mortality. Where does the quoted text refer to the ban as having affected the decrease?

Everybody attributes the declining maternal mortality rate to better access to health care resources. But even with that, if the "doom and gloom" predictions of the pro baby murder side were true the decrease in maternal mortality should have dropped off.

Depends on how you're defining "dropped off". If we are referring to the second derivative of the apparent curve, then it in fact did drop off ca. 2001, which is only to be expected, given that the graph from 1966 onward suggests a monotonically decreasing function. I'm pretty sure that is not what you meant, but then I cannot think of what else you may have intended.

I will point out that I did not say anywhere that a ban would cause deaths to increase. I simply pointed out the serious flaws in the article. Similarly, I modeled the logically extreme result of a ban instituted by those "serious" about it. I nowhere wrote that this WOULD happen. I did, however, state that to accept the limitation of a right, based on some phoney baloney justification such as "need", opens the door in principle to the disparagement of all other rights. Furthermore, I pointed to the long history of the human political proclivity of always expanding state powers based on those same nonsensical justifications. We have all stood witness to the destruction of much of our ability to live within the boundaries of our rights due to those bullshit justifications. Have you NOT witnessed this? Assuming you have, what would lead you to believe that this would not happen WRT as ban on abortion? If the goal of those in power is accrete more power, grabbing some via the application of "need" justifications to the enforcement of a ban seems in no way a far fetched possibility. On 9/10, who would have thought we would see PATRIOT, NDAA, and all the rest of that rot?

Prior to the drug war, who would have believed we would have cops stacked up outside people's homes, smashing in the doors and behaving atrociously?

Prior to the past several years, who would have envisioned police shooting people in the backs, while handcuffed, calling it "suicide", and getting away scott-free? Who would have envisioned police screaming "stop resisting" to a man lying unconscious on the road, as they beat him to death?

You call one's fears of enforcement policy gone wild, "gloom and doom". Consider the recent history of this nation and then reconsider your choice of words. Consider the less recent history of the first half of the 20th century and the hundreds of millions of people butchered by the train-load and then come back at us with "gloom and doom".

Believe what you want. It makes no difference to me. I was only trying to have an adult conversation. I was open to challenge and I always am. There was no reason for you to take this hostile tone. But as always, you are free to do as you please.

 

[muh_roads]

How is the poverty level doing during the same period? I'd expect an increase and an inverse relationship to the anti-abortion graph.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Some questions abortion prohibitionists rarely address: Somewhat precisely, What laws would you see enacted? What penalties for violation? (if it is 'murder' then it is first degree murder..?death penalty for 19 year olds?..what about 'accessories' to 1st degree murder?...family members, friends, etc. who knew about the 'murder' and didn't immediately report it to the proper abortion authorities?...

..oh what a wicked, stinking, gd fool web abortion prohibitionists weave...

Not sure that simply not reporting a murder would be criminal.

On principle, yes, I'd support executing anyone who murdered their child, unless there were mitigating factors like the woman didn't actually know what she was doing.

O what a silly straw man pro abortionist build by attempting to answer their own silly questions rather than simply asking them and by ignoring past and current abortion laws as a reference.

Look at Chile. You know, the example actually brought up in this thread? It is reported that women have shown up at the hospital with complications from abortions. Of course that was happening before the ban and at a higher rate, but that's beside the point. The is no evidence that these women are then charged with murder or any crime for that matter. The result of the current ban in Chile seems to be what the previous one was in the U.S. which is basically a regulatory one. A doctor found to have performed an abortion can lose his license. Most doctors would prefer to keep their medical license thank you very much. So the abortion industry, as an industry, can be regulated out of existence. Now will that stop some woman from sticking an iodine soaked rag up her vagina as osan suggested? Of course not. No law is 100% at stopping anything. And if your argument is "Well we should have no laws then", I can respect that. What I cannot respect is the stupid hypocrisy from your side that tries to treat abortion as some kind of special case. And I once engaged in that stupid hypocrisy myself. It isn't a special case.

What I don't get is WHY those women wouldn't be charged. We are like the anti-slavery movement of the 1860's, we're dealing with a blatantly criminal situation that many people do not see as such. No real middle ground here.

 

[jmdrake]

jmdrake becks: O what a silly straw man pro abortionist build by attempting to answer their own silly questions



'pro abortionist'...lol!..so i guess people who want drug prohibition ended are 'pro drugs'?!...

...maybe you should concern yourself with and be responsible for, sovereign, etc., over what goes on in YOUR womb...and keep your big government Republicrat nose out of others' wombs..

Got your panties in a bunch? You and your fellow "legalize murder" harpies seem blissfully ignorant of Chile's sovereignty. But I guess you want to push your own agenda in their country too. It's funny that neither you nor osan actually want to deal with the facts. Like the fact that the humanitarian disaster your side predicted never materialized. Or the fact that there is no country that has banned abortion that has followed it up with the draconian measures you fearmonger about either. No....it's just easier to build straw names and hurl insults at the other side, then feign indignation when any are hurled back. Speaking of sovereignty, with sovereignty comes responsibility. The United States has the sovereignty to decide who to let into this country for example. (Yes, despite claims by open border types to the contrary.) But once someone is let into this country that sovereignty turns into a responsibility not to arbitrarily kill that person. Apply the same sovereignty argument to abortion. A woman can use birth control. Even in a rape case there is the morning after pill. At some point, she should not have the "sovereignty" to arbitrarily kill the baby she has allowed to grow and develop in her. Killing a baby in the 8th month when there is never a medial justification to do so? Sorry, but that is a violation of the baby's "sovereignty."

 

[Christian Liberty]

To be quite honest, I would love to let someone's pregnancy be their business. However, the video very clearly says what I believe: Rights happen naturally and come with responsibility. If a couple engages in unprotected sex, they must be responsible for the consequences of that engagement.

Here's my point: When I look at the services on my government-forced, employer provided health plan, one of the services they provide is abortion. It's on my policy, so I pay into a pool so other women can have abortions. My doctors are not allowed to give me effective treatment for a severely arthritic knee, but other women can have abortions.

So other people and the government have made this my business. My dollars, paid for my own health care and maintenance, are being used to kill unborn babies.

Eight months out of the year I am in severe pain from (inherited) arthrits, but a young woman can end the consequences of her own choice without a single raised eyebrow.

Again, I would love for this to be none of my business. I gues pretty soon these same people will be paying into some sort of fund that pays me when I am no longer able to stand to do my job.

I know this is off topic, but if its eight months out of the year, is it climate related? Could moving to a different climate help?

jmdrake becks: O what a silly straw man pro abortionist build by attempting to answer their own silly questions



'pro abortionist'...lol!..so i guess people who want drug prohibition ended are 'pro drugs'?!...

...maybe you should concern yourself with and be responsible for, sovereign, etc., over what goes on in YOUR womb...and keep your big government Republicrat nose out of others' wombs..

Drugs are harmful to the user and indirectly affect other people, but do not "victimize" anyone per say. Thus, it makes perfect sense to oppose drugs and yet oppose drug laws.

Abortion is either a completely irrelevant surgery or an act of murder, depending on how you value the unborn child. Not sure how you can logically oppose abortion and yet oppose abortion laws. Either you should support abortion being punished as murder, or you should see abortion as morally irrelevant. But, I don't really get "in between" views on this.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Got your panties in a bunch? You and your fellow "legalize murder" harpies seem blissfully ignorant of Chile's sovereignty. But I guess you want to push your own agenda in their country too. It's funny that neither you nor osan actually want to deal with the facts. Like the fact that the humanitarian disaster your side predicted never materialized. Or the fact that there is no country that has banned abortion that has followed it up with the draconian measures you fearmonger about either. No....it's just easier to build straw names and hurl insults at the other side, then feign indignation when any are hurled back. Speaking of sovereignty, with sovereignty comes responsibility. The United States has the sovereignty to decide who to let into this country for example. (Yes, despite claims by open border types to the contrary.) But once someone is let into this country that sovereignty turns into a responsibility not to arbitrarily kill that person. Apply the same sovereignty argument to abortion. A woman can use birth control. Even in a rape case there is the morning after pill. At some point, she should not have the "sovereignty" to arbitrarily kill the baby she has allowed to grow and develop in her. Killing a baby in the 8th month when there is never a medial justification to do so? Sorry, but that is a violation of the baby's "sovereignty."

Why shouldn't a woman who does that be executed? Why the half measures?

 

[otherone]

I must express my surprise at your tone. For someone who has shown some better than average smarts on so many topics, this hot-button issue appears to have knocked your sense of reason and your manners somewhere into left field, going for the boards. I do believe I was being quite civil, yet you come back at me with this.

Some sacred cows are best left unmolested in their barn. Make sure you lock the door on your way out, lest some go full Jumanji on our collateral asses.

 

[jmdrake]

I must express my surprise at your tone. For someone who has shown some better than average smarts on so many topics, this hot-button issue appears to have knocked your sense of reason and your manners somewhere into left field, going for the boards. I do believe I was being quite civil, yet you come back at me with this. OK, if that makes you feel happy or vindicated, or what have you. But I will point out that it seems to me that you're angry with nothing more than the fact that I am not quite on the same page as you.

You set the tone in post #22. Go back and read it with new glasses before you try to lecture me on tone. Sorry but if I wade into an argument and I'm a general asshole to some other group (say Mitt Romney supporters for the sake of argument) I have no right to complain when some particular member responds to me in kind.

I am neither a "pro abortionist", nor do I use any of their tactics. My choice of words was incidental, carrying no hidden purpose.

So you say. I care not about your "hidden purpose". I do care about intellectual honesty and you've lacked that in this discussion. You make assumptions in your argument the complain about others making assumptions? Really?

I will not speak for anyone but myself: this is not what I was doing, so now you have it from the horse's mouth. You can accept my word or you can call me a liar. Your choice.

Okay. So you accept that the baby is a baby. Fine. And you are against any law to protect any innocent person. At least that's what I've gathered from your mouth. Whatever. You support a mother who will "ghost" someone trying to save her baby's life. Or (don't want to put words in your mouth) you think that's "funny." Since you don't support any law of government, and since you claim to love consistency, then if a mother is lining up her children against a way and is planning to shoot them and someone tries to stop her and she "ghosts them" that's "funny" too. Now, that's the logical conclusion I see from your argument. If I'm wrong, please explain. You admit (now anyway) that a baby in the womb is a baby but you don't think the government or anybody else should stop the mother from killing the baby. So....there's not logical reason any other child should be any different.

From the OP:

Ummmm....you realize that you did not prove your point right? No I guess not. Again THE CLAIM IS NOT THAT BANNING ABORTION MADE THE MATERNAL MORTALITY RATE GO DOWN!

Sorry to shout, but I'm not sure how else to make you understand this vital point. Just saying "Abortion was banned and the maternal mortality rate went down" is NOT the same as saying "The maternal rate went down because abortion was banned".

Note that the author doesn't even have his own numbers correct. To wit:

So? That doesn't change the facts that:

1) Abortion was banned.
2) The maternal mortality rate continued to go down.
3) The author never made the claim that banning abortion caused the maternal mortality rate to go down.

Your own quoted passage appears to credit something other than the ban for the decrease in mortality. Where does the quoted text refer to the ban as having affected the decrease?

THAT'S MY FREAKING POINT! Nobody has said the ban caused the decrease. But the ban did not cause an increase! I'm not angry at you. I'm exasperated! I hope you understand the difference.

One more time. One of the common arguments against abortion laws is that if they are reinstated more women will die as a result of botched abortions. But, in Chile at least, that fear did not bear out. In fact maternal mortality continued to go down. Jumping from that conclusion to one that "the abortion ban caused the abortion mortality rate to go down" is not a claim that the author or anyone else in this thread made. You are arguing against a straw man. You are beating a dead horse. You're running after a red herring. Raising a non sequitur. And any other applicable cliche' I can think of.

Depends on how you're defining "dropped off". If we are referring to the second derivative of the apparent curve, then it in fact did drop off ca. 2001, which is only to be expected, given that the graph from 1966 onward suggests a monotonically decreasing function. I'm pretty sure that is not what you meant, but then I cannot think of what else you may have intended.

The bottom line is, that despite the abortion ban, maternal mortality rates have continued to improve. That's it. That's all anybody can say from the data. I know that. You apparently know that. The author in the OP knows that. Okay he misread the graph, but his overall conclusion is correct. So....can we lay that argument to rest now? Or do you want to continue to pretend that there is a disagreement on this point?

I will point out that I did not say anywhere that a ban would cause deaths to increase.

And I will point out that nobody said you did say that. The point the article was making, which is an undeniable fact, is that some abortion defenders have made that argument. So....now data from Chile doesn't fit their hypothesis. That's it. Got it?

I simply pointed out the serious flaws in the article. Similarly, I modeled the logically extreme result of a ban instituted by those "serious" about it. I nowhere wrote that this WOULD happen.

Your definition of "serious" isn't "serious". It's "seriously" a joke. Again, by analogy if I applied your definition of "serious" to laws against child abuse then nobody is "serious" about protecting children from being raped and/or murdered because every possible precaution, including having cameras in everyone's home, hasn't been taken yet. If you want to pretend to be "serious" about your fake definition of "serious" than I "seriously" don't give a crap.

Assuming you have, what would lead you to believe that this would not happen WRT as ban on abortion?

The simple fact that a) it didn't happen in the U.S. before and b) it's not happening in countries that ban abortion now. Really, quit being a fearmonger and think this through. Chile has a history of fascism. And Chile has had an abortion ban now since 1989. Logic dictates that if abortion tyranny was a good use of a tyrannical state's resources, Chile would have moved in the hysterical direction you painted earlier. It hasn't. By contrast governments around the world are spying on people left and right, drone bombing citizens without trial, torturing people, indefinitely imprisoning people etc. In fact some of the worst OFFENDERS of human rights are the biggest DEFENDERS of abortion! I'm talking about Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and the whole lot of them. Seriously ask yourself, if an abortion ban is such a great and wonderful authoritarian tool, why aren't more authoritarians pushing for it? Why are the communist Chinese forcing abortion rather than banning it? World population reduction is a globalist's wet dream. Abortion helps with that. They have no more interest in banning abortion than the do in banning central banks.

 

[jmdrake]

Why shouldn't a woman who does that be executed? Why the half measures?

Does that bring the baby back?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Does that bring the baby back?

Are you against the death penalty for all murderers, or just abortionists?

Do you agree that the penalty for abortion should be the same as the penalty for murder?

 

[The Rebel Poet]

It isn't "government's" role to save us from ourselves.

No, but it is the government's role to protect us from others

Abortion is pretty rank shit, but I still defend the woman's right to choose.

Your rights end where someone else's begin. No one has the right to murder, because murder is not a right it is a wrong.

This is a very special case of conflict and one either has government's nose in the tent, or out. I want it out. ALL THE WAY OUT. That leaves women free to do a horrid thing. There are better ways of dealing with this without government interference. Once again people show just how rotten they are by expecting hired bully-boys to make manifest the "values" that others hold.

If you believe that this should be delt with, but don't believe the government should do it , who does? I disagree with your exceptionally narrow definition of "government." If I delt with something "without the government," I would simply be the government.

The meaner is too lazy, too bemused with their penises, and too chicken-shit to act on their supposedly "deeply-held" beliefs. Get the cops to do that which you don't have the courage or your convictions to make happen, often justifying with bullshit like "can't take the law into one's own hands".

Sorry, I didn't understand that sentence.

Personally, I'd find it hilarious to see that 5' 1", 88# woman shoot the ghost out of the person attempting to arrest her while walking into her doctor's office for an abortion.

Wow.

You pro-ban people need to zoom-out and get the broader view on this matter. There are several very fundamental issues at stake here and bans threaten them all.

Firstly, if you are going to be SERIOUS about a ban, you must and by necessity have your nose in the twats of every woman in the land. Why? Because if you are SERIOUS about preventing them from getting abortions, you have to have their scent in your nostrils in order to monitor when and whether they become pregnant.

No. You are throwing out a red herring. And a most absurd one at that. I assume that's a feeble attempt at humor or sarcasm, but It just makes you look dumb. The rest of your intellectual vomit is directly related only to this silly straw argument, but I am interested in one thing you said:

If a fundamental right can be rationalized away in this matter, then all others may also be turned to vapors, as well. The moment you strip away one fundamental right and it is accepted as valid, there stands nothing in the way of the removal of all rights because the core characteristic of what our rights are has then been reduced in status to something less than absolute. If a right is fundamental, it is sacrosanct. If one can wheedle people into accepting the "disproving" of the basic nature of one right, there is no other right that remains safe from such logic and you have sunk yourself, whether to be realized today or in 100 generations. The deed is done when the basic point is ceded; the only thing then standing between you and the destruction of that which remains, is the whim of the right people.

You are so right. Now, how can you not see that the right to your own life is the most fundamental right? If life is not a legally protected state of existence, then you have no rights.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

jmdrake becks: O what a silly straw man pro abortionist build by attempting to answer their own silly questions


'pro abortionist'...lol!..so i guess people who want drug prohibition ended are 'pro drugs'?!...

...maybe you should concern yourself with and be responsible for, sovereign, etc., over what goes on in YOUR womb...and keep your big government Republicrat nose out of others' wombs..

In the sense of being pro-other people being allowed to use drugs, yes. Like how opposing alcohol prohibition by its nature is a tacit approval of alcohol consumption.

 

[jmdrake]

Are you against the death penalty for all murderers, or just abortionists?

I'm against the death penalty in general but abortion is a special case. At least with murder if you kill the murderer he can't murder again. I suppose if you kill the mother she can't abort again, but the same is true if you forcibly sterilize her. While I wouldn't be in favor of that either, I hope you can see my point. I don't follow the retributive theory of crime and punishment where it's important to exact the "right amount of justice" (state revenge) on a condemned criminal. At the end of the day, my question is "What will lead to a better result?" In the case of abortion I think the desired result of drastically reduced abortions can be accomplished by shutting down the abortion mills. If some women in a post Roe v. Wade desires to follow osan's advice and stick an iodine soaked rag up her vagina, than I really feel sorry for her.

By the way, I don't think God necessarily goes for the retributive model either. He initially tried a more redemptive model for the first murderer, Cain. Then Tubalcain bragged about how he killed two men and that if Cain was to be avenged 7 times he should be avenged 7 times 7. (I think I've got that story right. It's in Genesis). It was after man made it clear that he was going to go on becoming more violent if left unchecked that God instituted the death penalty. But I don't see that as ever being His original plan.

Do you agree that the penalty for abortion should be the same as the penalty for murder?

No.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

By the way, I don't think God necessarily goes for the retributive model either. He initially tried a more redemptive model for the first murderer, Cain. Then Tubalcain bragged about how he killed two men and that if Cain was to be avenged 7 times he should be avenged 7 times 7. (I think I've got that story right. It's in Genesis). It was after man made it clear that he was going to go on becoming more violent if left unchecked that God instituted the death penalty. But I don't see that as ever being His original plan.

I don't see it that way. There were no witnesses to bring accusation against Cain. God knew that Able was killed because of the blood, but there is a proper way to deal with crime, and circumstantial evidence isn't right; there have to be at least two witnesses. Assuming that God is omniscient, and assuming that he would interject himself as a witness, Cain presumably wouldn't have testified against himself, so there was only one witness. And what did God do with Cain? He didn't do nothing, he sent Cain to live away from the rest of society. Cain was protected from being killed by vigilantes by being sent away from the rest of society. This redemptive model was also a part of the Mosaic Law. I think the usual way God deals with things is by having strict punishments for crimes, while making the act of punishment hard to get to. This provides some deterrent to crimes, while protecting the innocent from being sentenced easily. It also gives lawbreakers who were never caught a chance to change.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm against the death penalty in general but abortion is a special case. At least with murder if you kill the murderer he can't murder again. I suppose if you kill the mother she can't abort again, but the same is true if you forcibly sterilize her. While I wouldn't be in favor of that either, I hope you can see my point. I don't follow the retributive theory of crime and punishment where it's important to exact the "right amount of justice" (state revenge) on a condemned criminal. At the end of the day, my question is "What will lead to a better result?" In the case of abortion I think the desired result of drastically reduced abortions can be accomplished by shutting down the abortion mills. If some women in a post Roe v. Wade desires to follow osan's advice and stick an iodine soaked rag up her vagina, than I really feel sorry for her.

By the way, I don't think God necessarily goes for the retributive model either. He initially tried a more redemptive model for the first murderer, Cain. Then Tubalcain bragged about how he killed two men and that if Cain was to be avenged 7 times he should be avenged 7 times 7. (I think I've got that story right. It's in Genesis). It was after man made it clear that he was going to go on becoming more violent if left unchecked that God instituted the death penalty. But I don't see that as ever being His original plan.

I don't see how you can say God essentially "tried it one way and failed." Even from an Arminian standpoint, God knew what would happen. I don't know why God had mercy on Cain (and David) but he did. That's his right.

I don't really see it as "retributive" so much as just being consistent. If murder deserves X penalty than how is abortion different? I would submit that it isn't, and pretending that it is gives the pro-choice movement ammunition to use against us.

The death penalty is a separate question, mind you.

No.

This doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't see it that way. There were no witnesses to bring accusation against Cain. God knew that Able was killed because of the blood, but there is a proper way to deal with crime, and circumstantial evidence isn't right; there have to be at least two witnesses. Assuming that God is omniscient, and assuming that he would interject himself as a witness, Cain presumably wouldn't have testified against himself, so there was only one witness. And what did God do with Cain? He didn't do nothing, he sent Cain to live away from the rest of society. Cain was protected from being killed by vigilantes by being sent away from the rest of society. This redemptive model was also a part of the Mosaic Law. I think the usual way God deals with things is by having strict punishments for crimes, while making the act of punishment hard to get to. This provides some deterrent to crimes, while protecting the innocent from being sentenced easily. It also gives lawbreakers who were never caught a chance to change.

Except God, being God, is not limited to the Mosaic model requiring two witnesses. For one thing the Mosaic model didn't exist as Moses hadn't even been born yet. For another the Mosaic model was designed for fallible man to prevent against false accusations. God, being God, doesn't need to talk to any witnesses as He already knows what happened. And yes, the Mosaic law did include a redemptive portion. But prior to the flood there was no death penalty at all.