I listened to the Podcast. The reason you all will not answer the question of punishment is because you DON'T really believe abortion is murder. If you believe that abortion is murder (unjust killing) you should be prepared to give an answer. In society murder is punishable by a death penalty or life in prison or at the very least a very long prison sentence (20-30) years. Your non-answer tells me you don't really believe abortion is unjust killing since you cannot prescribe a punishment. I find interesting that you find abortion to be a black/white issue, but you find the punishment to NOT be so black and white that is not being consistent in my opinion.
There are generally different degrees of homicide, and the punishment is related to culpability among other things. Even between the 50 states the punishment varies quite a bit. And that's before you deal with courts and judges, which also have a major impact on what kind of sentence someone gets. Obviously the question of punishment is not as black and white as the idea that unjust killing should be against the law. Given that you actually listened to the podcast, what did you think of the examples they presented? Why does wanting something to be against the law obligate me to prescribe a specific punishment? Do you have a specific punishment in mind for everything you think should be illegal?
"Do you have a specific punishment in mind for everything you think should be illegal?" What is the point of making something illegal if their is no punishment or consequences? what good is it for something to be illegal if is not enforced? I say if you cannot enforce the law then don't make the law. Pro-lifers know deep down that abortion is NOT murder that is why they hesitate to prescribe a punishment, because in reality they don't believe in punishing women for exercising their right to refuse to gestate a pregnancy. They know in their gut that women should NOT be punished that is why they won't answer, i see through the pro-life's double speak, they don't really believe what they say they believe. If you ask my what i think the punishment be for rape, i will tell you straight out the punishment should be they themselves be raped or castration, i don't hesitate to prescribe a punishment. The real reason for this dancing around the issue of enforcement and punishment is because pro-lifers know abortion is NOT murder and that women should NOT be prosecuted.
It's hard to tell from the five minute excerpt linked above, but the full version of the ERI podcast makes it clear that never punishing the woman at all is not ERI's position. I can agree that not punishing the woman at all is not consistent with the pro-life stance that abortion is murder, and I don't think the two can be reconciled. I do understand that most pro-life groups oppose punishing the woman, and that's confusing for you. But it's unfair to say that they don't really think abortion is murder. I think this quote from Steve Wagner says it well: "What complicates this whole discussion of punishment is an implicit equivocation on the term “should.” How should they be punished in an “ideal” legal world? Or, how should they be punished in the real legal world, taking into account things like a transitional period between the current situation to the “ideal” one? I think sometimes when the question is asked, the pro-life person doesn’t want to answer the “ideal” legal world version of the question because it sounds harsh in the present real legal world (“Abortion is not much more than a surgery”). The purpose of my posts above was partly to clarify that we shouldn’t shy away from what we think the “ideal” would be (killing the unborn would be treated like the killing of already-born children), but we should also recognize that putting the “ideal” in place is complicated pragmatically, socially, and politically. So, while we need to give a clear answer to the “ideal” question (if we shy away we appear to be inconsistent in our view that the unborn is a human being), we also need to clarify that actually putting that “ideal” legal world in place may be much more complicated even than making abortion illegal is. And we all know how difficult making abortion illegal is."
i am actually pro-choice, i don't believe in making abortion illegal or punishing women at all. I find the idea of punishing a woman for refusing to gestate a pregnancy quite repugnant. It reduces us to 2nd class citizens, women should not lose their rights to their bodies because of pregnancy.
I don't know of any pro-life advocate that thinks there should be no punishment or consequences at all. Everyone supports at least punishing the abortionist, as reflected in state laws and the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. And it's hard to tell from the five minute excerpt linked above, but the full version of the ERI podcast makes it clear that never punishing the woman at all is not ERI's position. If you ask my what i think the punishment be for rape, i will tell you straight out the punishment should be they themselves be raped or castration, i don't hesitate to prescribe a punishment. What about attempted rape? Less severe forms of sexual assault, like groping and whatever Roy Moore did? How about a more controversial one, 'revenge' porn? Impaired driving? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find two states with the same penalties for all of these things. And again, that's before you deal with courts and judges. Even the definition of rape isn't the same everywhere. Sometimes the age of consent is 14, sometimes it's 16, sometimes it's 18, sometimes it's different for homosexual vs heterosexual sex, sometimes there's a "close in age" exception (that is, sex between a 40 year-old and a 17 year-old would automatically be rape, but sex between an 18 year-old and a 17 year-old wouldn't be). The word "rape" isn't even in the Criminal Code of Canada (rather it falls under the wider category of sexual assault).
I don't know of any pro-life advocate that thinks there should no punishment. Everyone, at least, favours punishing the abortionist. And, while it's hard to tell from the five minute excerpt linked above, the full version of the ERI podcast makes it clear that never punishing the woman at all is not ERI's position. I do understand that most pro-life groups are against punishing the woman, and I can see why you would find that confusing or inconsistent. However I don't think the "real reason" is that they don't think abortion is murder. I think Steve Wagner of Justice for All says it well:
What complicates this whole discussion of punishment is an implicit equivocation on the term “should.” How should they be punished in an “ideal” legal world? Or, how should they be punished in the real legal world, taking into account things like a transitional period between the current situation to the “ideal” one? I think sometimes when the question is asked, the pro-life person doesn’t want to answer the “ideal” legal world version of the question because it sounds harsh in the present real legal world (“Abortion is not much more than a surgery”). The purpose of my posts above was partly to clarify that we shouldn’t shy away from what we think the “ideal” would be (killing the unborn would be treated like the killing of already-born children), but we should also recognize that putting the “ideal” in place is complicated pragmatically, socially, and politically. So, while we need to give a clear answer to the “ideal” question (if we shy away we appear to be inconsistent in our view that the unborn is a human being), we also need to clarify that actually putting that “ideal” legal world in place may be much more complicated even than making abortion illegal is. And we all know how difficult making abortion illegal is.
If you ask my what i think the punishment be for rape, i will tell you straight out the punishment should be they themselves be raped or castration, i don't hesitate to prescribe a punishment. What about for other forms of sexual assault, like groping or whatever Roy Moore ended up doing? What about attempted rape? Or maybe a more controversial one, "revenge" porn? How about impaired driving? I doubt any two states would have the exact same penalties for all of these crimes, and again that's before you deal with courts and judges. Even the definition of rape isn't the same everywhere, much less the penalty. Sometimes the age of consent is 14, sometimes it's 16, sometimes it's 18, sometimes it's different for homosexual vs. heterosexual sex, sometimes there's a "close in age" exception (for example it would automatically be rape for a 50 year-old to have sex with a 17 year-old, but not for an 18-year old to have sex with a 17 year-old). The word "rape" isn't even in the Criminal Code of Canada (rather, it falls under the broader crime of "sexual assault").
Your non-answer tells me you don't really believe abortion is unjust killing since you cannot prescribe a punishment.
I find interesting that you find abortion to be a black/white issue, but you find the punishment to NOT be so black and white that is not being consistent in my opinion.
Given that you actually listened to the podcast, what did you think of the examples they presented? Why does wanting something to be against the law obligate me to prescribe a specific punishment? Do you have a specific punishment in mind for everything you think should be illegal?
What is the point of making something illegal if their is no punishment or consequences? what good is it for something to be illegal if is not enforced? I say if you cannot enforce the law then don't make the law.
Pro-lifers know deep down that abortion is NOT murder that is why they hesitate to prescribe a punishment, because in reality they don't believe in punishing women for exercising their right to refuse to gestate a pregnancy.
They know in their gut that women should NOT be punished that is why they won't answer, i see through the pro-life's double speak, they don't really believe what they say they believe.
If you ask my what i think the punishment be for rape, i will tell you straight out the punishment should be they themselves be raped or castration, i don't hesitate to prescribe a punishment.
The real reason for this dancing around the issue of enforcement and punishment is because pro-lifers know abortion is NOT murder and that women should NOT be prosecuted.
I can agree that not punishing the woman at all is not consistent with the pro-life stance that abortion is murder, and I don't think the two can be reconciled. I do understand that most pro-life groups oppose punishing the woman, and that's confusing for you. But it's unfair to say that they don't really think abortion is murder. I think this quote from Steve Wagner says it well:
"What complicates this whole discussion of punishment is an implicit equivocation on the term “should.” How should they be punished in an “ideal” legal world? Or, how should they be punished in the real legal world, taking into account things like a transitional period between the current situation to the “ideal” one?
I think sometimes when the question is asked, the pro-life person doesn’t want to answer the “ideal” legal world version of the question because it sounds harsh in the present real legal world (“Abortion is not much more than a surgery”). The purpose of my posts above was partly to clarify that we shouldn’t shy away from what we think the “ideal” would be (killing the unborn would be treated like the killing of already-born children), but we should also recognize that putting the “ideal” in place is complicated pragmatically, socially, and politically. So, while we need to give a clear answer to the “ideal” question (if we shy away we appear to be inconsistent in our view that the unborn is a human being), we also need to clarify that actually putting that “ideal” legal world in place may be much more complicated even than making abortion illegal is. And we all know how difficult
making abortion illegal is."
I find the idea of punishing a woman for refusing to gestate a pregnancy quite repugnant. It reduces us to 2nd class citizens, women should not lose their rights to their bodies because of pregnancy.
If you ask my what i think the punishment be for rape, i will tell
you straight out the punishment should be they themselves be raped or
castration, i don't hesitate to prescribe a punishment.
What about attempted rape? Less severe forms of sexual assault, like groping and whatever Roy Moore did? How about a more controversial one, 'revenge' porn? Impaired driving? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find two states with the same penalties for all of these things. And again, that's before you deal with courts and judges. Even the definition of rape isn't the same everywhere. Sometimes the age of consent is 14, sometimes it's 16, sometimes it's 18, sometimes it's different for homosexual vs heterosexual sex, sometimes there's a "close in age" exception (that is, sex between a 40 year-old and a 17 year-old would automatically be rape, but sex between an 18 year-old and a 17 year-old wouldn't be). The word "rape" isn't even in the Criminal Code of Canada (rather it falls under the wider category of sexual assault).
I do understand that most pro-life groups are against punishing the woman, and I can see why you would find that confusing or inconsistent. However I don't think the "real reason" is that they don't think abortion is murder. I think Steve Wagner of Justice for All says it well: What complicates this whole discussion of punishment is an implicit
equivocation on the term “should.” How should they be punished in an “ideal” legal world? Or, how should they be punished in the real legal world, taking into account things like a transitional period between the current situation to the “ideal” one?
I think sometimes when the question is asked, the pro-life person doesn’t want to answer the “ideal” legal world version of the question because it sounds harsh in the present real legal world (“Abortion is not much more than a surgery”). The purpose of my posts above was partly to clarify that we shouldn’t shy away from what we think the “ideal” would be (killing the unborn would be treated like the killing of already-born children), but we should also recognize that putting the “ideal” in place is complicated pragmatically, socially, and politically. So, while we need to give a clear answer to the “ideal” question (if we shy away we appear to be inconsistent in our view that the unborn is a human being), we also need to clarify that actually putting that “ideal” legal world in place may be much more complicated even than making abortion illegal is. And we all know how difficult
making abortion illegal is. If you ask my what i think the punishment be for rape, i will tell you straight out the punishment should be they themselves be raped or castration, i don't hesitate to prescribe a punishment.
What about for other forms of sexual assault, like groping or whatever Roy Moore ended up doing? What about attempted rape? Or maybe a more controversial one, "revenge" porn? How about impaired driving? I doubt any two states would have the exact same penalties for all of these crimes, and again that's before you deal with courts and judges. Even the definition of rape isn't the same everywhere, much less the penalty. Sometimes the age of consent is 14, sometimes it's 16, sometimes it's 18, sometimes it's different for homosexual vs. heterosexual sex, sometimes there's a "close in age" exception (for example it would automatically be rape for a 50 year-old to have sex with a 17 year-old, but not for an 18-year old to have sex with a 17 year-old). The word "rape" isn't even in the Criminal Code of Canada (rather, it falls under the broader crime of "sexual assault").