From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:32:50 GMT

In article <l8thp4INNa84@alcor.usc.edu> rone@alcor.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>>First, only first degree murder is punishable by death and this is only
>>true in some states (and in very specific instances in some states e.g.,
>>for killing a policeman in the commission of another felony -- NY at
>>least when I lived there).  Therefore one can certainly call someone a
>>murderer (even in the first degree) without calling for their death.
>>Many do.  If one were to follow your logic then a state like NY which
>>allows the death penalty only in specific cases is a state filled with
>>hypocrites (or at least hypocritical lawmakers) because some people are
>>murderers and they are not subject to the death penalty.  The main point
>>is that our society views different types of murder differently.
>
>That's not the issue, Tim.  The issue is, if you support the death penalty,
>regardless of what state you may be in, then you must enforce it equally upon
>all murderers.  Quite simple, eh?

You are quite right it is simple.  All murderers are not treated
equally.  Notice that in cases of the death penalty we are talking about
only first degree murder and I think I made my case that there is ample
reason to assume mitigating circumstances in the mother's favor in cases
of abortion.  I won't reiterate them.  Second, there as far as I know
there is no Federal law that allows the death penalty for first degree
murder except, perhaps, under special circumstances.  Third, I see no
reason that one must be both pro-choice and anti-death penalty or
pro-life and pro-death penalty.


>>Second, it would be hard to prove first degree murder because one could >>always
argue that the state of mind of the mother did not let her >>understand
that her action is murder.  This is especially true when the >>act is
currently legal.  It is also true because the mother is often >>sedated
in some way for the abortion. Therefore your argument has no >>logical
foundation.

>So what if it's legal?  It IS murder, according to right2lifers.
>Therefore, if R2L's believe in the death penalty, they should call it
> upon all murderers.  Besides, how can it NOT be first degree?  Isn't
>the mother PLANNING to have an abortion?

This is silly.  Many circumstances are taken into consideration when
DA's, judges. and juries make a determination regarding the degree of
culpability. 

>The mother still should have at the very least an accomplice role.
>After all, she's asking the actual "hitman" (the doctor) to carry out
>the "hit".  Didn't they get Gotti for murder even though he didn't
>actually committed them?  I'mnot sure, but i'm sure that wouldn't be
>the only case.  Also the "cheer-leader mom", etc.

Well you have to answer for yourself and your own logic.  Is she a
murderer or an accomplice.  The law treats them differently.  That is
exactly the point I was making.

>> Not that it is important to the argument but some people oppose BOTH
abortion and the death penalty with equal vigor.

>Very few, you'll notice.

Perhaps, but I am aware of several personally.  I actually believe there
are millions.  But to carry your argument to its logical conclusion.
Pro-lifers should be for the death penalty then should pro-choicers be
anti-death penalty?  How is one consistent and the other inconsistent?

The reality is we treat them as separate (for the most part) issues that
both deal with life and death.
>  Besides, to repeat an oft-repeated phrase,
> it's not >pro-abortion, it's pro-choice.  

Did I use pro-abortion?  If I did I apologize.  


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush