From: schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Bernard A Schnaufer)
Subject: Re: prolife, consistency, and the unborn
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:38:39 GMT

Charles Hessenius <CH8305A@auvm.american.edu> writes:

>     I need to have something explained to me (maybe I'm slow, I
>don't know).  There seems to be a glaring inconsistency in much of
>the prolife movement that can accept abortions in certain cases.
>This is incredibly illogical for a movement that professes to protect
>the rights of the unborn.  First, if ALL unborn are worth protecting,
>and have civil liberties, then ALL abortion MUST be illegal in ALL
>cases (rape, incest, life of mother, etc).  The reasoning is simple.
>If people in the prolife movement believe that abortions are "okay" in
>some instances (like the above), then they are creating a caste system
>among the unborn they profess to protect.  Those "unborn babies" who
>are the product of rape or incest do not have the same civil liberties
>as those who are the products of, say, "accidents".
>     This seems to be a glaring inconsistency in the "mainstream" of the
>prolife movement.  Can anyone explain it to me?

Agreed, this is a glaring inconsistency, and as someone who is pro-life, I 
can't for the life of me explain it.  I agree that the only consistent pro-life
position is that ALL abortions should be illegal, and this is the position I
hold.  (The only possible exception is something like an ectopic pregnancy 
where both the mother and subsequently the child will die if something is not
done.  These cases are very unfortunate and fairly rare, although they are
becoming more common with increased contraceptive use.)


>     Second, if the unborn has civil liberties that must be protected,
>then that means that legally, they should be entitled to the same
>retribution that anyone has who is "murdered".  That is, the only
>logical position for the prolife movement to make is that abortion IS
>indeed murder, and the penalty for performing one should be whatever a
>state deems appropriate for first degree murder (and, of course, the
>pregnant woman must be tried as complicit).  Again, I need to have someone
>explain to me why this would not be logical.

I agree with the logic here, but I would like to make a comment or two.  As
with any murder case, the severity of the charge depends on extenuating cir-
cumstances such as motive and intent.  The problem with abortion is that today
we're at a point where the doctors that perform them don't think it's murder
and most of the women that have them don't think it's murder either.  The ones
that might have thought so are easily able to block out those thoughts because
the people that recommend her to have one keep telling her it's nothing.  For
these people the fact that it is murder is beside the point because they don't
see it.  If abortion were to become illegal, a just punishment would be diffi-
cult to come up with.  I think the best you could do would be to make it
unintentional homicide, which I believe is manslaughter.  The name of this
crime seems to be quite descriptive of what is going on in our country everyday.

		-B Schnaufer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion