From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:19:04 GMT

In article <Bt3BDu.BvG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>In article <Bt37sz.9Ep@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>>Like I said before, it's very simple.  The conclusion follows logically from 
>>the premises.  While he hasn't insisted on the death penalty for those who have
>>abortions, consistency demands this conclusion.  You can't have it both ways:
>>claim that abortion is murder, demand that murderers be executed, and then 
>>"coddle" the murderer of unborn babies without being properly labeled a 
>>hypocrite.
>
>Mike, I think you are forgetting a few things.
>
>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.

This makes sense.

>
>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.

So does this ... well, the last sentence does at least.

>It is also true because the mother is often
>sedated in some way for the abortion. Therefore your argument has no
>logical foundation.

This is pure hogwash. Are you trying to say abortions are not
premeditated? On the basis that anesthesia is applied? How does that
change anything?

>Third, if the mother doesn't actually do the abortion herself (and they
>almost never do) that would also raise legal questions concerning her
>degree of culpability.  That is why some states have chosen to go after
>the abortionist rather than the mother.  The legal issues are more
>clear.  And the chance of conviction is greater.

I assume you're talking pre-1973. 

>As I think you can see from these three points there is no inconsistency
>in calling the act murder but not in seeking the death penalty for the
>mother.  Not that it is important to the argument but some people oppose
>BOTH abortion and the death penalty with equal vigor.
>
Basically, you're right -- Bush isn't obligated by consistency to call
for the death penalty for anyone (including his granddaughter) having an
abortion. He is obligated by consistency to consider them a criminal and
call for their prosecution and imprisonment for the crime. That is the
corner the media's questions forced Bush into: either admit he has zero
value of women (including his own granddaughter) and personify the monstrosity
of his policies, or duplicitously backpedal. Of course, he chose option B.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle