Sadly, the “Jennifer Rubin Praises Santorum” phase of the primary has passed. I’m generally skeptical of Santorum (and Romney for that matter) but Rubin’s latest distortion is an affront to pro-lifers of all stripes. She takes issue with his contention that, in a regime where abortion was illegal, abortion doctors would have to be criminally liable. Here’s Santorum:
Just so you know, if it’s against the law, yes they should be criminally prosecuted, because then it’s against the law and the country would have made a decision that it’s against the law. And I would suggest that once we — if we make it against the law that there should be penalties, otherwise if there’s a law when there’s not an enforcement of the law, it’s not much of a law, is it?
Rubin finds this, apparently, outrageous. She writes:
As for his comments on prosecuting abortion doctors, this would, I assume, concern the death penalty in states that impose capital punishment for murder. After all, it would be contrary to his views (that unborn children are people under the Constitution) to decide for criminal law purposes that an unborn child is any less a person, and deserving of less protection, than any other person.
Moreover, if Santorum is going to prosecute doctors for murder there is no logical reason to exempt women from prosecution for conspiracy to murder, right? If she conspired with a doctor to kill a live child, she would not be spared (“otherwise if there’s a law when there’s not an enforcement of the law”). So what exactly is the rationale — that it would be too outrageous to articulate this legal predicament? Well, that’s where his reasoning leads us.
This is obviously wrong and possibly deliberately misleading. State laws make distinctions between homicides of different types, without declaring any person “less deserving of protection”. In fact, the murder/manslaughter/involuntary manslaughter divide has nothing to do with the moral worth of the person killed. It generally has to do with the mental state of the person committing the act. I.e, what it is they think they’re doing? If abortionists and women who have abortions do not believe they’re ending a human life, then there are coherent reasons, grounded in our current law, to make abortion a criminal act with significantly lesser penalties than murder. Homicide, yes, but perhaps homicide on par with manslaughter (it’s not inconceivable that a regime of illegal abortion would result in an entirely new category of homicide). Bringing up the death penalty when, at least in this quote, Santorum has not mentioned it, is both a non-sequitur and a straw-man.
Next, Jennifer Rubin- who, it goes without saying, is not a social conservative of any type and has no connection to the movement- apparently claims to speak for all “non-hardcore social conservatives”. She writes:
Santorum likes to say that he is principled, but in fact he’s vividly demonstrating day after day that his strongly held social views, when uttered aloud in dogmatic tones, sound outrageous to voters who aren’t hard-core social conservatives.
After all, why does he even need to comment on this issue? Abortion is currently legal, and if the Supreme Court were to reverse itself and if states characterized abortion as murder and if doctors were to be prosecuted, this still would be a state matter. So Santorum makes a distant hypothetical into a comment that makes even pro-life voters wince. This, in a nutshell, is his problem. Ironically, he is the worst possible spokesman for social conservative views that are within the mainstream because he intersperses them with stances that make him sound extreme.
Again, Santorum’s suggestion- that in a world of illegal abortion there must be penalties for breaking the law- is perfectly sensible and not outrageous at all. The 40% to 55% of the population that identifies as pro-life would have to, as Santorum notes, agree with this basic premise, even if they disagreed amongst themselves about the ideal penalties. This only becomes outrageous if, like Rubin, you’re a social liberal or if, like Rubin, you’re determined to distort the arguments of candidates you dislike. Nor is it clear why she thinks Santorum shouldn’t have commented here. It’s true this will, ultimately, be a state issue (the penalties involved, at any rate). But Santorum has not suggested otherwise. If Rubin had bothered to read the article she’d linked to, she’d realize that Santorum was simply answering a question, not volunteering his opinion apropos of nothing. Is this not allowed? I recall Fred Thompson and Tim Pawlenty answering similar questions. There’s nothing unusual in such responses even if, ultimately, these men won’t be making the decision.
February 19th, 2012 at 11:13 am
Rubin is basically a surrogate for the Romney campaign. Throughout the primary, she has taken turns attacking the candidate who is closest to Romney in the polls.
February 19th, 2012 at 11:14 am
MEM,
Part and particle of the new meme that the Romney surrogates are now trying to establish that Santorum is unfit for office.
Rubin has gone full blown surrogate in this cycle.
February 19th, 2012 at 11:18 am
1,2
Complain about Rubin all you want, but the fact is, all of the pundits and commentators on Fox News have been anti-Romney all cycle. And so has every single relevant person on talk radio.
February 19th, 2012 at 11:18 am
Oh, and the entire liberal media as well.
February 19th, 2012 at 11:20 am
80% of population says that abortion should be allowed in case of rape or incest.
Jumping on board with the personhood movement is the greatest abortion related problem Santorum has. In Missisippi, 13th most GOP friendly state in last presidential election, personhood amendment was voted down by 55% of the electorate, the more GOP friendly states in 2008 were just 70 of electoral votes. In 2008 even in conservative states with closed primary, the abortion always legal/mostly legal were 20% of primary vote, many mostly pro-choicer people can put up with “abortion only in case of mother’s life, incest, rape” candidate, but “abortion only in case of mother’s life” is too much for them.
February 19th, 2012 at 11:24 am
Smack,
I’ve always thought Rubin didn’t like Romney much. She was a big booster of all the various draft movements. Draft Daniels, Draft Christie, and especially Draft Ryan. I thought she just supported Romney because the various FOTM were total washouts. And her attitude towards Santorum, until about 2 weeks ago, tended to support that hypothesis. But it’s pretty clear now that the warm words she had for Santorum were mostly designed to make Newt look bad in comparison. She may prefer any number of candidates who aren’t in the race, but she is, indeed, a Romney supporter right now.
February 19th, 2012 at 11:32 am
MEM,
TEAM Mitt camp needs to focuse on one negative message about Santorum in the next 9 days. I think it should be the message Massachusetts Conservative came up with a few days ago.
Santorum = “business as usual”
…and we don’t need business as usual anymore.
But they are mixing up there negative messages from “Big Spender”….”Social Con nut job”……”pro-union”……”No executive experience”….
Team Mitt needs to stick to one message when it comes to driving up Rick’s UNFAVS.
February 19th, 2012 at 11:39 am
8. Huge LIKE
February 19th, 2012 at 11:41 am
Rubin is a shill — I’ve never taken her opinions very seriously. But she’s right that Santorum needs to learn to keep his mouth shut and to decline to answer questions that are asked for the purpose of eliciting disqualifying answers (though it’s too late for him to learn this, considering the number of such statements he has made throughout his career).
February 19th, 2012 at 11:44 am
Nice to have ONE press person on the right side.
February 19th, 2012 at 11:45 am
Smack,
Yeah. They were pretty focused with Gingrich. It was alternately “this man is unbalanced” and “this man is corrupt”. Those messages didn’t conflict with each other, they were simple, and they hit his core vulnerabilities. I don’t really know what Team Romney is after right now. I think the “crazy so-con” message is probably likely to be the most effective but it’s a bit of dirty pool from my perspective. I think it’s bad news when Republicans go after each other from the left in a primary. I was against it when Newt launched the Bain attacks, I’m against it now. With a caveat. I think attacks like this are OK, provided they’re not launched directly by the candidate or his campaign. If they’re just leaking stuff and quietly pushing stories, that’s within bounds.
February 19th, 2012 at 11:48 am
People in the pro-life movement are their own worst enemies.
Want to know how to completely undermine the pro-life movement? Push for laws that won’t even allow impregnated rape victims an exemption.
Another really good way to undermine support? Talk about charging doctors that perform these procedures for murder.
If the goal of the pro-life crowd is to really reduce the number of abortions (which is a worthy goal) they need to figure out how to cobble together a winning coalition of support.
Santorum is the type of pro-life Presidential candidate that will instantly make the nation overwhelmingly pro-choice.
February 19th, 2012 at 11:48 am
Some of the funniest stuff on Twitter comes from:
@FakeJenRubin
you guys should really follow her for a laugh.
February 19th, 2012 at 11:55 am
13. “Want to know how to completely undermine the pro-life movement? Push for laws that won’t even allow impregnated rape victims an exemption.”
No one is…but it’s always a question thrown by the media to paint us as extremists.
“Another really good way to undermine support? Talk about charging doctors that perform these procedures for murder.”
Again, no one is.
In the quote from Santorum he never mentions murder. The question was, if it’s outlawed would there be consequences…well duh. Are there consequences to breaking the speeding laws? Again, this is twisted to try to paint pro-lifer’s as extremists, when the extreme position is abortion should be legal, cheap, and easy for everyone.
February 19th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Common Cents,
Hey, would you point to where Santorum, in that quote, wants to charge abortion doctors with murder? Thanks. I see that Santorum wants to impose penalties on them. If I steal a stick of gum, I will have “penalties” imposed upon me. I will not, however, be charged with murder. I’m very curious, though, on how “pro-life” Romney supporters propose to deal with abortion once it’s made illegal. Will it be the first illegal act in the history of mankind to have no penalties? If you want no penalties, for anyone involved, then you do not want abortion to be illegal. Which is fine. Lots of people are pro-choice. But admit it and stop pretending you’re speaking from the “reasonable pro-life wing”. You’re not. You’re speaking from the “pro-choice but too uncomfortable to come out of the closet” wing of the party. The rape exception is a different story. Santorum’s position here is fairly out of the mainstream. But attempting to conflate the two is simply dishonest.
February 19th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Fellow Romney supporters,
Those of you who keep attacking Santorum for being ardently pro-life are REALLY, REALLY damaging our cause and embarassing yourselves and me.
Can we stick to actually HURTING him among Conservatives? You know, voting to raise the debt ceiling 5 times, voting to increase congressional pay, preaching the gospel of earmarks, opposing the notion that we ought to be left alone to live our lives, and his proclamation that he’s not a “deficit hawk?”
Thanks.
February 19th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
15.
Actually, Santorum has specifically said there should be no abortion exceptions for rape victims.
Regarding the doctor situation, I think it’s clear he’s hinting that abortion providers will be charged with severe penalties more akin to manslaughter charges than say if a doctor violated other medical laws.
Look, I think abortion is immoral and think the doctors that perform them are monsters, but if there is a right way and a wrong way to tackle these sensitive issues. The Santorum way is going to cause blow back that just doesn’t move the ball forward.
February 19th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
I’ll note that there are pro-lifers that want to make the death penalty available for abortion doctors. Santorum may be one of these people. I’ve done no research on the question. But nothing in this quote suggests he is. He’s expressing the only coherent position for a pro-lifer.
Oh, and I’ve been meaning to mention something for awhile but avoided doing so because I didn’t want to damage Pawlenty’s presidential campaign. Well, Pawlenty no longer has a presidential campaign so I feel safe mentioning it. A few years ago, Pawlenty WAS asked this exact same question and he said something like “of course no one’s talking about punishing abortion doctors” and seemed genuinely baffled that he’d just expressed a pro-choice position. I sent a Pawlenty senior an email about it (thinking it would be dredged up in a Republican primary) and I never heard that formulation again. But it does highlight the extent to which even some smart people who think they’re pro-life don’t quite understand what the position entails. Ideally, we wouldn’t be running a so-con warrior who was so open on every social issue that he made fake pro-lifers reassess their position. But let’s not pretend. In order to be pro-life you need to want abortion (with or without exceptions) to be illegal. And any illegal action comes with a penalty attached.
February 19th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Gingrich, Perry and Santorum each converted to “no rape or incest exception” for this year’s elections, being a full personhooder is good for Iowa caucuses.
February 19th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Each of them have made it fully clear that they are against rape or incest exception.
February 19th, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Common Cents,
“Actually, Santorum has specifically said there should be no abortion exceptions for rape victims.”
Yes he has. This is not a mainstream position. As I admitted.
“Regarding the doctor situation, I think it’s clear he’s hinting that abortion providers will be charged with severe penalties more akin to manslaughter charges than say if a doctor violated other medical laws.”
I think it’s not clear at all. I think it’s clear to you because you dislike Santorum. The actual substance of his statement has almost no hints at all. If anything, the word “penalties” is exceedingly mild. Imagine this statement. “Well, yes of course, if we find out X has murdered Y, there will need to be penalties”. Does that sound odd? How about this “Well yes, of course, if we find out X has raped Y, there will need to be penalties”. Does this sound askew to you? You are reading something into his statement which isn’t there.
February 19th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
20 Were you searching for “gay photos” when you found this? Yes, Romney is tolerant of all people including teavangelicals and gays.
February 19th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Rape and incest make up less than 1% of abortions performed…this is a left wing attack to paint the movement as extremist.
If you hold a view based on strong moral convictions, they will try to find the most heart wrenching example to try and paint us as heartless.
this is such a bullsh*t narrative, and only comes up due to the questions asked by those who wish to defeat the movement.
When confronted I am sure men of moral conviction might say there should be no exceptions, staying consistent with their moral beliefs, but the question itself is posed just to damage us.
No one is advertising or campaigning on throwing abortionists in jail or forcing rape victims to give birth to a resulting pregnancy. It’s not even remotely relevant to the issue.
When will you moderates quit looking through the wrong end of the telescope? This is what liberals do.
The whole rape/incest thing is a red herring to damage the pro-life movement. Some of you are so easily deluded.
February 19th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
I dont think Rubin is off at all….AND, i think those assumptions should be the case. If/when abortion i is made illegal then anyone performing an abortion is committing murder. The death penalty would be quite a deterrant imho.
February 19th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
This whole discussion is just plain distracting and the more we (on the right) talk about it, the more Obama moves up in the polls.
Again, we’ve taken the bait from the left. They cannot talk about their record at home or abroad. So, the (quite brilliantly) get us to argue amongst ourselves about an issue that has NO bearing on the general election).
Santorum did the right thing with Charlie Rose, but is still out there talking about it. It’s good short term tactics but terrible long term winning strategy.
February 19th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
How about installing a mobile friendly theme?
February 19th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
18. that is the single smartest post you have EVER made.
February 19th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
27
I actually agree. We can’t retroactively execute abortion providers. But once the law is the law, and an elective abortion is performed, it would be murder, and therefore, subject to murder penalties under the law.
Do independents and swing voters in Florida, Ohio, and Nevada want to hear this?
No.
Therefore, do I want a candidate who even brings up this issue either explicitly or by his mere presence on the ticket? No.
February 19th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
24.
I personally don’t think there’s anyone in the pro-life movement that doesn’t believe if abortion is made illegal, that there should be no penalties or enforcement. Do you think they just want a bill that says “Abortion is wrong” and that’s the end of it?
I believe a ban should have teeth, but let’s be honest, there’s many people out there that believe since abortion is premeditated murder, an abortion doctor deserves to be charged with 1st degree murder. There’s also people that believe a woman that gets an abortion is part of that murder, and should also be charged. These beliefs are quite common in many pro-life circles, I’m not saying that’s what Santorum necessarily believes, but considering he’s about as hard core as they come on this particular issue and seems to want to talk about it at every juncture, he should probably specifically tell voters the exact penalties he wishes to impose so there’s no confusion. However, I don’t believe he’ll actually do that though because he’s “dog whistling” that crowd and doesn’t want to let them down.
To me, a Presidential candidate should focus on abortion in the context of opposing Roe Vs Wade on Constitutional grounds and that it’s a decision best left to the states to decide. That’s the best chance of reducing the number of abortions in this country rather than getting in the weeds on these specific nuances.
February 19th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
As for the rape exception, I think there could be a law established that allows the rape victim to receive large child support payments from the rapist to raise the baby.
However, executing a baby simply because the baby is inconvenient to the mother is not permitted outside the womb, and should not be permitted inside the womb either.
February 19th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
I never understood why some state hasn’t banned second and third trimester abortions, maybe even after 10 weeks. Kennedy would most likely uphold such a law and that ruling would be the basis for a future reversal of Roe.
February 19th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
#28 – Continued…
We keep bickering and arguing theology. Yet, the constitution is pretty clear on these issues: they’re not federal issues.
Roe vs. Wade is an issue, not because it’s about abortion, but because it’s specious legal reasoning. It’s bad law.
All of these arguments are based in accepting the premises posited by the left. We must stop arguing points based on false premises.
The only position in this issue should be “We need to overturn Roe vs. Wade because it is bad law. The rest of the issues are state issues and should be discussed with your governor and legislator.”
February 19th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
UGH! Why do I have to agree with masscon numerous times today? Maybe we arent as different as I thought.
I think rapists deserve the death penalty…..how about if you rape someone and get them pregnant, you die AND all you own goes to them to support the child? Seriously….its a good solution.
I think abortion should only be to save the life of the mother, and then its seen as a medical practice to save a life, not just for convenience. Other than that, abortion should be illegal and prosecuted. Also, seeing as over 2/3 of Americans think abortion should be limited, i dont think it hurts the GOP to talk about it.
February 19th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Sorry to thread steal, but why havent we gotten out daily gallup graphs the last 3 days? Santorum is up EIGHT points and no one is posting on it!!!!
February 19th, 2012 at 1:08 pm
“The rest of the issues are state issues and should be discussed with your governor and legislator.”
Why? What is it about social issues that they SHOULD be state issues? I might concede that they are, under current constitutional law, state issues…but why should they remain so?
I think Conservatives too often retreat to the federalism argument without offering a defense of it.
If you believe that a practice which is completely unacceptable in Mississippi is somehow acceptable in New York, Connecticuit, or Oregon, then you should be able to explain why.
February 19th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
“Sorry to thread steal, but why havent we gotten out daily gallup graphs the last 3 days? Santorum is up EIGHT points and no one is posting on it!!!!”
Kavon has been posting the results, just not the graphs. And, true enough, Santorum is up 8% – which is odd, since there has been some reason to think he’s been slipping in Michigan.
We’ll see if the curse of 37 will strike again.
February 19th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Well remember Newt Gingrich was up alot in Gallup the week before the Florida Primary, but after Mitt won he feel hard, look for the same thing to happen, Rick will continue to lead in Gallup but Mitt will win in Michigan and regain the lead for good
February 19th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
37
I am not as moderate as you might think. Being a Romney supporter doesn’t necessitate agreeing with him on every issue or being moderate. I support him because I want an effective president, something we haven’t had in a while. And a president who would bring some focus to the White House would be nice.
With Romney, I get 80% of what I want and I come back for more in 2020 with Rubio or Ryan.
With the others, I don’t get what I want because they either lose to Obama or divide the country in the White House.
February 19th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
“I am not as moderate as you might think”
No, but you have stronger libertarian tendencies than I care for…lol.
=====
As for Ryan/Rubio – I don’t know. Completely apart from believing Romney would be an effective President, one of the main reasons I’m so anxious, even nervous, about ensuring that he wins the nomination is that I have a hard time feeling content with anyone else, now or in the future. Even with our second string the way it is, with several very Conservative candidates, when I compare any of them to Romney’s resume, I just can’t feel satisfied. At least if Romney were to win, and select someone like McDonnell as his VP, he’d have a natural successor…but apart from Christie, who I don’t really see as diplomatic enough for the Presidency, where is all the leadership experience in our prospects?
Thats part of the reason I feel my confidence in this party is riding on this primary. I’m simply not content with our future prospects.
February 19th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
43. Mike Huckabee has more governing experience, higher name recognition, higher favorables, and appeals to a wider range of voters than Romney. Mitch Daniels has more governing experience and has the support of the Bush machine. There are plenty of option that are better than Romney.
February 19th, 2012 at 1:25 pm
4 MORE YEARS OF OBAMA, unfortunately. Far right does not get it. Live with it.
February 19th, 2012 at 1:25 pm
43
Let’s compare Romney and Ryan or Rubio.
With Romney, you get someone whose resume and history points to strong negotiating experience, strong people skills, strong affinity for data and panel-style debate and discussion.
With Ryan or Rubio, you get someone who explains things as they are, in simple terms, for people who want to listen.
So I see Romney accomplishing things by getting the Hill to act with direction from the White House and finding common ground legislatively.
With Rubio or Ryan, you get someone who gets things accomplished through the people putting pressure on the legislators. Either of them could lead the country on an initiative by explaining the issue to the voters.
It’s different, but either route is excellent.
February 19th, 2012 at 1:30 pm
43
The difference between us is that I’ve essentially given up hope that the government can shape the character of its people. The government can outlaw stuff, but if the character of the society doesn’t change, we’re still going to see moral decay.
February 19th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
“With Rubio or Ryan, you get someone who gets things accomplished through the people putting pressure on the legislators. Either of them could lead the country on an initiative by explaining the issue to the voters.”
I don’t know. While that’s a reasonable argument to make, I don’t think there is any shortage of pressure or incentive for people to contract their Reps and Senators. If a good, likable, friendly personality and the ability to explain what you wanted were key to a successful Presidency, Obama would be doing much better…at least in terms of getting the liberal agenda passed.
I see Romney as someone who could be an effective President whether or not we control Congress. I don’t think I can say the same for the others.
February 19th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
“The government can outlaw stuff, but if the character of the society doesn’t change, we’re still going to see moral decay.”
I don’t think I disagree with this, actually. Well, most of it anyway.
I don’t necessarily believe legislation can change how people think, so much as how they act. Of course, how people act may influence the character of those around them (for example, the character of children growing up in a two parent home is likely to be different than those raised under a single mother), but at this point, as bothered as I am by our cultural decline – and the consequences I believe it has for the long term position of our country, particularly relative to other countries – I’ll settle for limiting destructive behaviors.
Its not ideal, but as I said, I think the other options have run their course.
February 19th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
15. Romney doesn’t drink. I’m pretty sure if he is asked about his feelings and thoughts about alcohol use, he’ll brush it off and not get caught up in a deluded sense of self-importance that compells discussion of personal opinions ad nauseum regardless of relevance.
Why is it so difficult for Rick Santorum to make the wiser choice of self restraint in interviews, given his ambition to play a prominent role as spokesperson for a movement larger than himself?
February 19th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
45
It’s not so much that I want people to contact their reps, as much as either Rubio or Ryan could change the national debate over an issue into a beneficial one for their own side.
Ever notice, that when the entire national media is debating an issue, and one side is winning, something always gets done?
I could see either of the two of them leading the charge on a given issue of national importance, like, say, entitlement spending, and move the needle substantially in our direction.
With Mitt, we get someone who can handle the interpersonal interaction effectively among those on the Hill to get something done.
Mitt’s approach to leadership would be exactly the opposite to Obama. The difference between Obama’s leadership and what I could see Ryan or Rubio doing, Obama tries to shame and divide people into action. Doing this usually just leads to inaction, which is what we’ve seen over the past 2 years. Ryan or Rubio would make their cases on the merits of issues, which Obama has not done as president to any success whatsoever, let alone attempted.
February 19th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
45
Well I agree that we need to ban destructive behaviors, but there is a line.
For instance, it can be argued that nothing has done more to damage the national character than the absence of stay-at-home moms. Do we use the government to prevent women from working so they can watch their kids at home and teach them morals and discipline?
Of course we ban abortion, gay marriage, hard drugs, etc. But there is other stuff that CAUSES those behaviors to take root in the first place, that we cannot ban. Because of this, our society will continue hurtling toward the abyss until the whole country goes bankrupt and/or gets bombed back to the stone age, in which case decadence and broken families are eliminated out of sheer necessity.
February 19th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
I’m prolife personally but don’t see this issue as black and white as MassCon here. Let me preface by saying I’m a physician and have never conducted any kind of abortion. I think the argument of viability should be taken into account. A 10 week fetus is simply not viable outside the womb and the vast majority (95%) of abortions conducted in America today are within 10 weeks. The rate of spontaneous miscarriage in the first trimester for the general female population is about 50%. Most women are not even aware they are pregnant when they miscarry or even aware they miscarried (it’s just a heavier than normal period). While I agree that aborting a viable fetus is murder, it’s not clear to me that it’s also murder at 10 weeks.
If you argue that viable human life begins at conception, then it logically follows that we should do all we can also to prevent these first trimester spontaneous miscarriages. But we don’t, aside from some dieting instructions.
February 19th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
49
I don’t see the logic there. Spontaneous miscarriages aren’t done intentionally. They are accidental deaths, not murders.
So to the extent that we put lines in the roads to prevent accidental car deaths, or we put guardrails along highways to prevent cars from plunging into the water, then yes, physicians should help women prevent spontaneous miscarriages.
But a spontaneous miscarriage is not an abortion and it’s not murder.
February 19th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
50
What I’m saying is, if the accidental death rate is 50% of all pregnancies in the first trimester, then it’s a tough call to equate a first trimester abortion with murder of a viable human being.
If every time you flew on a plane, you had a 50% chance of dying, you don’t think there would be a moral imperative to fix that?
February 19th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
“Most women are not even aware they are pregnant when they miscarry or even aware they miscarried” Bingo, so it is neither abortion nor murder. What is the issue here?
February 19th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
51
How is a spontaneous miscarriage an “abortion?”
It’s a natural process. Not abortion, not murder.
What are you suggesting, that pro-lifers think women should be punished for accidentally having a miscarriage at 10 weeks? No one is suggesting that.
Do we have an obligation to prevent it? Yes, in the same way we limit arsenic in our water supply or limit asbestos use.
There is no moral equivalent between an elective abortion and a spontaneous miscarriage. You see what I’m saying?
February 19th, 2012 at 2:52 pm
53
I’m not saying an elective abortion is equivalent to a spontaneous miscarriage, just that at least in the first trimester I don’t think an elective abortion is also equivalent to murder. There are implications to legally providing personhood at conception.
February 19th, 2012 at 2:55 pm
54
Well, I think it is. Anyway, abortion for me is not the most important issue. I care about the economy and the debt the most.
February 19th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
55
Are you against IVF procedures that require the fertilization of multiple eggs and the discarding of unused fertilized eggs? or prenatal testing for severe genetic diseases like Tay-Sachs of at risk populations?
February 19th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
56
Haven’t really thought about it. I’m not a social issues person, really.
February 19th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Smart FPP, Matthew.
Interesting debate in the comments.
Something tells me the next debate will be heavily, heavily centered on social issues: “women’s rights to contraceptive health” (just to scare-quote the other side’s argument), women working, women in combat, access to condoms, bla, bla, bla.
February 19th, 2012 at 3:54 pm
haner,
You have an interesting, but unpersuasive, argument. As Mass Con notes, spontaneous miscarriages are, definitionally, not intentional and therefore not homicide (I don’t use murder because it has a legal meaning which is not applicable here). Your plane example doesn’t work. There are other means of travel which have considerably higher survival rates than 50%. There are no other means of pregnancy which do better, mortality-wise, than natural parenthood. If planes were the only way to travel, and they had a 50% mortality rate, then the species would probably expend an awful lot of energy improving plane safety at the margins but would, in the meantime, be obliged to put up with the high mortality rate or abandon movement.
You didn’t ask me, but I’m opposed to IVF. I don’t know much about prenatal testing or Tay-Sach babies. I do know that I have a genetic disorder that would have probably gotten me aborted if A.) Prenatal testing been available and B.) I’d had a different mother. So I’m fairly leery of biases against babies of a certain genetic type. I’m, to almost all outward appearances, a perfectly average human being. I’m assuming you’re referring to prenatal testing for the purposes of aborting if the fetus has a genetic disorder?
February 19th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
The thing is whatever Santorum says sounds so petulant. And the way he carries himself is holier than thou.
This was Huntsman’s problem too.
They both come off as sanctimonious pious judgers of all.
That doesn’t make them that, it is the impression they give off.
The more I hear Sanctimonious Santorum speak the less likable he is.
He is wound too tightly or something… like he might could go off and shoot up a school or something.
Santorum is pretty awful actually. Just distasteful. Bad taste in the mouth.
It’s a good thing he will never be President.
The press is trying to hold on to the illusion that he is still ahead in MI polls… but they aren’t doing too well.
Go to RCP, Click the Inside Michigan poll… next click on the link to the magazine… headlines of a poll two days later by the same folks say the race is a tie…
So why is RCP using the poll that is two days older, but tells the narrative they want?
You tell me.
February 19th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
I think some of the arguments against Rubin are weak. The idea that you’d legally define something as murder, then lessen the punishment because in their minds it wasn’t murder is a shaky argument. That’s different from not premeditating, or unintentionally killing.
I think the real issue though is if Santorum is a good spokesperson for pro-life issues. On that issue, I’d have to say a resounding NO! Most of the time that guy speaks on life issues it seems like he’s damaging the cause.
February 19th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
I read Rubin and the rest here. I believe it’s the pro-life movement that is confused, and when you try to pin them down, as did Rubin, they attack the person carrying their Personhood Amendment to its logical conclusion.
There has to be a basis to declare abortion illegal. What could it be? The only rationale is that an implanted ovum is a person, the same as any other living human, under the law.
You don’t have to be a “social liberal” to see all kinds of legal ramifications to declaring an embryo a person. I’ve fought w/some here @ Race, whom I feel have blindly and stubbornly refuse to get their brains around the LEGAL problems.
I believe the legal squirming above (manslaughter/murder/etc) just doesn’t hold water. If you push a pregnant woman down the stairs or even shoot her, you didn’t intend to kill her baby. But if a woman submits to an abortion, the intent is to kill it–just as if she intended to kill a born child.
And it was anger or accident such as some child abuse death might occur. It was intentional malice.
These are dark, murky waters that NO campaign should be involved in. There are no easy answers and any answer a candidate gives is going to horrify a whole bunch of voters.
It’s not Rubin who’s confused; it’s those who can’t see she has legitimate concerns.
February 19th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
#61 aspire
Amen to that. The LAST thing the pro-life movement should want is for pro-life issues to become part of the campaign. IMO what they should want is a strong pro-life POTUS who keeps his mouth SHUT and appoints originalist judges who will over turn Roe.
The things Santorum is ranting about are not justifiable by logic. They are matters of moral opinion. There is no rational justification for not using birth control. There are religious reasons, but no complelling civil society reasons. There is no rational justification for being against homosexual acts. Or abortion.
These are moral choices and if you want people to abide for moral reasons, you must convert them to your way of thinking, not criminalize the behavior. There’s something wrong with the way Santorum speaks of these things: Like he’s speaking for God and we all ought to obey, whether Catholic or not.
That’s fine: He should go be a preacher or a priest or a pope–but not a president.
February 19th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
K.G,
Imagine I dressed you up in an incredibly realistic gorilla suit, taped your mouth shut, and set you adrift in the jungle. Then imagine a poacher of some kind shoots you. Is he going to be charged with first-degree murder? If not, why not? Could it be because, while he intended to do harm, he did not intend to do harm to a creature with an immutable right to life? That’s how I imagine abortion. Abortionists do not believe fetuses have moral rights. They are quite wrong. But their false belief has an impact on the degree of moral culpability they bear. This is a common element of all sorts of moral reasoning. In the Catholic tradition, for instance, a sin is not “mortal” unless the sinner has full knowledge of the graveness of the offense.
February 19th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
Worst part about Santo is when he satates ‘I will aggressively fight libertarianism within the conservative movement.’
Santo can be easily portrayed as a big statist conservative that cannot be trusted to get out of your life.
Ie. Use the Perry line, make Washington as inconsequential in your life as possible. And use something from the Newt repetoire: this guy is way too tighty wound/unstable temperament.
Do so w Ricky’s positions on:
-crony capitalism and choosing manufacturers as the ‘chosen’ tax group.
-wanting to fight personal socon wars when the economy is key.
-his gaffe a day penchant
-even bringing up Obama’s form of Christianity
-anti libertarian/freedom mindset (Paul goes 3rd party)
-raise debt ceiling several times
-voted for bridge to nowhere and other cas toilets and feels he was just doing his job.
Santo is blind to the fact his business as usual schtick will not play with TP.
Weaken him w the TP by showing him to be perp#1 on Wasington stupidity and overspending and put it rigjt up against Romney putting them in the black in Mass w a rainy day fund to boot.
-
February 19th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
K.G,
And look, you are certainly entitled to your opinion but it is not a pro-life position. Lots of Romney supporters around here masquerading as social conservatives, attacking Santorum for being “outside the mainstream” when, in fact, they’re the ones outside the mainstream. Somewhere between 40% and 55% of voters routinely say that abortion should be illegal in “most” or “all” circumstances. Within the Republican Party, support is somewhere north of 65%. Someone who says that “we must not criminalize the behavior” is well-outside the mainstream in the Republican Party. Again, that’s fine. But don’t be shocked when everyone rejects your arguments or rejects the candidates you support.
February 19th, 2012 at 6:10 pm
#64 OK, MEM, I’m laughing my head. AT you. And you make my case that hard-core pro-lifers are confused. I am not a lawyer–although I gave birth to one once.
If you make a poacher believe I’m a gorilla and it’s not illegal to kill a gorilla, it’s a honest mistake. BUT if you make it a law that killing a gorilla is EXACTLY the same as killing a human, then it doesn’t matter. The poacher is still guilty of breaking a law even if HE believes that killing a gorilla is OK.
If the law declares that a fetus is EXACTLY the same as a born person, then, under the law, it doesn’t matter what the killer believes. The law is the law.
Different degrees of murder and manslaughter are provided based on the intent of the killer. IF the Personhood Amendment were to go into effect, intentionally killing a fetus would be EXACTLY the same as intentionally killing me w/o a gorilla suit.
It seems to be that under Santorum’s belief that if people desiring invitro has extra ferilized eggs, they can NEVER destroy them. They must be implanted in someone or stay frozen forever.
The crazy scenarios are endless. Don’t call me names because I can see the problems with criminalizing everything. Maybe girls who get abortions should rot in hell but most Americans don’t believe they should rot in jail.
February 19th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
#66
A plank in the GOP states that 11-year-old incest victims should be forced by law to bear her father’s baby? Is that the party my grandfather joined after fighting to free the slaves? Is that the party my grandmother joined with to fight FDR and his raw deal?
Is this who’ve become? Crazed, confused zealots?
February 19th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
The self righteous religious fanatics and anyone else pushing their religious theology, ideology or beliefs may work with some of those in the Republican party, Evangelicals, those in the Bible Belt etc, but not the general public. Most Americans want a separation of church and state. Any candidate that takes up an issues like women’s rights and birth control may be able to get the nomination in the Republican party, watch that candidate crash and burn in the general election. Santorum will never be president. If Santorum is nominated by the Evangelicals religious and or tea baggers, that leaves this Independent no choice but to pull the Democrat lever, if this is the direction of thee GOP, there is no choice. It appears that some in this party will not stop until they impose their will on the nation. It has to be stopped.
February 19th, 2012 at 6:33 pm
K.G,
I wasn’t referring to any personhood amendment, which I may or may not support (I’d have to look at the language). I was referring to a situation where Roe was overturned, abortion law returned to the states, and some states decided to make it illegal. In that case there’d be no obligation to treat the killing of a fetus as substantively identical to the killing of an adult. And I don’t recall that I called you any names. I simply stated that if you don’t criminalizing either performing an abortion or having an abortion, in no meaningful sense are you pro-life. Someone who was personally opposed to vandalizing buildings (to use a less extreme example) but thought that society ought to work such things out on a moral level, internally, without resorting to force of law, would in no meaningful sense be anti-vandalism. When rights come in conflict (any rights) the government has to be involved and someone who opposes abortion but opposes criminalizing it is either saying that there are no rights in conflict, and that they oppose abortion for idiosyncratic reasons of their own, or the fetuses rights are substantially outweighed by the rights of the mother. Either is a pro-choice position and I simply don’t know what to say if you think I’m calling you “names” by pointing this out.
“A plank in the GOP states that 11-year-old incest victims should be forced by law to bear her father’s baby? Is that the party my grandfather joined after fighting to free the slaves? Is that the party my grandmother joined with to fight FDR and his raw deal?
Is this who’ve become? Crazed, confused zealots?”
Again with the tedious “incest” and “rape” canards. I’ve already conceded that Santorum’s position is outside the mainstream. But more outside the mainstream, within the Republican party, is a position which holds that abortion should not be criminalized. Forget the tedious exceptions. Include them. Do you or do you not support criminalizing abortion, except in the cases of “rape, incest, and the life of the mother”? If you do not, then yes, the Republican Party has left you. And if you do not you’re going to have a harder time than Santorum will- even with his without exceptions position- finding a home in the Republican Party.
February 19th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
I strongly object to the title of this FPP. If print wasn’t dead, and if the Internet didn’t carry her, it would be worth subscribing to the Washington Post just to be a regular reader of Jennifer Rubin. There isn’t a better political columnist in the nation.
As to the topic, she actually takes the pro-life position seriously enough to examine some flaws of execution….and in particular, the flaws of a temporary major contender for the Republican nomination.
Question: When pro-life has a 10 percentage point advantage in the electorate, how does a pro-lifer lose an election on that issue alone? He will lose every time if he refuses to exempt rape, incest, or the life of the mother. In the real world, rape and incest don’t come up very often, so exempting them is not much of a concession.
Exempting ‘life of the mother’, by legally constituting it as an exemption to a post-Roe society is necessary for political purposes, but in the real world, if intelligently framed, it would come even less often than rape or incest.
Takeaway: Santorum needs to be BADLY defeated, and this issue needs to be properly coined.
February 19th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Truly – With his views regarding NO abortion at any cost (rape/incest) – Santorum will be rendered completely unelectable. This view will not fly in the General Election. It is completely unpalatable to ALL the Moderates/Independents, and MOST of the Republicans. If Santorum is our nominee, we can expect 4 more years of Obama. Not so much because Santorum believes this, but BECAUSE he is making it so much a part of his campaign!!!!
February 19th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
35 – I wouldn’t expect to need to explain federalism here…
I oppose all sorts of federal laws, including murder, rape, theft, etc. In fact most of the current federal register should be tossed out. Not because those things aren’t wrong, but because the constitution simply doesn’t speak to them. They are state issues.
We tossed out federalism 99 years ago with the 17th Amendment and it’s been all down-hill since then.
I oppose, as does the majority of the country, abortion except in the rare cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother is truly at stake. But that doesn’t mean we have a nation discussion about it.
This is part of the problem. More time is spent discussing and issue that should have ZERO bearing in a national election. It’s a huge distraction from the real constitutional issues. And, I’ll repeat, Roe vs. Wade is a constitutional issue not because of abortion, but because of the horrible logical and legal reasoning it took to get us there.
Romney (or even Santorum) should be out using this to explain why who gets appointed to the Supreme Court matters. And they’ve had that issue handed to them on a platter with Ginsburg’s latest comments about the Constitution. They should be saying “this is what happens when you have justices that aren’t grounded in the rule of law and the Constitution and see rights where they don’t exist and try and remove rights that do.”
I, too, have no home. Politically, the Libertarians (by their very natures) are incapable of governing. The Democrats are just wrong. And the Republicans have lost their way.
I’m still in support of Romney. I’d rather have a technocrat who’s had business success than a career politician. Since the field was whittled down to these 4, it’s a no brainer – Romney. That its not says more about the GOP’s suicide than the candidates themselves.
February 19th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
#70 Sorry if I lumped you in with Santorum and the Personhood Amendment. And maybe I didn’t read Rubin carefully enough, but I thought her gripe was with Santorum and Personhood, but necessarily other views on abortion and the law.
However, you keep bringing up faulty analolgies. No one argues that vandalism is not wrong. There’s nothing so clear cut about abortion LAW. Patrick Henry #73 is correct. Roe was decided on faulty reasoning/law. Get originalist justices to repeal it and send it to the states. Once there let the citizens decide what abortion laws they choose to implement and follow.
I am not against states laws limiting abortion. I am opposed to a constitutional Personhood Amendment that would criminalize ALL abortions in the US no matter what. That is Santorum’s view apparently; IMO it would be can of worms legally; it would not have the support of the people and he cannot win the presidency with this kind of view.
In a country that’s in trouble in a variety of ways, this is crazy discussion to be having. I say elect a declared pro-life POTUS who will appoint like-minded judges and shut the heck up about it. There’s NOTHING to be gained by stirring up a hornet’s nest as Santorum is doing. It only hurts the cause.
February 19th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
I live in Australia but have followed closely the GOP Presidential race. I am stunned that so many Americans cannot see that turning around the economy should be the critical focus of this election. You are being sidetracked by the less important social issues. What many seem to want to do is change a Democrat Senator with not leaderships skills or private sector economic experience who made it to the White House, for a Republican Senator with no leadership skills or private sector economic experience who wants to make it to the White House. Go figure!!! Romney is the only chance you have to get back on track. We are interested becasue what happens there happens here a few years later.
February 19th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
K.G,
FYI, Mitt Romney ostensibly supports a Human Life Amendment. I don’t know how this differs from the Personhood Amendment you’re talking about but it would certainly nationalize abortion policy. It’s hard to understand why, if Santorum’s position here is radical, Romney is preferable. And I simply refuse to concede that Santorum’s position, outside the mainstream though it is, by itself renders him unelectable. If this is so than Rubio and Jindal, both of whom oppose the rape and incest exceptions, are barred from future national tickets. Sorry, not having it. While I’m no great fan of Santorum I will fight tooth and nail to make sure moderates here and elsewhere don’t radicalize a position held by the two most promising politicians in the party.
February 19th, 2012 at 8:36 pm
71 -
As a PR operative for the Romney campaign, Rubin is OK. As an actual journalist, she pretty much sold her credibility down the road this year.
Just a few weeks ago (when Gingrich was leading) she was writing about how Santorum was a viable nominee and that he deserved another look. Now that people have given him that look and he is a threat to Romney, suddenly he is completely unacceptable and every column is anti-Santorum.
If she’s going to act as a shill for Romney, Rubin should just come out and say so. But this kind of dishonesty and manipulation of her readers is exactly what conservatives rightfully hate about the liberal media.
February 19th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
#75: Lois
Any rational, objective person like and the New Zealander above would see things as you see them.
There is nothing rational or objective about the “crazy conservatives” in this election. IMO this fight goes back 200 years where educated, enlightening Northeasterners looked down on a bunch of religious fundamentalist yokels from the South or those with those kinds of social cues (Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, many evangelical Christians).
The yokels have an inferiority complex and are madder than hell to have been made second class citizens by the Northeast Elite Establishment. The yokels, who coalesced around anti-abortion stands, help build the GOP and get people nominated and even elected. But with the exception of Ronald Reagan, the other GOP noms or presidents have been what are now called RINOS: Republicans in Name Only: Bushes I & II, Dole, McCain and now Romney, even tho he was crowned the conservative king of the conservative media in 2008 against McCain.
Limbaugh has ranted all season against the Evil Elite GOP Establishment and creates an increasingly greater breach between common sense conservatives/moderates and flat out crazy conservatives who demand more and more conservative purity. He is joined in this by Sarah Palin and aided and abetted by Fox News and the Wall St. journal, both owned by Rupbert Murdock, who too seems to have something stuck in his craw re: Romney.
Rush demonizes the Establishment and for reasons known only to himself has labeled Romney as “Evil Establishment.” Combine that with Mitt’s Mormonism, which elicits hate among evangelicals (for reasons known only to themselves) and you have a good portion of the party who are refusing to support Mitt.
The bitter, ostracized by the Elites Palin has declared she “will not sit in the back of the bus,” which means she will not accept Harvard-educated, Massachusetts Mormon Mitt.
The evangelicals who have supported every Anybody But Romney are now flocking like sheep to Santorum. There is concern among the GOP leaders that he cannot beat Obama given his radical (traditional Catholic) social/moral views which he loves to express openly and sanctimoniously.
Now some are calling for a fresh new face of a candidate to appear out of nowhere at the GOP convention, a face that will please both the Establish (whoever they might be) and the Tea Party–and oh yeah, beat Obama, deus ex machina.
February 19th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
#76 MEM: I didn’t know that Mitt supported a Right to Life Amendment. I do know he supports a Traditional Marriage Amendment.
I don’t know what a RTL Amendment would look like. It appears the Personhood Amendment was so fraught with difficult consequences that it could not get passed in Mississippi.
My concern is that this is (1) The time to beat Obama and (2) Install the best possible person who can find as POTUS. However, each of the ABRs have fallen on their own weight, mainly because of their undisciplined tongues. Now Santorum is rising. Can he beat Obama? Not it he keeps controversial, unelection-killing topics to the fore.
The point of your article criticizing Rubin is that she is “confused.” The point of my response was that a lot of people are confused. I know for some abortion is a cut and dried issue. On the other hand it appears to be confusing for a lot of people and Santorum adds to the confusion.
IMO it’s in the best interest of the party and country to keep social issues in the back of our minds, and keep the issues that will beat Obama in the fore front. The Dems have succeeded in preventing us from this by taking the ball Santorum has given them and running with it.
February 19th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
K.G,
That’s fair. Look, I essentially agree. The last thing I wanted was to run a candidate who’ll be easily pilloried on social issues. I wanted to nominate someone so solid on the issue that he never had to bring it up. But folks don’t realize that arguments have consequences. If Santorum loses this primary because voters perceive that he’s a radical on abortion, and therefore incapable of winning a general election, then the national center will have shifted to the left on the abortion issue. And that’s simply not acceptable to me. There’s a reason Hillary never went after Obama’s vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, even though he held a position that would have horrified a huge majority of Democrats. Because Hillary Clinton was a serious pro-choicer and she knew that there were an awful lot of blue-collar Democrats who didn’t realize just how liberal Democratic Party leaders were on abortion. She would have won the argument but lost the country. I am not willing to risk losing the country on abortion so that we can get a nominee who has a 20% chance of beating Obama rather than a 5% chance. Sorry. I’ll fight the Romney folks til the convention if they make this their hill to die on.
February 19th, 2012 at 10:08 pm
#80: MEM: I went back and reread Rubin and your response to her. Again, I kind of have to side with her as she takes the “fetus is a human life and therefore deserves equal protection under the law” to its logical conclusion.
The fact that you, and apparently the rest of the actual pro-life movement, see a more nuanced legal approach is not known by people outside the actual movement. And frankly, I didn’t get your legal arguments.
Abortion is the taking of human life but shouldn’t be punished in the exact way the taking of human life is? You don’t find that illogical?
Be that as it may, Santorum has been out-spoken in a way that has changed the political discussion in ways that are not beneficial to the cause. What exactly it is that you want Romney supporters to do? Shut up? Tell Rubin to shut up?
This not the “hill we want to die on?” We want to win. And it’s not even about Romney winning, in my opinion. If there had been a better alternative in the race to Romney, I would be supporting him/her. I still see him as the best POTUS.
But the broader question is what to do about “social issues.” I’m still with Mitt. Appoint conservative judges, over turn Roe and send the laws to the states. Keep it simple and out of the weeds.
February 19th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
K.G,
“Abortion is the taking of human life but shouldn’t be punished in the exact way the taking of human life is? You don’t find that illogical?”
I’ve given you various analogies which you’ve rejected but which satisfy me. If I were to kill a man in a gorilla suit, believing he was a gorilla, I would not be charged with first degree murder. Perhaps I’d be charged with involuntary manslaughter and poaching or something along those lines. If I’m insane and believe you’re a plastic covered futon, and I kill you, I’ll be shipped off to a sanitarium: I will not get the electric chair. The point is, when determining the penalties for an action, intent matters. Intent does not diminish the moral harm of any of these actions but it can change culpability. A widespread societal belief that abortion is a morally neutral action is a not insignificant factor in assigning blame. After all, we don’t write George Washington or Thomas Jefferson out of history books because they owned slaves. We label their actions without regard to societal consensus (i.e, slavery is wrong whether or not it’s acknowledged) but when we try to evaluate how much blame they bear, we look to context. Perhaps God does not do this (though theological traditions differ) but we do and probably must.
February 20th, 2012 at 12:52 am
Well, here’s a fascinating argument: if the person committing murder thought it was okay, then we punish him less severely. Lol! Does that apply to, say, people who smoke weed? If they didn’t think it was a big deal, do we punish them less than weed smokers who think they’re doing something bad for them? Good grief, what an embarrassingly awful — and profoundly legally unconservative — argument.
February 20th, 2012 at 12:58 am
I’ve given you various analogies which you’ve rejected but which satisfy me. If I were to kill a man in a gorilla suit, believing he was a gorilla, I would not be charged with first degree murder. Perhaps I’d be charged with involuntary manslaughter and poaching or something along those lines. If I’m insane and believe you’re a plastic covered futon, and I kill you, I’ll be shipped off to a sanitarium: I will not get the electric chair.
The analogies are rejected because they are fallacious.
If you believed the man was a gorilla, but he was not actually a gorilla as defined by the law, then that was a mistake on your part about what the person was. He was not a gorilla, nor was he a gorilla under the law. If an abortionist performs an abortion under a regime of illegal abortion, he knows exactly what that being’s status under the law is and is thus intentionally committing murder. Your argument literally amounts to: “If he disagrees with the law, we punish him less severely.”
And if you’re insane, that changes your status under the law, which is why you are treated differently — you were incapable of understanding the law. The abortionist knows exactly what he’s doing.
The point is, when determining the penalties for an action, intent matters
It is arguably more dangerous to set someone free if he knows the law but breaks it anyway because he disagrees with it, because it shows that he has no regard for the law and thus commits the unlawful act with a clean conscience — he is thus less deterred from committing the act.
Anything else?
February 20th, 2012 at 8:51 am
“If you believed the man was a gorilla, but he was not actually a gorilla as defined by the law, then that was a mistake on your part about what the person was. He was not a gorilla, nor was he a gorilla under the law. If an abortionist performs an abortion under a regime of illegal abortion, he knows exactly what that being’s status under the law is and is thus intentionally committing murder. Your argument literally amounts to: “If he disagrees with the law, we punish him less severely.”’
This is close but not right. My argument more closely amounts to “if he has good reasons, rooted in a widespread societal belief, to disagree with the law, we punish him less severely”. I’d envision a regime of illegal abortion as having a kind of transition period. It took Southern whites quite a long time to accept that slavery was a moral wrong. In the meanwhile, the federal government was sometimes obliged to walk on egg shells.
“And if you’re insane, that changes your status under the law, which is why you are treated differently — you were incapable of understanding the law. The abortionist knows exactly what he’s doing.”
Not quite. Someone who is not guilty “by reason of insanity” typically doesn’t understand the moral dimension of his actions. I.e, he doesn’t understand that murder is wrong. Admittedly, there’s a theoretical difference between not understanding that murder is wrong and disagreeing that murder is wrong but that’s because, I’d argue, ordinary homocide is considered morally “settled”. If you lived on, say, Borneo and your tribe sacrificed every redhead to the pagan gods, and you were washed away in a typhoon to Manhattan, where you proceeded to sacrifice the first redhead you saw, the law would consider your tribe’s customs a mitigating factor. It is indeed possible to go too far with this principle- that intent matters- but it’s a legal principle nonetheless. Another slightly different example. If I’m a battered wife and I kill my husband, even if it is not immediately self-defense (I killed him in his sleep), I will likely receive a lesser sentence than if I’d murdered a cheery, loving husband.
“It is arguably more dangerous to set someone free if he knows the law but breaks it anyway because he disagrees with it, because it shows that he has no regard for the law and thus commits the unlawful act with a clean conscience — he is thus less deterred from committing the act.”
This is a fair point. And clearly a habitual abortionist would face steeper penalties than a one-time offender. We don’t throw out all the other relevant sentencing factors (one of which is likeliness to re-offend) simply because we’re considering intent.