I just love it when liberals set up a strawman to attack the GOP. Michael Kinsley does exactly that in this current Time column.

The official position of the Republican Party on abortion is more extreme than most people realize. All of its recent platforms have declared that "the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children." The 14th Amendment is the one that protects fundamental rights and "equal protection of the laws." If "unborn children" are a protected group under the 14th Amendment--like blacks, women and so on--abortion is unconstitutional. A state couldn't legalize abortion even if its citizens wished to. Women who procure abortions and doctors who perform them would have to be prosecuted for murder, just like a woman who hires a gunman to kill her child. Death-penalty states would have to either stop executing murderers or start executing women who have abortions.

Actually, not quite, Michael. Yes, abortion would be banned in all states, but that would not require that abortion be treated as first degree murder or force the execution of abortionists and their clients. Just as there are currently multiple different criminal penalties for various sorts of homicide, abortion could be treated at any of those levels – or even placed in its own class. For that matter, criminalization of abortion would not be required – after all, there is no constitutional requirement that a state have laws against murder.

None of this, though, matters to Kinsley – who would rather alarm folks than illuminate them. After all, Kinsley knows that most Americans support sharp limits on abortion, if not an outright ban. So Kinsley has to scare people – and isn’t about to let the actual facts get in the way. You know, things like this from the next paragraph in the platform.

We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion.

But then again, when you want to paint your opponents as heartless extremists it wouldnÂ’t do to tell the whole truth.

Posted by: Greg at 12:26 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Why would your party not punish active participants in murder?

Posted by: Dan at Sun May 20 06:35:39 2007 (IU21y)

2 As that question comes from a member of the party that celebrates those murders and considers committing them to be a civil right, I won't even dignify that with an answer.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 20 10:05:34 2007 (4g2Ps)

3 Actually, Dan, I do -- but given the refusal of you and your party to even acknowledge abortion as the taking of a human life, I don't see where any answer I give will satisfy you.

But then again, your party didn't see blacks as humans until the 1960s, so why should I be surprised at the callousness of the Democrats today?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 20 11:36:54 2007 (4g2Ps)

4 You don't know my position on abortion, and I'd strongly suggest that you stop leaping to assumptions.

Expletive.

But, seriously, how do you square that logic? If abortion is murder, how can you possibly excuse the mother from her involvement? Is it that murder is okay in that circumstance - for the mother, anyhow? Is it that the fetus is not really worthy of protection? Is it not really murder, after all?

Or is it that the picture of sending crying young women to prison for a choice many choose to make is a bad public relations image for the anti-choice lobby?

Posted by: Dan at Sun May 20 12:01:51 2007 (IU21y)

5 Well, Dan, your choice of terminology clearly puts you in the anti-life left-stream of the Democratic Party -- so now I don't have to leap to any conclusions about your being an anti-lifer.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 20 12:21:11 2007 (ayoM5)

6 And Dan, if you read the platform in question, you would know the answer:

Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption. We join the President in supporting crisis pregnancy programs and parental notification laws. And we applaud President Bush for allowing states to extend health care coverage to unborn children.

The short answer, as you can see, is one of compassion for someone who clearly has not been able to access the resources necessary to bring that child to term. On the other hand, the abortionist in such situations is clearly profiteering off the misery of others, and is clearly a more morally culpable -- and is usually as serial killer to boot.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 20 12:46:30 2007 (ayoM5)

7 That doesn't make any sense.

I think you know that.

If a woman gives birth, and is in a difficult situation, you would not support her decision to kill the child, would you?

Being in a "difficult situation" is not typically a murder defense. Is killing a fetus murder or not?

What if Paris Hilton gets pregnant, out of sheer sluttiness and a stupid refusal to use contraception? What if she would face no particular difficulty in having the child? What if she decided to abort because she thought it would be funny to piss of the religious right? Why would that not be premeditated murder? Why would she get off scot free?

Are you SURE this isn't just a PR issue? Because it would be a whole lot more consistent if you treated murder like murder, don't you think?

As for your jumping to conclusions, you're quite silly. These are difficult issues I've struggled with for years. I find that most people on both sides have shallow and stupid reasoning. The platform is certainly guilty of that. I'm beginning to suspect you may, as well, though I'm eager to be proven wrong.

Posted by: Dan at Sun May 20 15:07:54 2007 (IU21y)

8 Actually, I find any reasoning that doesn't lead to a pro-life position to be inherently shallow and stupid -- not to mention based in selfishness and self-indulgence.

From my experience dealing with those who have had abortions, most of them have not particularly been willing participants. I think of the 17 year old girl whose boyfriend and his mother took her "for shopping and lunch" and then drove to the regional abortuary and informed her that she could go in and have the procedure done -- or call her parents (who didn't yet even know she was pregnant) and a have them drive 100 miles to pick her up from the parking lot. I think of the one who took a home pregnancy test and was pressured into the abortion by her boyfriend -- only to discover, after she and her parents went to court to force access to her medical records from the facility that she had never been pregnant in the first place. And yes, I think of a number of clients when I worked at the homeless shelter who were told that abortion was their only option by "compassionate" people who had "struggled with the issue".

And yes, Dan, I'm sure it isn't just a PR issue -- but if folks like you insist, we could certainly execute both the serial-killer/abortionist and the woman who he/she had actively victimized.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 20 15:25:17 2007 (e74fy)

9 RWR - You're not answering the question. Is it unanswerable for you?

If a woman has other options, but chooses to have an abortion, why should she not be punished?

Posted by: Dan at Sun May 20 15:33:16 2007 (IU21y)

10 Ideally -- yes.

As a practical matter, however, preventing the injustice of punishing women like I mention above necessitates allowing such a woman to escape punishment.

But if you would like, we can just execute them all, just to avoid offending your sensibilities.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 20 21:34:27 2007 (Y4tHr)

11 RWR -

I suspect that many on the right would, in fact, be eager to execute them all - I don't doubt your own sincerity, but I do doubt the sincerity of many of your cohorts.

It seems strange that the anti-choice crowd would have such an easy-going attitude toward murderesses - my unscientific impression is that this is the same crowd which hoots in dismay whenever an accused asserts his or her rights.

On the other hand, it does fit into a certain paternalism I've seen on the side of state-enforced decision-making - those silly little women are too stupid to decide what to do with their bodies. I, too, have known women who have undergone abortions, and they have not all been the downtrodden victims this plank would seek to protect. It's not really logical to excuse an entire class of murderers because a few of them might have been in a jam. That's kind of like allowing all women to murder their husbands because a few of them might be battered spouses.

It also seems a little suspicious that this unexpected burst of illogical compassion for criminals happens to coincide with the avoidance of taking a position which would doom the movement at the polls. It looks more like a calculated decision to criminalize in increments.

Twice you've offered to execute them (ironic for a "pro-lifer"). Your quickness to flip-flop on this issue suggests that Republicans may be less than determined to protect women from murder prosecutions.

Posted by: Dan at Sun May 20 23:13:09 2007 (IU21y)

12 Actually, Dan, you seem to once again have missed the sarcastic nature of my response. You are the fellow with the blood-thirsty streak -- but then again, your support for abortion already showed that, didn't it.

And Dan, we pro-lifers are more than willing to allow women to do whatever they want with their bodies. The problem is, of course, that they are doing something to the bodies of their children. And while I'll agree that they may be morally culpable, compassion dictates that we as a society show the sort of mercy they are unwilling to show their children.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 21 14:03:52 2007 (3f8E9)

13 Compassionate enough to let them off for murder, but not compassionate enough to let them choose whether or not to have a child. Interesting.

But, less rhetorically, I appreciate your honesty. There is nothing other than the right wing's "compassion" to prevent murder prosecutions. If anyone feels secure in relying on the right wing's "compassion", I admire their faith. Personally, I'm seeing a huge maternity ward being added on to Gitmo.

Posted by: Dan at Tue May 22 00:44:53 2007 (IU21y)

14 Fine Dan -- if you insist, we can implement capital punishment for the women, too. Anything to keep you anti-lifers happy and content, with plenty of blood flowing (like the 45 million plus killed since Roe).

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue May 22 11:14:43 2007 (39aMb)

15 Is that a joke or not, RWR? You've got no assurance beyond your never-seen-before right-wing "compassion" that we won't see prosecutions. Most of the nation knows that republicans are liars and extremists.

You're trying to have it both ways. Ban abortion because it's murder, but treat the ladies kindly because they're a kinder and gentler brand of murderer. It doesn't make sense.

Except from a PR perspective.

Posted by: Dan at Tue May 22 12:44:18 2007 (IU21y)

16 Like I said, Dan -- we'll execute them if you anti-lifers insist upon it. After all, you folks must have the blood you rejoice in, one way or another.

By the way -- Moloch would be proud of you people.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue May 22 13:14:55 2007 (F7csV)

17 Was the Liberty University Napalm Terrorist pro-life?

Posted by: Dan at Tue May 22 14:09:55 2007 (IU21y)

18 You really had to scrounge to find a sick puppy like that -- whose actions would have been condemned by Falwell himself -- to try to discredit the pro-life movement, especially since there is no apparent connection between the two. Sort of like connecting the Unabomber and Al Gore, since they both spout the same sort of radical environmental kookery.

Of course, you and I might both agree that if this moron had managed to successfully use these devices on the Fred Phelps Klan (loyal Democrats all), America would be a better place.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue May 22 14:26:52 2007 (qAmhO)

19 You know, I'll go ahead and admit that using the Rightwinger Napalm Terrorist in this discussion was a bad misdirection. It doesn't really fit into the discussion, and I think we've said about all we have to say here. We agree, I think, that it is not logical to refuse to punish women who have abortions, if abortion is deemed to be murder, and we agree that the only prevention for such criminal prosecutions is rightwing "compassion". I have no faith that such a thing exists, and you do. We'll have to agree to disagree.

(Unless I toss in another red herring . . .)

Posted by: Dan at Tue May 22 14:36:33 2007 (IU21y)

Hide Comments | Add Comment