AHA is schizophrenic on the question of criminal penalties for abortion. Russell Hunter did a video in which he said murder is a punishable crime. We should treat abortion as murder. The punishment for someone who murders another human being by abortion should be the same as the punishment for someone who murders another human being with a knife or a gun. He was quite emphatic on the point:
Yet AHA been posting testimonials by women who say:
I had an abortion and I am not a victim
I am a repentant murderer redeemed by my Lord Jesus Christ.
Does AHA think that if Charles Manson was penitent, the murder charges should be dropped?
Will Abolitionist lawmakers sponsor bills to execute women who had abortions?
It's not just a question of "punishing" women. What's the just punishment for murder? Don't conservative evangelicals generally think murder ought to be a capital crime?
But I see AHA deny that they are referring to retroactive punishment. Why not? There's no statute of limitations on murder, and for good reason.
Yet I also see AHA say that "If you listened to those who created the recent memes, every one of them is prepared to go and turn themselves in for the murder they have committed, once abortion is made illegal."
What is that if not retroactive punishment?
AHA accuses prolifers of inconsistency. Doesn't seem like AHA has a consistent position.
You're just trying to sew discord, brother. You could have certainly contacted anyone in the abolitionist movement for clarification.
ReplyDeleteThe abolitionist movement of course wants abortion abolished and made illegal. But, we in no way are trying to make punishment retroactive. It is no different than Jesus telling the woman at the well to; “Go and sin no more.” It doesn’t mean she is no longer labeled as an adulterer. And it isn’t any different than the abolitionism of slavery. William Lloyd Garrison said; “As for myself, I have simply exposed his (the man-stealer) guilt, besought him to repent, and to "go and sin no more."
I made this comment on the AHA page; "If you listened to those who created the recent memes, every one of them is prepared to go and turn themselves in for the murder they have committed, once abortion is made illegal."
And it has been a true statement made by those who created the #notavictim memes. But, that doesn’t mean we (the abolitionist movement) is trying to make punishment retroactive. Again, we want abortion abolished and made illegal. Saying we want Charles Manson released is a ridiculous statement. There were already existing laws against murder when he committed his crimes. The abolitionist movement just wants the existing laws against murder to be applied in all cases of murder, including the murder of children in the womb. The only reason I made the comment was because the previous commenter was saying something to the effect of these moms claiming they are off the hook for murder (just as you are doing now) although every one of the memes I have seen reads “I am a murderer.” Stating that they would go turn themselves in once abortion is illegal only shows that they know they committed murder, are still labeled as a murderer (just as the woman at the well was still an adulterer) and are prepared to do the right thing in turning themselves in. It will depend on the laws wherever the crimes were committed. Even if they are turned away because the law may not be made retroactive, it still demonstrates that they are willing to go through the process and face the punishment of man, if any are applicable at the time.
AHA routinely accuses the prolife movement of inconsistency. Indeed, that's what Hunter's video was all about. I'm merely drawing attention to the glaring inconsistency of AHA on this very point.
DeleteAHA is in a bind. When prolifers pounced on Trump for saying women who have abortions ought to be punished, AHA saw an opening, and so they jumped at the chance to attack prolifers. But in their hasty opportunism, AHA failed to think through the implications of their attack.
i) Although Russell Hunter fails to carry his own argument to its logical conclusion, let's do it for him:
He doesn't think abortion is wrong because it's illegal. Indeed, abortion is generally legal. Rather, he thinks abortion ought to be illegal because it is wrong. The law doesn't make it right or wrong.
So he doesn't begin with the legal status quo, but a fundamental moral principle. He thinks law should follow principle. Law should mirror principle.
By parity of argument, he thinks abortion should be punishable. If abortion is murder, then murder ought to be a punishable crime. It's ultimately a quesiton of principle.
But in that event, he can't object to retroactive punishment. If, as a matter of principle, murderers ought to be punished, then that warrants the retroactive punishment of murderers. Even though the Constitution prohibits ex post facto law, that has no bearing on the logical force of his argument, since his argument doesn't regard the legal status quo as normative.
ii) So it won't do for AHA to say "We aren't talking about retroactive punishment. The context is women who get abortions after it has been banned as a murderous act."
Although that might be the immediate context, the logic of the principle isn't timebound but timeless. How does the principle only apply to the future, but not the past?
iii) AHA can't very well appeal to "pragmatic" political considerations, given their disdain for "pragmatism" and "worldly wisdom".
iv) I'd add that this isn't just theoretical. The Nuremberg trials represent ex post facto law to justify retroactive punishment. Simon Wiesenthal is another case in point. Likewise, the Mossad kidnapping Eichmann to put him on trial. (Not to mention extralegal assassinations by the Nokmim.)
I say again you are only trying to sew discord. The abolitionist movement is not in a ‘bind’ for saying those who commit abortion should be punished.
DeleteYou said; “But in that event, he (Russell) can't object to retroactive punishment.” Who said he every objected to it? Just because we are not advocating for making it retroactive (since the laws weren’t applicable at the time) we have no control over the lawmakers. Some just might make the punishment retroactive. Anything is possible. And as said earlier, those who made the memes, those who have repented and put all of the faith and hope in our Lord, are prepared for whatever answer they face.
"You're just trying to sew discord, brother."
DeleteAs if AHA doesn't do that all the time.
"You could have certainly contacted anyone in the abolitionist movement for clarification. The abolitionist movement of course wants abortion abolished and made illegal. But, we in no way are trying to make punishment retroactive."
Which represent's an arbitrary denial of what Russell's position logically entails.
By his logic, AHA ought to lobby for retroactive punishment. Abolitionist lawmakers *ought* to sponsor bills to retroactively execute women who consented to abortion. The fact that you fail to do so means you lack the courage of your convictions.
"It is no different than Jesus telling the woman at the well to; “Go and sin no more.” It doesn’t mean she is no longer labeled as an adulterer."
Actually, that's completely different. You're confounding divine forgiveness with legal culpability. But Hunter's argument is about legal culpability. Because abortion is murder, abortion ought to carry legal penalties.
If you say divine pardon for sin is equivalent to legal pardon for crime, then that nullifies Hunter's argument. Hunter's argument is about criminal justice under the law, not divine forgiveness for sin.
" Saying we want Charles Manson released is a ridiculous statement. There were already existing laws against murder when he committed his crimes."
Hunter doesn't make the legal status quo his standard of comparison. Indeed, he vehemently opposes the (current) legal status quo. Hunter makes the moral principle his standard of comparison.
Therefore, the legal status quo ante is utterly irrelevant to the force of his argument. That's an ad hoc distinction, given how he frames the issue.
"we have no control over the lawmakers"
DeleteYou have an Abolitionist state senator: Joseph Silk.
By Hunter's logic, he should introduce a bill mandating retroactive punishment for women who consented to abortion.
Since when does AHA take the position that if you don't have the votes to pass a bill, you shouldn't even put that on the table for consideration?
It's obvious you're still trying too hard, Steve. You're arguing like a pro-abort. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying abortion should be abolished because it is the murder of God's image bearers and that it should also be made illegal, by the exact same laws, already in place, which protect those outside of the womb. You're trying too hard.
ReplyDeleteYou're changing the subject because you can't refute with the specific argument that's actually under consideration.
DeleteRance Bennett
Delete"It's obvious you're still trying too hard, Steve. You're arguing like a pro-abort."
It sounds like Rance is resorting to ad hominem and guilt by association in lieu of reasoned argumentation.
"There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying abortion should be abolished because it is the murder of God's image bearers and that it should also be made illegal, by the exact same laws, already in place, which protect those outside of the womb. You're trying too hard."
Except this wasn't Steve's argument.
And by the way, we don't take this position:
ReplyDelete\\Since when does AHA take the position that if you don't have the votes to pass a bill, you shouldn't even put that on the table for consideration?\\
It was put on the table, but pro-life organizations used their influence to get so-called 'pro-life' republican senators to block it.
A bill everyone could have unified around, for the total abolition of human abortion, was stopped by the pro-life movement and republicans.
We aren't the ones sewing discord.
I didn't say AHA takes that position. I implied the opposite–which is what makes you blatantly inconsistent on this particular issue.
DeleteAnd you're talking about a different bill. The question at issue isn't the bill that Sen. Silk introduced, but a bill which he hasn't introduced: mandating retroactive punishment for women who've consented to abortion.
So you're doing a bait-n-switch. But your diversionary tactics are par for the course. Abolitionists would rather defend AHA than defend babies.