Sunday, August 09, 2009

Giving moral cover to baby-killers


“I mentioned the deaths of embryonic humans as possible evidence that the value of their life might be different from the value of the life of an infant. Even pro-lifers don't seem to want to attach the sorts of penalties to killing a fetus that they do to killing an infant.”

Are you saying they don’t want to as a matter of principle or strategy? Don’t want to because they don’t value both equally? Or don’t want to because that’s a futile political maneuver?

“Even when it was illegal, you didn't risk the chair when you got an abortion.”

I think it would be perfectly appropriate to treat abortion like other forms of homicide.

“But if abortion is a murder equivalent to all other murders, shouldn't it have been a capital crime?”

Yes, it should have. But the political process doesn’t enable us to do everything which out to be done. That’s pretty obvious. Why is Reppert so clueless?

“(I mean, what would you have to do, treat a woman's uterus as a crime scene?)”

Why not? For example, there are cases in which a pregnant woman is murdered so that her murder can cut the baby out of her womb and kidnap it.

Is Reppert suggesting that in a case like that, the uterus is not a crime scene?

BTW, notice how, to prejudice the issue, he chooses to single out the mother, as if she’s the only party to an abortion.

“Our efforts to bring the abortion rate as close to zero as we can get it should probably not focus on laws prohibiting abortion. There are so many other things we can do in this area. Does adoption work like it should, making that a viable option?”

It’s hard to adopt an aborted baby.

“Do we clearly publish the message that even if there is a legal right to an abortion, there may be no moral right to one?”

It’s hard to send a “clear” message when Reppert is busy promoting his “skepticism.”

“When people say ‘I think abortion should be safe, legal, and rare’ do we say "one out of three ain't bad, what can we do to make it rare?”

“Safe, legal, and rare” is not a real policy. It’s just a throwaway line which proabortion candidates use to make themselves sound more moderate than they really are.

“Do we raise the question of whether more government involvement in health care might reduce the abortion rate?”

Prolifers have addressed that issue. Try again.

“Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion.”

That’s another throwaway line. It’s NARAL propaganda. This is how Reppert gives cover to the baby-killers.

“Maybe pro-choice is wrong.”

“Maybe.” Notice his chronic vacillation. Does “maybe” send a clear message?

Maybe it’s right and maybe it’s wrong. Yeah, that sends a clear message.

“But it doesn't follow that people who are pro-choice don't find abortion unacceptable in most or all cases, or don't want to see the abortion rate come as close to zero as possible.”

At best they have a theoretical distaste which, however, is never allowed to interfere with what actually happens.

Impermissible in theory, permissible in practice.

“If you really accept the logical conclusions of pro-life rhetoric, you would have to make abortion not only a crime, but a capital crime. I don't hear anyone proposing that.”

i) That would be a just penalty. However, I don’t have to make something to be the case which I lack the power to make the case.

ii) Moreover, the priority is to deter the crime, not punish the crime. If you deter the crime, then there’s no crime to punish.

“But in the face of reasonable doubt as to the rights of the fetus, it may be best not to enact laws against abortion.”

Notice the “clear message” that Reppert is sending. “In the face of reasonable doubts about the rights of the fetus…”

“Interestingly enough, I don't see pro-lifers saying that the Supreme Court should say that the fetus has a right to life that should be protected under the 14th Amendment. If it has a right to life, why not argue that in court?”

Since the Constitution is silent on abortion, this is an issue for the legislative branch.

“Instead, they think the legal argument is that a woman doesn't have a right to privacy. Which means that states could outlaw contraceptives of facelifts if they wanted to.”

There is no Constitutional right to use birth control or have a facelift. Issues like that should be left to state legislatures.

So what if states try to outlaw it? They can only do so if that reflects the will of the voters. If the voters don’t like it, they can elect lawmakers who will enact their wishes. That’s the democratic process.

“But then, I don't believe in originalist jurisprudence, either.”

So he doesn’t believe the Bill of Rights should function as a check on powers of the state. He doesn’t believe the Constitution should limit the powers of the presidency.


  1. For anyone who has been offended by Triablogue's rhetoric toward Reppert in the past, you should re-think your offense.

    Reppert has now shown himself to be a false teacher who will do anything to justify his political alignment. He will even attack the authority of Scripture in order to do so.

    The rhetoric that Jude fired at his opponents is fully applicable here.

    If he were a simple unbeliever with no knowledge of right and wrong, then he should be treated with gentleness. However, this is quite the opposite.

    May God grant him repentance (2 Tim 2:25).

  2. "If you really accept the logical conclusions of pro-life rhetoric, you would have to make abortion not only a crime, but a capital crime. I don't hear anyone proposing that."

    I think the doctors should go to trial for ripping a baby apart, in late term abortions. And for partial-birth, where they actually turn the infant around in the womb, and then pull a kicking baby out, YET leave his head inside the womb, so that they can suck his brains out, well, ....enough said.

  3. Not all pro-lifers are in favour of capital punishment, so it is not necessarily true that "abortion should be criminalised" equals "abortionists and mothers who abort should be killed".

    Even for pro-death penalty pro-lifers, however, Victor hasn't really raised an argument. "But that would mean trying and killing abortionists, and we can't have THAT" raises the question, why not? Presumably those who performed abortions while it was still legal would not be tried: but once the laws were changed, of course they should be upheld.

    Trying the mother is trickier, simply because so many women are coerced into abortions or undergo them out of desperation - perceived self-defense, as it were. A teenage girl who is threatened and bullied by her father into having an abortion is a different case from a woman who has one in order to continue her partying lifestyle undisturbed. There's no reason the law could not take such distinctions into account, just as it would if the victims in question were two-year-olds rather than embryos.

  4. Yes, even if abortion were a capital offense, it would still be subject to mitigating circumstances–just like other capital crimes.

  5. Steve: "Why is Reppert so clueless?"

    I honestly don't know.

    I think he should be deeply ashamed of himself for giving moral cover to baby killers, an act which dishonors God.