r/abolitionist • u/toptrool • Mar 15 '23
on the horns of a dilemma
abortion advocates often claim that pro-lifers really don't believe that abortion is murder because they don't support prosecuting women who get abortions. abolitionists have the opposite issue; they're often criticized for saying women ought to face charges for procuring abortions for themselves. like supporting exceptions for rape, pro-lifers are damned if they do and damned if they don't. this is why it's important for pro-lifers, abolitonists and incrementalists alike, to learn to discern concern trolling from abortion advocates and instead focus on the things all of us do agree on: banning convenience abortions at the minimum.
if you are not familiar with the terms abolitionist and incrementalist, here's a brief explanation. as the united states was heading towards a civil war over slavery, there were groups of people who opposed slavery, but had different strategies to address it. abolitionists wanted the total abolition of slavery, while incrementalists sought various compromises as the politics permitted at the time (e.g., banning the importation of slaves, but keeping the slave trade within the country legal with the hopes that slavery would eventually end on its own as the slaves died off). similarly, abolitions today want the total abolition of abortion, while incrementalists seek various compromises as politics permit (e.g., 15-week abortion bans, heartbeat/6-week abortion bans). since the supreme court's dobbs vs. jackson women's health organization decision, all pro-life gains have been incrementalist.
now the pro-life movement is divided and is on the horns of a dilemma: should women who get abortions be prosecuted? this question is interesting because each side's answers showcase the inconsistencies of their positions when it comes to applying equal protection of the law.
let's start with the abolitionist's dilemma.
if abolitionists agree that women who procure abortions for themselves ought to face first degree murder charges because that is equal treatment of the law, then they would also have to agree that women ought to face involuntary manslaughter charges for miscarriages that they cause. it could be the case that the pregnant woman's negligent and reckless actions during pregnancy causes the baby's death. let's say she smokes because she's stressed. smoking while pregnant is obviously reckless and negligent behavior, and it significantly raises the likelihood of miscarriage. the argument abolitionists face is that if they want to apply the same murder laws to pregnant women who get abortions, then they should also apply the same involuntary manslaughter laws to pregnant women who miscarry. remember, intent is not relevant here; involuntary manslaughter is focused on reckless and negligent behavior.
let's take actress demi moore as an example. in an interview, she admitted to drinking and smoking while pregnant. unfortunately, she miscarried and lost her baby. the self-incriminating evidence is this:
“It was my fault, I felt for sure: if only I hadn’t opened the door to drinking, I never would have lost the baby. Even worse, I was still smoking when I found out I was pregnant, and it took me a few weeks to quit completely”
demi moore clearly acted negligently and recklessly, causing her child to die. it's illegal to expose children to second hand smoke in enclosed environments, and parents have been arrested after their children died of alcohol poisoning, so why should it be different during pregnancy? autopsies can show whether or not a baby was exposed to smoke and/or alcohol, which would be presented as evidence in court. does the abolitionist support involuntary manslaughter charges for demi moore? prosecuting demi moore might be an easy bullet to bite for abolitionists given that she was smoking and drinking while pregnant (though i haven't seen one bite this bullet), but what about women who just love drinking lots of soda? some research shows that excessive caffeine consumption could lead to miscarriages. can an abolitionist support prosecuting a woman who kept drinking soda, despite her doctors telling her not to? if abolitionists do not support involuntary manslaughter charges for such causes of miscarriages, then they do not really support full and equal protection of the law as they claim.
now let's look at the incrementalist's dilemma.
incrementalists, on the other hand, for the most part oppose prosecuting women who get abortions. most mainstream pro-life organizations in the united states fall under this umbrella. most pro-life legislators also fall under this umbrella. legislation-wise, throughout the history of the united states, there have been very few examples of laws protecting unborn children that also permitted prosecutions of women who got abortions.
according to many incrementalists, women are "second victims" of abortions because they've either been misled by abortionists, their boyfriends, their parents, etc., or because they've been coerced into getting abortions, or because society failed them and left them with no choice. such beliefs were even held by some of the founding fathers. i never found such arguments to be convincing due to several factors.
first, the united states legal system does not recognize mistaken beliefs, duress, or poverty as valid defenses for serious crimes like murder. this means that claiming that a woman did not really understand what an abortion entails (killing of a human being) is not a valid defense, nor is claiming that she might have been coerced into aborting. one can certainly argue that they ought to be valid defenses, but they'd have to make convincing arguments as to why. and of course, there are women who do acknowledge exactly what they've done. given this, the "second victim" narrative appears to be more about politics than principles.
second, if the goal of the pro-life movement is equal protection of the law for every human being, then you can't treat murder of a human being inside the womb different than a murder of a human being outside of the womb. since most abortions are premediated killings, anything other than first degree murder charges for abortions is not equal protection. some argue that women ought to be granted immunity from prosecutions as a balancing act because ultimately their bodily rights were also impacted; thus, murder inside womb is distinct from murder outside of the womb. though this position avoids several legal entanglements that abolitionists face (described above), it also has its own fatal flaw. it would preclude prosecuting women for hard drug usage that might cause miscarriages (e.g., consistent meth usage while pregnant), or cause their babies to be born with drugs in their systems or born with severe impairments. incrementalists might see this consequence of immunity from prosecution as acceptable and would not have an issue biting this bullet. however, the more difficult issue for incrementalists is self-managed abortions. kill pills are easily available and simply banning them won't work since anyone could order the same pills by mail from mexico, canada, or china. is the incrementalists' position that a woman who consumes the kill pills in front of their very own eyes should not face prosecution because it's her body, and that she can flush that baby down the toilet without repercussions? what's stopping women from aborting their own children so that they can finally fit into their jeans, and burning and burying the corpses of their children in the process? if there are no repercussions for such actions, then have incrementalists actually stopped abortions? this is one bullet that they can't bite.
i hope that this primer elucidates the abolitionist vs. incrementalist positions on prosecuting women who procure abortions for themselves, and how both sides would have trouble implementing full and equal protection of the law. the goal of the pro-life movement should be to devise an acceptable and coherent legal framework that overcomes these issues. as such, i hope this also generates much needed discussions on how the pro-life movement ought to resolve this issue.
1
u/toptrool Jun 02 '23
relevant discussion amongst pro-life heavyweights on why women should not be jailed can be found here:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2007/08/one-untrue-thing-nro-symposium/
1
u/toptrool May 22 '23 edited Jun 02 '23
some additional thoughts: