Professor Carlin raises a tough question, I will be the first to admit. It is one I am trouble answering. In struggling with this, It would be helpful to know how two leading pro-lifers resolve the matter — President Bush and Senator McCain. Being philosophically consistent with our believe in the human personhood of the unborn, Professor Carlin suggests that abortion be recognized as homicide. President Bush and Senator McCain do not support this — extending the U.S. Code to recognize the personhood of the unborn and thereby extending the laws against homicide to the unborn. Nor do President Bush and Senator McCain favor a separate federal offense even with a lesser penalty for abortion. Nor do they favor state laws to make it even a separate, lesser offense for a woman to abort. They do call for states to have the ability to make it illegal for doctors (or others) to perform an abortion.

While I cannot see how the Bush/McCain position is reconcilable with Professor Carlin’s philosophical position, I do see the merit in it from public policy stance. To my rational judgment, criminalizing the doctor and not the mother would seem to have the same practical effect at protecting unborn life while allowing society to deal with women in problem pregnancies in a more supportive way. The state-by-state troubles me as so long as one state holds out, it allows travelling for abortion. However, for some this fits their concept of American federalism.

Wow, even more “bitter” name-calling from the Obama camp. I suppose some people never learn.

So I’m saying that criminalization does not go very far in making a world where it is easier to be good. Abortion should be illegal, but where do you go from there?

What’s wrong with that Nate? A woman who aborts a baby is guilty of murder, and medical records prove it. Just because it might be “legally acceptable” by “pro-life” democrats doesn’t make it something other than what it is.

The political consequences I’m referring here are methods and dynamics that hinder, not promote, the outcome.

Gerald,

I have no problem in believing that such political consequences are what you were referring to. What I don’t buy is that these are the kind of consequences CD is referring to. The consequences which CD is referring to (drug abuse and incarceration) are consequences of making abortion illegal, not the methods whereby “advocates of illegality” seek to promote a certain end (a society which protects life).

I actually prefer to dialogue through the written word, partly because I find that reasoning is best done slowly but also because I have an absolutely horrible memory. I would not be a good oral debater. Writing gives me time to think things over, allows me to consult sources, and to refer back to the previous comments of myself and others. It would, however, be fun to have a Vox Nova conference. I’ve always wanted to meet, face to face, those who I interact with here.

Definitely! We should have a Vox Nova conference somewhere and we should all bring our boxing gloves along! Seriously… personal conversation is so much more fruitful and rewarding than the Internet :-/

http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2008/05/pastoral-action.html

I wonder if Catholic Democrats will have a statement

Well, I guess we don’t all live in the Pacific time zone. I hope, however, that at some point you will take a look at and respond to my 5:33 PM comment. Good night and God bless.

Too bad these exchanges have to be through the internet. So much is skipped, or assumed. But they have been rewarding discussions for me nonetheless. Hope the same for you.

Have a nice evening.

Your bitterness is less interesting than one would hope.