Contra Mozilla

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Punishment or Prudence?

One issue which you can count on being brought up in any debate about abortion is the question of punishment. The pro-abortion side tries to use the potential punishments of abortion as a wedge issue to peel off otherwise pro-life voters (and apologists in general). I've seen it (erroneously) deployed as an argument that the Church did not historically condemn abortions because the latae sententia ex communication was not attached to Canon Law[1] until the last century or so--nevermind that every credible Catholic writing on the subject has condemned abortions, and this dating back to the earliest Christian writers.

The more common (and less obviously ridiculous) use of this objection goes something like this:
"I respect your moral position. But I think the relevant issue is not whether you broke up with your girlfriend because she once had an abortion but whether you think she should have been in jail for 10-15 years for having one, assuming that is the normal manslaughter sentence in the state in which you live. I don't mean to keep harping on the criminal punishment issue but it is one which right to life supporters habitually avoid, preferring to express moral sentiments and chastise those who do not share them. Sorry, but if you argue that abortion is homicide but don't support criminally punishing those who have them or those who perform them, you really don't think abortion is homicide."
Bluntly speaking, I do believe that abortion is homicide, and indeed commonly is outright pre-meditated murder. Perhaps in a juster world, it actually is punished as such (or arguably even more strongly), but justice is not the only virtue that needs to be balanced here. We also have both prudence and temperance to take into consideration, and possible even mercy.

In a world where many people--far too many--don't understand that abortion is murder, in a world where people can easily fool themselves into thinking that it's somehow not even homicide (or at least that the homicide is justifiable), application of the law does not necessarily call for the harshest penalties available (be that the death penalty, life in solitary confinement, or the 10-15 year homicide sentence quoted above). There is some measure of prudence which is required by even justice here.

In our society, a majority of people (let us be honest) do support some sort of abortion at least at or before some stage of pregnancy (though most also oppose abortion after 20 weeks, which is the time at issue in Texas SB1/HB2)--and the laws have allowed it nationwide for 40 years. Justice Kennedy did get that part of his opinion right when writing for the majority in Casey v Planned Parenthood--a sudden change in the law could lead to social upheaval. But while Justice Kennedy understood the prudence of the matter to that extent, he utterly failed to live up to his title as Justice, since his ruling did not further that aprticular cause in the least.

The day may yet come when abortions really are made rare, and when our laws really do recognize the sanctity of human life: that will be a good day. But if we were to suddenly outlaw the procedure, though these laws would serve justice they would not be prudent. They really might have some unintended consequences, even if the outcome of reducing abortions is unquestionably a good outcome. We need not only to fight abortions--which should certainly be our primary focus--but also the institutions which lead to them. This fighting is best done on a local level, within the community even, though the law against abortion should ultimately be federal.

But that again leads back to the question of how abortion ought to be punished. For now, I would say that the punishment against a woman who in desperation seek an abortion ought to be minimal; when society tells here there's nothing wrong with it, she may in her desperation even believe society against her better judgment, against her maternal instincts, and against her own conscience. That woman needs healing and mercy. In a world where society recognizes that abortion is homicide, and which reinforces this truth, it might be a bit different.

The abortionist who actually commits the deed is another story. He is himself contributing to keeping the lie widely repeated that abortion is healthcare, etc. Though a few such people have a change of heart, they really do deserve punishment. If abortion were to become illegal tomorrow, it is the abortionists who should face the immediate consequences of their crime [2]. So long as abortion looks like a viable option to a great many desperate women, punishing it with jail time is not the most prudent of options. Granted, if it would dissuade a goodly number of them from committing the deed then it would even a break with prudence is warranted--I just don't think that this will actually be the end result. Many of the women involved are victims as well (and some against their will)--which cannot be said of the abortionists.




----Footnotes----


[1] Itself not formally codified until the 19th century. There are very few sins which get the latae sententia excommunication: even rape and (postbirth) murder have not always received an automatic excommunication solely for the commissioning of the act.

[2] The other group would be the feminists who push for abortion. Indeed, some small number of them have, I am told, intentionally gotten pregnant so as to then "participate" in abortion. For them, abortion really is a sort of counter-sacrament, a ritual of initiation as much as baptism or communion, but with nearly the opposite effect, sealing their souls as belonging to Moloch or Satan. Fortunately, this dark counter-sacrament is not so indelible as baptism nor as final as Christ's sacrifice.

No comments:

Post a Comment