To: Brumar89 who wrote (124838 ) 2/2/2001 11:37:48 AM From: Johannes Pilch Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670 In a post I said: “But the law should certainly train its attention to all accomplices in the murder, and that includes the aborting mother.“ You said in response: “I consider that I've accomplished something in getting you to finally admit this.” Now I respond: You’ve done nothing here of the sort. You only flatter yourself for no good reason because I have maintained my current position on this point for years. Indeed, I have argued it even on this particular thread, before you came along, pal . (see below)What to do with the mother who is the accomplice in her child’s murder is no difficult question to answer. We give account in our law to the circumstances of lawbreakers. Women who go to the abortuaries to have their children murdered are often under duress. Taking this into account, we might sentence them to counseling and assistance, depending upon the case. Message 15259863 Nevertheless, not all murders are equal. Should a mother murder a child that results of rape, the law might treat her with extraordinary lenience and understanding, as long as it upholds the fact that a sacred, unique and innocent human life was extinguished. Message 15268358 So while the law should certainly turn its attention to women who become accomplices in the murder of their children, it should not typically turn upon them with the same force it would turn upon mass-murderers. Message 15262416 **** You said: Duress? When I listen to prolifers on a local Christian station, they say women who have abortions do so for convenience. And relative to murdering a child most abortions do occur typically of convenience. Most abortions do not occur because a woman’s life is in imminent danger. Moreover, a woman’s use of abortion for convenience does not eliminate the possibility of pressure in her circumstances (dear me). She may encounter some duress and see abortion as a convenient means to end it. The law should take into account her duress and circumstances as it does currently in other cases.So does this mean the morning after pill will or will not be given to rape victims if prolife laws are enacted into law? Please. There are many pro-lifers who have attempted to craft laws that would allow abortion in the case of rape, incest or where the mother’s natural life is threatened. So I have no idea of all these “pro-life” laws you are talking about. Your question is meaningless. You should ask me how I think about the matter. Do I think the “morning after” pill should be forbidden? Unequivocally yes, because the child that comes about from rape is innocent. But I can tolerate laws allowing the use of the “morning after” pill in the case of rape because the mitigating circumstances here are quite great. I can understand how from the mother’s perspective the rapist’s crime might seem perpetuated in the creation of the child. Many people are not so willing to do what is morally right when it demands the greatest sacrifice of them. Being human, I can tolerate such human frailty as long as it is acknowledged and worked against. Ideally, we should work to hold as sacred every innocent human life, however it comes to exist.Use of "extenuating circumstances" implies the morning after pill will be given to rape victims. Yet if prolife policies are adopted, the morning after pill will be outlawed. False. This is not necessarily true at all, as many pro-lifers are willing to tolerate abortions that result of rape, incest and endangerment of the mother’s natural life. I am one of them.