Sullivan's take on South Dakota's abortion proposition
I don't usually agree with Andrew Sullivan, but I read him because I know that his stances come from principles; they just usually are way different than mine. In this article he raises an interesting question on the ramifications of Gov. Round's abortion bill were it to beat the odds and survive court challenge.
For instance, do you invent a new crime for abortion, or do you charge those involved with murder? If you invent a new crime, is it because you don't really think that it was "murder" per se? If so, why are we even talking about this? If you charge someone with murder, do you charge the doctor? the mother? both?
I hope that this is purely a rhetorical discussion in the long run, but just in case I'm planning to toss some money to set up a string of bordertown McHenry's. Get in while the gettings good!
[Update: I noticed that The Galloping Beaver has pointed the same thing out here, with a few interesting links for your surfing pleasure.]
For instance, do you invent a new crime for abortion, or do you charge those involved with murder? If you invent a new crime, is it because you don't really think that it was "murder" per se? If so, why are we even talking about this? If you charge someone with murder, do you charge the doctor? the mother? both?
I hope that this is purely a rhetorical discussion in the long run, but just in case I'm planning to toss some money to set up a string of bordertown McHenry's. Get in while the gettings good!
[Update: I noticed that The Galloping Beaver has pointed the same thing out here, with a few interesting links for your surfing pleasure.]
