It's true, the act of criminalizing something *may* be intended to be more nuanced than that, but that is the result of criminalization. Criminal law is too blunt and heavy an object to be used to express societal disapproval. The price of living in a free society is the loss of the ability to show that kind of disapproval.
(NB: Obviously, this is my belief, and not a reflection of actual reality; we live in a society many will call free, but where you can be put in jail for many acts that don't harm others.)
As for "murder statutes not making exceptions for pushing people out of lifeboats", it's true, they don't.
But I believe murder statutes don't tend to apply in the first place, when another person is killing you (albeit inadvertently), and you kill them because it's the only way to save your own life, in circumstances in which it is impossible to save you both.
If they do, in fact, apply in those circumstances, then I'll grant that people can be reasonable in an attempt to outlaw abortion, even to save the life of the mother, but it won't change my mind that they're completely wrong, given the special circumstances (i.e.: a pre-viability fetus).
In other circumstances - where, say, one person puts a gun to another's head to force the latter to kill a third person - I'd want judicial discretion, where we hope the prosecutor would choose not to prosecute, or the jury would refuse to convict. But in the case where only one party can be consulted, and the other is causing the first party's death, I think the law should allow the first party to make the call, even if we might disagree with it, depending on the circumstances.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-06 04:28 am (UTC)(NB: Obviously, this is my belief, and not a reflection of actual reality; we live in a society many will call free, but where you can be put in jail for many acts that don't harm others.)
As for "murder statutes not making exceptions for pushing people out of lifeboats", it's true, they don't.
But I believe murder statutes don't tend to apply in the first place, when another person is killing you (albeit inadvertently), and you kill them because it's the only way to save your own life, in circumstances in which it is impossible to save you both.
If they do, in fact, apply in those circumstances, then I'll grant that people can be reasonable in an attempt to outlaw abortion, even to save the life of the mother, but it won't change my mind that they're completely wrong, given the special circumstances (i.e.: a pre-viability fetus).
In other circumstances - where, say, one person puts a gun to another's head to force the latter to kill a third person - I'd want judicial discretion, where we hope the prosecutor would choose not to prosecute, or the jury would refuse to convict. But in the case where only one party can be consulted, and the other is causing the first party's death, I think the law should allow the first party to make the call, even if we might disagree with it, depending on the circumstances.