As I said, this is exactly where the hard conservatives should be denounced (or even stopped). They made a negative generalization of something which should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and considering the benefit of doubt and how it affects the people involved (especially the mother) abortion has to be treated as leniently as possible.
Also, I never objected precautions.
But there must be some abortions which should be considered murder, or at least it would have been seen as murder had the baby been born.
I have to ask: Where, and why, there needs to be a boundary that makes a life seems "expendable" before it's born?
Jumping in here, we can't leave *all* decision-making to an authority personage, because there needs to be some kind of law-like *universality* as a guiding *principle*.
Do you really think that *all* abortion cases, if they happen, would wind up in front of *one* single official, so that the 'case-by-case' decision-making is done by that *one* official?
No, of course, so there should be some *principles* at work -- meaning *law* -- that the various 'judges' abide by, for the sake of *consistency* in judging various abortion cases, if any.
'Case-by-case' *alone* implies too much *subjectivity*, by judge / official, as we see in the case of *summary executions* by various *individual* cops, on-the-spot, without consideration by any 'review' apparatus, meaning the *judicial* branch of government. The same concern should apply to *anything* else legal / civil-society, including abortions, if any, on a case-by-case basis, with *due process* -- which is what the judicial branch is *for*, under bourgeois hegemony.
If you think that certain 'cases' of abortion should be considered to be murder, legally, then you need to be specific about where you're drawing that line. You seem to indicate the *viability* of the fetus *outside* of the mother, which is one line to draw, but the *legal* implications are that the government would then have to *punish* the fully-grown mother over the viability of a less-than-born "person", which is pretty-much absurd.
Consider that the viability of the fetus, as outside of the mother, is basically *out of control* of the mother -- it's a biological roll-of-the-dice, so it's inappropriate to *blame* the mother for any potential inviability of the fetus -- by this logic all *stillborns* would be legally attributable to the mother, as though she didn't 'try-hard-enough', or some equally absurd reasoning.
In *practice*, of course, as I already mentioned, abortion industry norms are to perform the abortion as early as possible, to avoid alleged "complications", but even so, my argument still stands, regardless of *when* the abortion is done, that the mother can't reasonably be *blamed*, or be *culpable* for any unviability of the fetus, either within or without the womb, since such coming-to-term, or not, is strictly an unvoluntary *biological* process, and is not dependent on the *willfulness* of the mother in 'complicated' situations of pregnancy.
My main problem with this penalty is that it is too often applied on already poor people.
I strongly believe severity of penalty should be directly proportional to both the extent of the crime and the power held by the accused. If the accused committed, say, murder, because he had the means to do so as the President, he deserves the death penalty. Meanwhile, ordinary folks, however hideous crime he's committed, would suffice being locked away forever.
(In this sense, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping probably deserve being beheaded together)
Okay, this is politically astute, and seems to speak to the 'war crimes' issue which is usually glossed-over in matters of geopolitics. It makes sense to hold those with power *accountable*, instead of only applying this kind of penalty to *poor* people, as you mentioned.