If abortion is murder, then to procure the services of an abortionist is to hire a hit man. It is to take out a contract on another human life. Who signs such contracts, or pays for them, is then as much a murderer as the knife man who does the cutting.
This is hard, but that’s how truth is.
The question then is whether the Law treats abortion as murder. If it does, then women who abort are legally murderesses, and ought in justice to suffer the full legal penalty for murder.
There has for decades been honest confusion about this. Even when the Law still recognized that abortion is murder, women who aborted were not generally treated as murderers simpliciter. And under the present law of the land, abortion is not treated as murder to begin with. On the contrary. In its considered judgement, society has authoritatively instructed us that abortion is no big deal. Because of this confusion, many people labor under the illusion that abortion is not, in fact, murder. So there have been lots and lots of such murders. Reduce the costs and penalties of anything, and you are bound to get more of it.
Therein lies the efficacy of the Law as teaching authority. Precisely because the Law does teach, so those who make it bear moral responsibility for the acts of their students, insofar as they have been influenced by the Law. Where legislators err morally in their lawmaking, they are themselves at fault for what their dimmer subjects then do in response to erroneous legislation. Better for any legislator then who has thus led his flock astray to be cast into the sea with a millstone about his neck.
All this goes for custom, as well; for custom is just law that is taken so widely for granted, that no one much considers it, and that therefore calls for no formal notice. Those then who propagate the custom of abortion, or the promiscuity and breakdown of sexual order that it enables – as Hollywood or the Academy – are as culpable as if they had legislated it. They abet murder.
To the extent that a woman honestly credits the dictates of the legislature or the propaganda of the chattering class as morally authoritative permission for her procurement of an abortion, she is less culpable than she would be if she had acted in full consciousness of the evil of her act. Who has been taught from infancy by her elders that abortion is no big deal can hardly be blamed for acting as if that were so. And she ought not therefore to suffer the full penalty justly due to murderers.
But guilt is conserved. Penalties from which the innocence of her error excuses her ought therefore in justice to fall instead upon those who abetted her crime of murder – who taught her to do it, who urged and guided her to it, and encouraged her. Who exculpates sin takes to himself ipso facto its meet ontological cost.
But whatever the Law says, Nature and her God are the final judges of our acts, and they will exact from sinners the penalty ontologically due to their moral crimes even when they seem to suffer no legal punishment. You can argue with the Tao, but you might as well beat your head against a mountain. And indeed, that’s just how disagreement with Mother Nature generally works out: disastrously. This is why it is so important that the Law should echo and resonate to moral reality; should, i.e., be just; should be True. Where laws lie about moral reality, they addle and so ruin us; they betray us by means of our own misdirected acts to passion of evil, to illness, squalor, poverty, and death.