Home - List All Discussions

How Much Time Should She Do?

If Abortion Becomes Banned, What Should the Penalty Be for Women Who Get Abortions?

by: fetalisa

"Aug. 6, 2007 issue - Buried among prairie dogs and amateur animation shorts on YouTube is a curious little mini-documentary shot in front of an abortion clinic in Libertyville, Ill. The man behind the camera is asking demonstrators who want abortion criminalized what the penalty should be for a woman who has one nonetheless. You have rarely seen people look more gobsmacked. It's as though the guy has asked them to solve quadratic equations. Here are a range of responses: "I've never really thought about it." "I don't have an answer for that." "I don't know." "Just pray for them." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010696/site/newsweek/
A reporter, with cameras in tow, shows up at an abortion clinic protest. He proceeds to ask the protesting pro-lifers a question;
If abortion is made illegal, how should we punish women who get abortions?
All those questioned have a very difficult time coming up with any sort of logical answer at all. Some claim such a woman should receive counseling. Some claim such a woman should be prayed for. However, if abortion is murder and a fetus is a person, the only possible and logical answer to this question is the woman should be tried for murder. Yet, this very simple logical process is lost on the pro-life protesters who answer.
If abortion really is murder and a fetus really is a person, it really shouldn't be so difficult for these people to answer the question of what the punishment should be for women who get abortion if abortion is banned. Watch the video which is linked in the article and see for yourself.

reply from: gotfetus

This is the absurdity of the pro-life movement. We have very little to fear from them, as they have no clear vission as to what they believe. It is "led" by those who have personal motives, and have fractured their "movement" in petty turf wars. Choice is a united front. It has very little to fear from lemmings running over the pro-life clift. Their authoritarian relegion has robbed it's members from independant thought or expression.

reply from: Banned Member

Choice is a united front? Is that why so many abortion mills have been shut down? Is that why the nation now statistically is in favor of life?
As for penalty, one might ask whether under an all out abortion ban, would is be illegal to have an abortion, or illegal to perform an abortion. I would think that the doctor/abortion provider would be subject to much more sever punishment under the law.

reply from: fetalisa

Yes. It's murder, remember?
Yes. It's murder, remember?
Both must be prosecuted for murder.

reply from: fetalisa

You didn't read the article did you? This is the launch of a NATIONAL CAMPAIGN. How you answer the following question;
How much time should she do?
will be judged, at the national level due to this campaign.
If the prolife do not answer the mother should be charged with murder, then either;
A.The prolife do not believe abortion is murder
or
B.The prolife do not believe the fetus is a person
The fact that the prolifers who appear in the video CAN'T ANSWER THIS QUESTION, proves to us A, B or both A & B are true.
This is NOT a diversion. This is a NATIONAL CAMPAIGN.

reply from: faithman

Gosh I hate it when the Pro death skanks make more sence than we do.

reply from: gotfetus

Well ! The nasty little man returns! On behalf of prochoicers everywhere, I would like to thank you for making our job easier. With "pro-lifers" like you, we have no worries.

reply from: fetalisa

It's not good for the PL position on a national level. You all are about to be exposed. You have been claiming abortion is murder and the fetus is a person for years. So, if anyone asks you what the penalty should be for a woman who illegally aborts once abortion is banned, the only possible answer is "the same penalty as for murder."
After all, if some promiscuous slut walks into a PP abortuary and pays the abortionist to kill the child in her womb, that is no different than a man paying a hitman to kill his wife. In both cases a murder has been committed and one of the murder victims is a child.
Murder, and conspiracy to commit murder are capital offenses. So you can't answer, 'we jail the doctors and let the mothers go free." If that is your answer, then you obviously don't believe abortion is murder, since we don't let murderers, like the promiscuous slut who pays a PP abortionist to kill her child, walk away from a murder scot-free.

reply from: Draiocht

I feel a bit of sympathy for prolifers on this. On the one hand if they stick to their guns, the woman gets punished for being female. The male that knocked her up certainly would not be brought upon charges, because men aren't figured into the equation UNTILL one of them actually wants to step up...then suddenly it's about his rights.
On the other hand, if prolifers say "no" to this they are guilty of a double-standard. I don't consider it a fair question, but then plenty of baited questions have been given to me in the past.

reply from: carolemarie

First of all, abortion is legal, so theories about how long a person should go to jail are silly. It would be punished as the new law would prescribe.
If abortion is banned, then those who perform them would go to jail. Women would not be proscuted. Back when abortion was not legal, women were not charged, the abortionist was. Because her testimony was needed to convict the Doctor. Most Prolifers have no desire to punish women.
I personally think that abortion is murder, but I don't think women should be sent to jail for it. Those who are selling and making money of abortion should go to jail.
Carole

reply from: gotfetus

Your point is laughable. Some times murder for hire go the other way. The trigger man gets the deal to get the one who hired them. Are you now trying to tell us that the woman who hires the abortionist is not guilty of conspiring , and hiring murder? You pro-lifers do not have the grit to defend your position. As long as you put women who have aborted as your front people, your hypocracy is exposed. You really don't believe abortion is murder. You really believe like us that the "womb child" is not a "person" which deserves rights. When some one in your ranks makes that point, you do our job for us, and throw them under the bus of your false propaganda as a kook. But I must admit that this comedy of self righteous double standard is fun to watch. You guys are so fractured, and so internaly conflicted, that you will never be united enough to win rights for the specks.

reply from: fetalisa

The punishment must be the same as for anyone else who commits murder, IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE ABORTION IS MURDER AND KILLS A PERSON!
Excuse me but, why would you allow someone who asks a hitman to kill the person in her womb to go free? Conspiracy to commit murder is a capital offense and we don't let people who do such things walk away scot-free. Of course, the only way we can let the woman walk away scot-free after asking an abortioninst to kill the person in her womb is, if abortion REALLY isn't murder, or abortion doesn't REALLY kill a person.
And why was that? Because abortion isn't murder and doesn't kill a person. Therefore, a woman who pays a doctor for an abortion, hasn't really involved herself with murder in any way, shape or form.
Then we know you don't REALLY believe abortion is murder that kills a person. Because, if you did believe that, it would be a crime for a woman to pay a hitman to kill the person in her womb.
Then you trivialize murder.
Why shouldn't the woman who paid the hitman to kill the child in her womb NOT go to jail? She is just as much a murderer as the doctor is. She asked a hitman to murder the person in her womb. How can we let such a person walk away scot-free?
Unless abortion isn't really murder that kills a person, which means the woman did nothing wrong AT ALL by having an abortion.

reply from: Sigma

Well, this sort of begs the question on why it is wrong. Since most, if not all, pro-life people consider abortion murder (at least conceptually) it would make little sense to turn around and say that the punishment should not fit the crime. Since there are few "accidental abortions" or "abortions of passion" I don't think anything less than 1st degree murder would fit the circumstances. It was intended and premeditated, after all.
If you do not believe in the punishment, how can you believe the conceptus is morally equivalent to a newborn or an adult in terms of killing? It does expose that most pro-life people do not believe their own rhetoric.

reply from: gotfetus

Well, this sort of begs the question on why it is wrong. Since most, if not all, pro-life people consider abortion murder (at least conceptually) it would make little sense to turn around and say that the punishment should not fit the crime. Since there are few "accidental abortions" or "abortions of passion" I don't think anything less than 1st degree murder would fit the circumstances. It was intended and premeditated, after all.
If you do not believe in the punishment, how can you believe the conceptus is morally equivalent to a newborn or an adult in terms of killing? It does expose that most pro-life people do not believe their own rhetoric.
Where is the great MC3? I would love to see him wiggle around this one.

reply from: whydeath

One one hand I see abortion as a premeditated event. The woman has in her mind she wants to kill her baby and she seaks out someone to do it and has it done.
I feel this case is similar to one where a spouse wants their spouse dead, they seak out a hitman, pay them to do the job.
I think the doctors doing the abortions should be given a harder penalty then the woman unless the woman causes herself to abort.
On the other hand out prisions and jails are already full, I do not see thousands of women being locked up.

reply from: whydeath

I agree. I also understand woman would still have abortions even if they are illegal. They would cause themselves to "miscarry". We know taking certain meds will cause "pregnency problems" and I am sure there is some web page giving out this info....
It is like saying slavery is illegal and 99% of the people follow this law but the few that do not should be penalized.

reply from: Sigma

This is a copout. If abortion is equivalent to murder or equivalent to hiring a hitman to kill a family member there seems little reason to say that the consequences should not be as harsh as the laws governing those crimes.
To support anything less shows inconsistently in the pro-life position. The question should not be this difficult to answer :-\

reply from: Sigma

You've answered by saying you aren't going to answer.

reply from: fetalisa

Exactly! You don't really believe it is murder, which is why you readily admit it shouldn't be treated like murder if abortion were banned.
Congrats for coming clean on the fact that you don't really believe abortion is the same as murder, which is why you don't recommend women who illegally abort during a ban on abortion should be charged with murder.
Not at all, it merely proves you don't truly believe abortion is murder, since you don't recommend women who abort illegally under an abortion ban should be tried for murder.
On the one had, you presently say 'abortion is murder.
On the other hand, you say, 'well let's not prosecute women who abort illegally under an abortion ban.
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If abortion truly is murder, then it should be treated as such, so that women who seek illegal abortions under an abortion ban will be tried for murder.

reply from: fetalisa

BINGO! At least one of you here actually gets what this is about.

reply from: fetalisa

It's not about theories regarding possible punishments. It's about a disconnect in the prolife arguments;
Abortion is murder.
Yet,
If you truly believe abortion is murder, why would you let a participant in a murder go free?
Because you don't truly believe abortion is murder. If you did, you would argue women who abort should be tried for murder.
Why not? She paid a hitman abortionist to kill the child in her womb. That's murder for hire.

reply from: Sigma

Certainly what you posted is a start, but there are more questions I believe are relevant to the topic. Do you believe abortion should or does fall under the premeditated label as it currently applies to homicide? Is the woman merely an accomplice to the crime or is she primarily responsible? On whose shoulders should or does most culpability fall, in your opinion? Do you or would you support a charge of first degree murder on the part of the woman for the typical first trimester abortion?
Perhaps more central: Since you obviously believe the conceptus is a "person" equivalent to you or I, would you, personally, see the typical first trimester abortion as heinous a crime as killing you or I?
I believe the consequences should be the same as currently prescribed for homicide, which include anything from probation to death, depending on the circumstances of the individual case. You can't possibly expect me to pass sentence on a case without there having been a trial. Each case must be tried on it's own merits, and sentencing must fall within prescribed guidelines, but the specifics of each case must be heard before a specific sentence can be passed. Any and all mitigating circumstances must be considered. The truth is that current feticide statutes would likely be amended in the event abortion is criminalized. My personal view is that consequences should closely mirror existing penalties for feticide and/or homicide, but bear in mind that I oppose the death penalty under any circumstances.

reply from: fetalisa

Then why do you say 'abortion is murder,' if you don't want women who have illegal abortions under an abortion ban to be tried for murder?
It's silly to say now, 'abortion is murder.'
But if abortion were banned, 'well we won't jail women for it.'
Why not? If a woman pays an abortionist hit man to kill the child in her womb, that's murder for hire.
If you don't agree with that, you obviously don't believe abortion is murder.

reply from: fetalisa

It's not about whether the nation agrees or not. The question is, given the following circumstances, does it appear the prolifers believe abortion is murder:
1. PL say abortion is murder
2. PL say if abortion is banned, women who have illegal abortions will not be jailed.
You can't have it both ways. If abortion is murder, then women who seek abortions should be tried for murder. Otherwise, it doesn't really appear you believe abortion is murder, since you allow the woman who pays a hitman abortionist to kill the child in her womb to walk away from it scot free.

reply from: fetalisa

Then why criminalize an act for which you say there should be no penalty to pay for the act? It's kind of stupid to claim something is a crime, but then have no judicial penalty for committing the crime, don't you think?

reply from: fetalisa

Then I apologize for not correctly understanding your position. So now we have premeditated homicide on the part of a woman who asks an abortionist to kill the child in her womb. We call that murder.
So, the only thing we have left to wonder here is;
Once this national campaign is launched and the PL leadership answer the question that, under an abortion ban, a woman will be charged with homicide, and since the fact she asked for an abortion proves it was premeditated, so she should therefore be charged with murder, what percentage of the national population will fully support such an idea?

reply from: gotfetus

It's not about whether the nation agrees or not. The question is, given the following circumstances, does it appear the prolifers believe abortion is murder:
1. PL say abortion is murder
2. PL say if abortion is banned, women who have illegal abortions will not be jailed.
You can't have it both ways. If abortion is murder, then women who seek abortions should be tried for murder. Otherwise, it doesn't really appear you believe abortion is murder, since you allow the woman who pays a hitman abortionist to kill the child in her womb to walk away from it scot free.
What a flipping moron! Abortion is not "murder." Neither is "manslaughter," and neither is "feticide." That does not mean anyone who commits abortion, manslaughter or feticide should "walk away scott free."
Unfortunantly we have our FM's as well.

reply from: fetalisa

Then why have so many of the prolifers repeatedly stated 'abortion is murder' for as many years as have passed since Roe?

reply from: Sigma

The thrust of the question was your personal belief of what was justified. Thank you for answering the questions
I would guess that these answers would alienate many people from sharing your view.

reply from: Sigma

I seriously doubt that is what pro-life people really mean by "abortion is murder"
They, conceptually, believe abortion is equivalent to murder. At least they think they do

reply from: Sigma

However, given that most of the nation agrees with the pro-choice view (especially in the first trimester) on many issues, my guess that your view would alienate many has logical backing.
Those who agree with the pro-choice view would generally not value the conceptus on a level even close to equal with a newborn or adult. Given that, your view that killing the conceptus in a typical first trimester could be equivalent to 1st degree murder would not gain you many, if any, supporters. Beyond the crazies, at least.

reply from: Sigma

Having few supporters beyond the crazies is brilliant? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Then why have so many of the prolifers repeatedly stated 'abortion is murder' for as many years as have passed since Roe?
I understand the dictionary says murder is the "unlawful" taking of a human being's life. Lawful killings, according to our local government, include executions, military actions against opposing forces, preborn children. Some day, lawful killings may include the aged and infirm, probably meeting some criteria, such as diminished mental and/or physical capabilities.
Since many Pro-Lifers are Christians, I believe they often are referring to God's Law when they say abortion is murder. Abortion is the deliberate taking of another living human being's life.
I have no problem with holding a sign that says abortion is murder; I've done so in the past, and most likely will again in the future.
By the way, men should get equal billing. The question should be asked, "What is the father's responsibility when his unborn child is brutally slaughtered?" "What should his punishment be for his great dereliction of duty?"

reply from: fetalisa

We know for a fact they dont' really believe abortion is murder, not if they turn around and then say, but there's no need to jail women for it.
If abortion is murder, then women who have them should be tried for murder. If we don't do that, then abortion isn't really murder.

reply from: cassabreu

I believe 100% that women who have abortions should be put away for mureder when abortion is no longer legal. As of right now they, technicaly, are not breaking the law. Therefore are not punishable (in this life anyway). I do not believe that women who currently have abortions while they are still legal should be punished for them. We all know that they are doing wrong, just not in the eyes of the law. But on that great day when abortions become illegal, women and doctors who continue to abort should both be charged with murder.

reply from: gotfetus

Then why have so many of the prolifers repeatedly stated 'abortion is murder' for as many years as have passed since Roe?
I understand the dictionary says murder is the "unlawful" taking of a human being's life. Lawful killings, according to our local government, include executions, military actions against opposing forces, preborn children. Some day, lawful killings may include the aged and infirm, probably meeting some criteria, such as diminished mental and/or physical capabilities.
Since many Pro-Lifers are Christians, I believe they often are referring to God's Law when they say abortion is murder. Abortion is the deliberate taking of another living human being's life.
I have no problem with holding a sign that says abortion is murder; I've done so in the past, and most likely will again in the future.
By the way, men should get equal billing. The question should be asked, "What is the father's responsibility when his unborn child is brutally slaughtered?" "What should his punishment be for his great dereliction of duty?"
Gosh!!! The population control guys should hire you for their PR man. Al we want to do is remove a speck. You on the other hand, want four done in! The speck, the abortionist, Mom and Pop. India and China could use you as well.

reply from: fetalisa

Our government does not exist to propagate theology. Our government exists to serve ALL citizens, not just citizens who happen to be Christians. Our laws should not and will not be used to force Christian theology on the entire population either.
88% of which are aborted by week 13, which means the life aborted is non-sentient, no different than a plant.

reply from: fetalisa

The problem here is the public has heard the 'abortion is murder' for years, followed by being asked if it should be ok to kill a two-year old. As far as the public knows, murder means murder and the pro-life believe abortion is murder.
Until the pro-life turn around and say, but we won't jail women who abort. That's when the perception that 'abortion is murder' which the pro-life have spent years creating, comes crashing down to pieces, since you then claim you won't prosecute women who for murder. in having abortions.
It looks as if you never thought it murder to begin with.
And that's when the fraud is revealed.

reply from: JaysonsMom

I agree with this. While the law allows this atrocity to continue, we can't legally call it murder. But we can call it:
fe·ti·cide (f?'t?-s?d') Pronunciation Key
n. Intentional destruction of a human fetus.
which is the same thing in my eyes, we just dont have the law behind us YET. Too many people like fetalisa and gotfetus are sadly running around spewing venom and preaching that it's perfectly fine to end the life of a helpless child because at the moment, they are allowed to.

reply from: carolemarie

Your point is laughable. Some times murder for hire go the other way. The trigger man gets the deal to get the one who hired them. Are you now trying to tell us that the woman who hires the abortionist is not guilty of conspiring , and hiring murder? You pro-lifers do not have the grit to defend your position. As long as you put women who have aborted as your front people, your hypocracy is exposed. You really don't believe abortion is murder. You really believe like us that the "womb child" is not a "person" which deserves rights. When some one in your ranks makes that point, you do our job for us, and throw them under the bus of your false propaganda as a kook. But I must admit that this comedy of self righteous double standard is fun to watch. You guys are so fractured, and so internaly conflicted, that you will never be united enough to win rights for the specks.
We don't have to send women to jail to end abortion. All we have to do is jail the providers.

This has nothing to do with if the baby is a human or if it is being murdered. I do believe abortion is murder. But I don't believe that jailing moms is the way to end it. jailing providers is.

reply from: carolemarie

The punishment must be the same as for anyone else who commits murder, IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE ABORTION IS MURDER AND KILLS A PERSON!
Excuse me but, why would you allow someone who asks a hitman to kill the person in her womb to go free? Conspiracy to commit murder is a capital offense and we don't let people who do such things walk away scot-free. Of course, the only way we can let the woman walk away scot-free after asking an abortioninst to kill the person in her womb is, if abortion REALLY isn't murder, or abortion doesn't REALLY kill a person.
And why was that? Because abortion isn't murder and doesn't kill a person. Therefore, a woman who pays a doctor for an abortion, hasn't really involved herself with murder in any way, shape or form.
Then we know you don't REALLY believe abortion is murder that kills a person. Because, if you did believe that, it would be a crime for a woman to pay a hitman to kill the person in her womb.
Then you trivialize murder.
Why shouldn't the woman who paid the hitman to kill the child in her womb NOT go to jail? She is just as much a murderer as the doctor is. She asked a hitman to murder the person in her womb. How can we let such a person walk away scot-free?
Unless abortion isn't really murder that kills a person, which means the woman did nothing wrong AT ALL by having an abortion.
The point of outlawing abortion is to stop abortion. To stop it, you punish and jail the provider. Logically, how are you going to catch the woman? She is hardly going to turn herself in. That is why the provider is punished be cause the woman is the only witness.

reply from: gotfetus

You must think we are as dumb as you seem to be.Why couldn't you offer the same deal to the abortionist? Why couldn't you offer them a deal to get the list of women who aborted? Many times a deal is offered the hit man to get the one who paid him. As an ex-speck remover, you just want to let future speck removers walk, to ease your conscience. This is further proof that you do not believe that the speck is a child, and that speck removal is murder. It is this illogical conflick that shows what a farse "pro-life" is. It is my hope that you continue to allow speck removers be the voice of your movement. It gives us a win without lifting a fingure.

reply from: fetalisa

What a wonderful point that would be had I ever mentioned objective determination. You are arguing a point I never made, yet again. There really is no need for me to participate in such an exchange. If you are going to argue points I never made, there's no need for me to participate at all.
Bacteria respond to outside stimuli. That doesn't prove sentience or consciousness.
I am not discussing sleeping or aenesthetised humans. I am discussing the 88% of nonsentient life killed by abortion by the 13th week of development. Do you have any ability at all to stick with the topic at hand? Or is this yet another attempt to disprove a point I never made, by pretending the topic of the discussion is other than what it is?
You found a biased source whose opinion contradicts all known science.
Sentience, or the lack thereof, is always relevant to worth. We have no moral qualms about killing corn, so that we can eat. We have no moral qualms about killing sentient life like cows, so we can eat. Sentience is so relevant to the argument of worth, that we do an amniocentesis, in order to discover if it is WORTH carrying any given pregnancy to term, since amniocentesis can discover defects that do not allow sentience to develop.
That's their opinion. None in our society are obligated to live under their opinions.
None here have argued such, particular given the topic at hand is nonsentient life killed in abortion by week 13 of a pregnancy, rather than born people.
You raised 7 different issues here. Of those 7;
The first addresses a point I never made.
The second is a fallacy that presumes response to stimuli proves sentience.
Points 3 & 7 are off topic.
Point 4 quotes a biased source.
Point 6 is mere opinion.
That leaves point 5 as the only relevant and valid point you made.
And you claim this is tedious for you?

reply from: fetalisa

The point flew right over your head. It's not about what you do or have to do. It's about a disconnect in pro-life logic;
Abortion is murder, but we won't jail women who have them.
If you are so sure abortion is murder, why would you NOT jail women who have them? Murder is a very serious crime in our society. You argue a murderer should go free, either that, or you don't really believe abortion is serious enough to warrant a murder charge, which means you don't really believe abortion is murder.

reply from: gotfetus

The punishment must be the same as for anyone else who commits murder, IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE ABORTION IS MURDER AND KILLS A PERSON!
Excuse me but, why would you allow someone who asks a hitman to kill the person in her womb to go free? Conspiracy to commit murder is a capital offense and we don't let people who do such things walk away scot-free. Of course, the only way we can let the woman walk away scot-free after asking an abortioninst to kill the person in her womb is, if abortion REALLY isn't murder, or abortion doesn't REALLY kill a person.
And why was that? Because abortion isn't murder and doesn't kill a person. Therefore, a woman who pays a doctor for an abortion, hasn't really involved herself with murder in any way, shape or form.
Then we know you don't REALLY believe abortion is murder that kills a person. Because, if you did believe that, it would be a crime for a woman to pay a hitman to kill the person in her womb.
Then you trivialize murder.
Why shouldn't the woman who paid the hitman to kill the child in her womb NOT go to jail? She is just as much a murderer as the doctor is. She asked a hitman to murder the person in her womb. How can we let such a person walk away scot-free?
Unless abortion isn't really murder that kills a person, which means the woman did nothing wrong AT ALL by having an abortion.
The point of outlawing abortion is to stop abortion. To stop it, you punish and jail the provider. Logically, how are you going to catch the woman? She is hardly going to turn herself in. That is why the provider is punished be cause the woman is the only witness.
You must think we are as dumb as you seem to be.Why couldn't you offer the same deal to the abortionist? Why couldn't you offer them a deal to get the list of women who aborted? Many times a deal is offered the hit man to get the one who paid him. As an ex-speck remover, you just want to let future speck removers walk, to ease your conscience. This is further proof that you do not believe that the speck is a child, and that speck removal is murder. It is this illogical conflick that shows what a farse "pro-life" is. It is my hope that you continue to allow speck removers be the voice of your movement. It gives us a win without lifting a fingure.

reply from: cassabreu

UUUUGGGHHHHH!!!!! Why do you continue to call these babies specks???? They are not specks!!!

reply from: carolemarie

When abortion is banned the law will ban people from providing abortions. It will punish those who violate that law. Banning abortions is not about making the punishment fit the crime. We have different degrees of murder and punishments for it on the books now. I am sorry that we are not for sending women to jail. I am sorry that offends you. It has nothing to do with believing abortion is murder or not. It has everything to do with stopping the source, the provider. If you take out the supplier you end the demand.
If the pro-choice movement wants to add jail time to an abortion ban, they will need to lobby for that themselves.

reply from: gotfetus

So the ex-speck remover refuses to answere the question. If abortion is murder, then the providee is as guilty as the provider. if demand is stopped the supply goes away as well. In murder for hire, it is the hired who is usually caught, and gets the deal to rat out the hirer. Are you saying that an abortionist would not be allowed to make a deal to rat out his/her clients? It is your illogic that gives PLers one big black eye. If you are not willing to make the punishment fit the crime, then one has to wonder if a crime was commited.

reply from: gotfetus

UUUUGGGHHHHH!!!!! Why do you continue to call these babies specks???? They are not specks!!!
Because it makes you go UUUUGGGHHHH!!!!! and you do it so cute. excuse me If that amuses me. But please do keep up the good work. This summer TV programing is insuferable. This frum has really taken up the slack.

reply from: carolemarie

Let me state this in a way that you can understand.
An abortion ban will make performing an abortion against the law. Those who perform the abortions will go to jail. If abortion is banned, women will not be able to get abortions and no more children will be killed.
Wanting to send women to jail will make it impossible to get a ban. It would make the 55 million who have had abortion feel to conflicted. Our goal is not to punish women but to end abortion. That is easily done through jailing the providers.
Yes, abortion is murder. But the focus is on ending the practive, not punishing women.
And for your point way back several post ago, YES pro-choicers use to claim an embryo was a blob of tissue. I personally was told that by the clinic! I know lots of women who were told that same thing! (This was before sonograms). Pro-choicer's lie to women all the time!

Pro-choice fanatics have always insisted that the baby doesn't count, your reasoning about bodily automy is another attempt to rationalize abortion by acting like the women magically found herself pregnant! Her behavior is the reason she is pregnant.

reply from: fetalisa

It's nice to see a pro-lifer honestly admit the ideals they wish to shove down the throats of all in our society are so easily dismissed due to political popularity. Abortion is murder, but it's not worth sending women to jail. All you have shown here is you don't believe abortion is murder and you don't believe an unborn is a person. If you did believe those things, you would not argue that a murderer of a person should go free.
Exactly! You wish to create a crime, for which no penalty is given. Why make it a crime if there will be no penalties for the crime?
Hardly, because the argument is total nonsense. Abortion is murder but women go free.
Actually, it's nonsentient life, just like plants.
For the 88% of abortions that occur by week 13 of a pregnancy, it's not a baby, not even close. It's non-sentient life, no different than a plant.
Yeah, who cares about silly ideas like bodily autonomy? Just because bodily autonomy is what makes rape and slavery illegal, doesn't mean such an idea is any good for society.
It's not your business if some other woman gets pregnant or aborts. Her choices over her body don't affect you at all, which is why you have no say at all in her decisions.
In a free society, she has a right to her behavior. You have no right to dictate what her behavior should be either.

reply from: carolemarie

It's nice to see a pro-lifer honestly admit the ideals they wish to shove down the throats of all in our society are so easily dismissed due to political popularity. Abortion is murder, but it's not worth sending women to jail. All you have shown here is you don't believe abortion is murder and you don't believe an unborn is a person. If you did believe those things, you would not argue that a murderer of a person should go free.
Exactly! You wish to create a crime, for which no penalty is given. Why make it a crime if there will be no penalties for the crime?
Hardly, because the argument is total nonsense. Abortion is murder but women go free.
Actually, it's nonsentient life, just like plants.
For the 88% of abortions that occur by week 13 of a pregnancy, it's not a baby, not even close. It's non-sentient life, no different than a plant.
Yeah, who cares about silly ideas like bodily autonomy? Just because bodily autonomy is what makes rape and slavery illegal, doesn't mean such an idea is any good for society.
It's not your business if some other woman gets pregnant or aborts. Her choices over her body don't affect you at all, which is why you have no say at all in her decisions.
In a free society, she has a right to her behavior. You have no right to dictate what her behavior should be either.
Actions have consequences. While you have a "right" to behave irresponsibly, you can't claim a right to escape consequences from that behavior. Society dictates behavior to all of us. Laws are about behavior that is allowed or not allowed.
And her choices effect all of us. It takes two people to create a baby, but only one gets to decide the fate of their child! A society that kills children to make mom's life eaiser is a society that can remove protection from any person at any time. Nobody has the right to kill a baby. Women don't OWN the babies they conceive. Babies are not property like shoes or a puppy. That baby is a seperate life. And as for the assertation that a developing baby is non-sentient life just like a plant is silly. Plants never develop self-awareness, the baby will. You once were an embryo, just as you once were a newborn and a toddler. Human life goes through different stages, one of which is an embryo. That doesn't mean that it is okay to kill people because you don't value a stage.
And the political reality is the framework we work in to pass laws. An abortion ban will pass if the focus is on outlawing the procedure not heaping guilt and punishment on women. It would be stupid to insist on a law that you couldn't pass just to punish women, when that isn't your goal.
Anyways, I wish you peace and I see no point to bothering to talk to you. We will never agree, and happily your extremist viewpoint is not shared by the majority of society.

reply from: Sigma

Actually it was exactly what I expected, from your misunderstanding of my point and on what is mainstream to your actual stance.
I'll paraphrase what I said before: Given that most of the nation agrees with the pro-choice view (especially in the first trimester) on many issues, my guess that your view is not mainstream has logical support. You are one of the crazies, or at least your view is more aligned with them. They'll probably condemn you on the grounds that it isn't based in religion, but truly told they're virtually the same.

reply from: Sigma

Your assurance means little when you obviously misunderstand :-\
That is true. Your position is not mainstream by any stretch of the imagination, however.
You not understanding the answer is not the same as me not answering the question.

reply from: MC3

Abortion enthusiast, Anna Quindlen, recently wrote an article for Newsweek Magazine in which she raised this "punishment" issue saying that it presents a question for which the pro-life movement has no answer. Naturally, like good little soldiers, her fellow degenerates on this forum immediately jumped on the bandwagon.
When these people say we have no answer to this issue, they are lying. In my case, I have publicly stated my view many times over many years. The fact is, we do have an answer but it is not one our enemies like. While some of my fellow pro-lifers do indeed feel that jailing women who submit to illegal abortions is necessary to be consistent with the pro-life principle, most seem to agree with me that there is no practical incentive for doing so and that laws against abortion should concentrate on the abortionist. This is an approach that we know works since it was working before Roe v. Wade.
To begin with, except in the extremely unlikely event that a woman is actually caught in the act of having an illegal abortion, a conviction would be virtually impossible to obtain. In addition, the woman is the best source of information and evidence needed to convict the abortionist. If she faced prosecution, she would never admit to the abortion which means the state would not get the evidence needed to convict the abortionist. That would leave him free to kill again.
This doesn't excuse the woman for having participated in an illegal act. It simply recognizes that the public interest is best served by removing the abortionist from society, and that legal sanctions against the woman would reduce the chances of that happening. It's no different than the authorities granting immunity to a small-time drug user in exchange for information on a big-time drug dealer. Remember, the goal of the pro-life movement is to stop abortion. Imprisoning a woman who had an illegal abortion would prevent nothing since her child is already dead, but imprisoning the abortionist might save thousands of babies in the future. If giving women a pass on prosecution is the best way to make that happen, that is a deal worth making.

We should also consider that, given the shortage and expense of jail space in America, it makes no sense to take up a cell with a woman who had one abortion when that same space could confine an abortionist who might do them by the thousands. And let there be no mistake about it, prison is precisely where these people deserve to be. Women who submit to abortions may or may not be fully aware of what they are doing, but no such defense can be made for the abortionist. When they pull those tiny arms and legs and heads out of women, they know for a fact that they are committing the most brutal of murders. The fact is, there is not one person sitting in a prison cell anywhere in America who committed an act worse than performing abortions. Furthermore, not one of those people victimized someone as helpless as an unborn baby. So not only are abortionists contract killers with the morals of sewer rats, they are cowards as well.
When discussing this punishment issue, something very curious inevitably creeps into the conversation. Although some pro-lifers argue for imprisoning women who submit to abortion, the people most insistent upon it are those who call themselves pro-choice. Like many other things they do, this exposes their cynicism and hypocrisy. On one hand, they try to frighten women with the suggestion that pro-lifers are going to have them tossed into jail. When we make it clear that we have no such intention, their response is to accuse us of being unconvinced of our own position. Like I said in the beginning, these people are liars.
Having said that, however, I do have a suggestion for them. If they honestly think it's so unfair for abortionists to be targeted but not their customers, let them be the ones to lobby for legislation to put women in jail. If instead of helping women facing unplanned pregnancies find alternatives to illegal abortions, the Choice Mafia would prefer to seek legislation to put them in prison, so be it. My feeling is that they will find little legislative support for that idea, but we'll see. In the mean time, those of us in the pro-life movement will focus our attention on stopping the killing.

reply from: Sigma

While you certainly give good practical reasons for not jailing women who procure abortions, do you believe that they deserve the same punishment as one kills a family member? Or the same punishment as those who hire hitmen?

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

A father or mother who hires a professional killer to kill their unborn child should receive exactly the same charges as one who pays a hitman to kill an adult.
If a father or mother beats a teenage child to death, the punishment should be the same as having a professional killer dismember or saline poison their unborn child.

reply from: Skippy

I didn't realize that the purpose of incarceration for killing was to prevent the person from killing again. I thought it was to punish them for killing in the first place.
Ah, well. You learn something new every day.

reply from: cali1981

A wonderful explanation of the pro-life position on this issue!

reply from: holopaw

If I were Pro-Choice I would laugh at Pro-Lifers. We whine and moan that the unborn have the same right to life as a three year old or a thirty year old. However, if abortion is illegal then we give abortionists and killer moms a different penalty.
Lame!

reply from: holopaw

I seriously doubt that is what pro-life people really mean by "abortion is murder"
They, conceptually, believe abortion is equivalent to murder. At least they think they do
It's sad that Sigma understands the PL position better than CP.

reply from: holopaw

We know for a fact they dont' really believe abortion is murder, not if they turn around and then say, but there's no need to jail women for it.
If abortion is murder, then women who have them should be tried for murder. If we don't do that, then abortion isn't really murder.
If abortion becomes illegal, I have no problem saying we should lock them up. Unlike, some compromising PLers I believe killing a fetus is the same as killing an infant.

reply from: NewMom

This is going to come out sounding a little bit probort from me, but read on. I think its entirely possible for abortion to be criminalized, and yes, the industry would come to a halt, but those who still perform abortions illegally when caught would face harsher penalties than those already in place. There would be less prosecutions but the fact of the matter is there will still be murders of unborn children much as there still will be murders of born people. Criminalizing abortion (even one state at a time) will lower the prevalence and numbers of abortions, however there will obviously still be a need for anti-abortion advocacy organizations. Its the same for murder under the law - people will still commit it even though it is illegal and prosecutable, people still go on without being caught and re-offend even after punished.
Aside from criminalization and punishment, there will still always be a need to spread the message that abortion is wrong.

reply from: NewMom

I wouldn't want a woman who killed her unborn child to serve less time in jail than a serial killer. Its still murder; there is still premeditation - a woman has to sit down and decide she is going to murder much as a serial killer decides the death of his victim. Abortionists create their business on murder like hitmen create their business on murder. An unborn child still has a right to life as much as an 80 year old man in a coma has a right to life!
Lame, is that you call yourself prolife but mock yourself at the same time.

reply from: NewMom

I don't think its siding with pro-aborts and pro-choicers if you are agreeing that criminalizing abortion is ok for the right reasons. As prolifers, if we want to stop the potential occurrance of more abortions occuring, why is criminalization such a bad thing? You lost me above - I wouldn't question whether or not you value an unborn's life, but it just puzzles me. As prolifers we are always reminded abortion is murder. Why wouldn't you want to have a legal punishment for murder of an unborn child?

reply from: NewMom

My thinking: In a hypothetical situation, if abortion were criminalized, there would still be illegal abortions, but they too would be punishable under the law. It would decrease the amount of abortions substantially, as the number of legal abortions performed would be wiped out. I recognize still that it would not fully prevent abortions from occuring illegally. That is the sad uncontrollable part.
However, my thoughts come from pondering about people in my age group. In a complete nutshell context, my thoughts are these. Despite the bombardment from the media of all the bad punks and gangbangers, who are out there causing trouble, there are still many young couples/ladies that get pregnant such as myself who come from just a regular middle class suburban upbringing. I've encountered many ladies from the moderately same situation as myself who instead seek abortion. If it were illegal, my thoughts are that morally it would be more recognizable as "not the right thing to do" if legally that choice of whether or not to kill were removed and it were classed as "murder".
Just my take on it.

reply from: faithman

....and exactly the right take on it....

reply from: BORNWOMENFIRST

Wrong.
https://Abortion just as common where it's illegal">http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH...lobal.ap/index.html[/S

reply from: BORNWOMENFIRST

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/11/abortion.global.ap/index.html

Just because you want to believe abortion would magically disappear from RvW being overturned (remember, abortion wasn't illegal before it), doesn't mean it would.

reply from: AshMarie88

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/11/abortion.global.ap/index.html
">http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH...l.ap/index.html
Just because you want to believe abortion would magically disappear from RvW being overturned (remember, abortion wasn't illegal before it), doesn't mean it would.
And just because it might be overturned, doesn't mean more women would start self aborting.
But... illegal abortions are choices, too.

reply from: BORNWOMENFIRST

Yes, because only YOU has the correct question to the abortion debate. @@

reply from: BORNWOMENFIRST

Doesn't mean more would do it or less... just that worldwide, legal vs illegal means nothing. When women don't want to be pregnant, they will find a way to abort, with or without government permission.
So is having children... and raising them... and choosing not to have them.

reply from: AshMarie88

Choosing not to have your existing children is wrong.
They exist, they're alive, they're innocent - There's no reason for abortion to even be an option.
You can't choose to not have something you already HAVE.

reply from: AshMarie88

And things like rape and murder are illegal, yet people still find ways to rape and murder. Perhaps we should make those safe and legal? It doesn't make any of it right.

reply from: BORNWOMENFIRST

Not only do you get to decide what is the correct questions to ask, but now you get to decide what is a "nonessential" abortion! And no, I don't believe many anti choicers would allow women to terminate for medical reasons. You would much rather see women suffer than allow her control over her reproductive organs.

reply from: BORNWOMENFIRST

Your opinion, not a fact.
Prove they are innocent. Anything using my bodily resources without my consent is far from innocent.
Yes, actually I can. It I don't want to have breasts anymore, I can HAVE them removed. If I don't want my tonsils, I can HAVE them removed. If I don't want to be pregnant, I can HAVE the fetus removed. You may not like it, but it doesn't mean I can't do it.

reply from: BORNWOMENFIRST

Rape and murder take away a born person's right over their bodily resources/automony. Just like unwanted pregnancies. Thanks for proving my point.

reply from: AshMarie88

Rape and murder take away a born person's right over their bodily resources/automony. Just like unwanted pregnancies. Thanks for proving my point.
Rape and murder, like abortion, harm another person's body without their consent. The victim in rape is the woman, the victim in murder is the dead, the victim in abortion is the INNOCENT (YES innocent because it's done nothing to anyone) baby dead.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yes, actually I can. It I don't want to have breasts anymore, I can HAVE them removed. If I don't want my tonsils, I can HAVE them removed. If I don't want to be pregnant, I can HAVE the fetus removed. You may not like it, but it doesn't mean I can't do it.
You cannot compare KILLING, ENDING a person's life, to having your tonsils removed. That's INSANE and illogical.

reply from: AshMarie88

FYI, I would have NO problem whatsoever if you decided to remove your breasts or tonsils. Why? Because those are procedures that affect YOUR body and YOUR body only. Abortion affects more than just YOUR body. There's TWO bodies in pregnancy, two in abortion - One of them is mutilated and sucked thru a tube, and guess which body is the one killed? Surely not yours. It's not YOUR body.

reply from: BORNWOMENFIRST

Yes, it is my body. And if I don't want something in it, it will be removed. Tonsils, breasts, fetus. Unless I choose to allow them to stay there, I can remove them at my will. At least you admit you are wrong when you say I can't remove something that is already there though. It is a start.

reply from: BORNWOMENFIRST

Yes. It is called organ donation. Ever hear of it?

reply from: AshMarie88

Yes, it is my body. And if I don't want something in it, it will be removed. Tonsils, breasts, fetus. Unless I choose to allow them to stay there, I can remove them at my will. At least you admit you are wrong when you say I can't remove something that is already there though. It is a start.
Okay, it's your body you're pregnant with... So, in pregnancy, a woman has two sets of everything, and in half of all cases, a penis?
Wow!! I didn't know that at all!!

reply from: BORNWOMENFIRST

Too bad you didn't specify when I could remove it, huh?
Suicide is illegal? Never heard of anyone being convicted of it.
Would you like to try again?

reply from: BORNWOMENFIRST

It is my body I'm pregnant with... and if I don't want another entity using my body to live off of, I can remove it. The government has no right to force one person to donate their organs against their will.

reply from: AshMarie88

So you're pregnant with your own body, but it's "another entity"? Excuse me?

reply from: Teresa18

BORNWOMENFIRST,
I have countered this CNN/Guttmacher study 3 times previously, and I will do it again.
First of all, Life News has a criticism of this study. While you may protest it being a pro-life orgnanization, it's no more partial than the Guttmacher Institute.
http://www.lifenews.com/int472.html
I found fault with your article not mentioned by Life News. I read it several times and was confused. They say, "In a study examining abortion trends from 1995 to 2003, experts also found that abortion rates are virtually equal in rich and poor countries, and that half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe." But, as you go down further they say, " The vast majority of abortions -- 35 million -- were in the developing world." The developing world is generally poor countries according to wikipedia, so how could the rates of abortion be equal? This would mean that only 7 million abortions are occuring in the modern world which would counteract their claim that abortions are equal in rich and poor countries. We are supposed to believe developing countries have more abortions than modern countries where abortion is legalized? At that, 28 million more? Ridiculous! The article even says there are 17 abortions for 100 live births in Africa. This is lower than the figures for eastern Europe, western Europe, and North America.
Furthermore, it is nothing more than a myth that women will start dying left and right if abortion is made illegal here.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/o...m_both_27.asp#illegal
Women in poor countries are dying because they need good medical care. This doesn't mean that their babies have to be slaughted. They just need good doctors, OBGYNs, and hospitals to take care of them.

reply from: BORNWOMENFIRST

No, just cases where someone was convicted of suicide.
So you are pro forced organ donation then? When are you lining up to give away a kidney? Someone is DYING right now because you refuse to give them one. You are destroying another.
Keep your legs shut again!
You sure like these senerios where you attack, main and kill people an awful lot...

reply from: BORNWOMENFIRST

Last I knew, a fetus REQUIRED a woman's uterus to sustain life. Are you that stupid?

reply from: BORNWOMENFIRST

IMO, it is. I don't read anti choice propoganda.

reply from: BORNWOMENFIRST

Yup... that is it. No food, money, housing, clothing... just forced gestation and everything is fine.

reply from: PGAJAMIE411

Hey life lovers,
Please go to Ronpaul2008.com right now and donate to Dr. Ron Paul for his bid for president of our nation. He has delivered over 4000 babies and knows that abortion is evil! We are trying to rasise $10,000,000.00 in one day! Follow your heart!
Peace,
Jamie

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Excuse you? Pro-choice does not mean we want every unwanted fetus to be murdered. There is also no death without life, smart one. It is so sad how blind you are to your own sexist and prejudice views.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

I see that Kay loves choices. What kind of choices do you like? Being able to choose to murder, rape, steal, drive drunk, operate heavy machinery around others while on drugs? Should all choices be allowed to individuals? Should government get out of the business of incarcerating those who make poor choices that are detrimental or destructive to others?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics