Home - List All Discussions

Are "punish the women" extremists helping or hurting the prolife cause.

by: Faramir

Please participate in the poll.

reply from: Faramir

I'm beginning to think this talk about putting women behind bars is not at all good for advancing the prolife movement and getting Roe v Wade overturned or even in establishing personhood.

reply from: Banned Member

Barack Obama believes that women who have babies are being punished. You and others say that women who kill their babies should not be punished. Your view is every bit as unenlightened as Obamas.

reply from: teddybearhamster

i'm not sure. i think abortion should be outlawed and women seeking them should suffer the consequence. i don't think a girl whose parents force her to have an abortion or a girl whose being threatened by a deadbeat dad 'get an abortion or i'll kill you' should be punished. in those cases the parents and the guy should be punished.

reply from: Faramir

This is totally illogical. Barack Obama misused the word punishment. It has nothing to do with the question at hand. You've committed an equivocation fallacy to the extreme.

reply from: nancyu

Personhood must be established. The punishment will be left up to the justice system. We can't tell every woman they will automatically get a free pass. This would only mislead and deceive them, and that is not the right way to go about getting laws changed.

reply from: teddybearhamster

you are right. personhood must be established. if that happened there wouldn't be any clinics to go to anyways.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

You refer to "punish the women" extremists. A person is extreme to advocate punishment for those that take the lives of other living human beings?
Faramir and carolmarie are abortionist enablers. No wonder the Pro-lifers have gone after your comments. This has been refered to as "personal attacks" or "attacking each other". However, you guys seem to be true died in the wool supporters of those who engage in abortion. You are wolves in sheep's clothing. No wonder all the consternation.
You hurt babies when you say there should be no consequences to killing one.

reply from: Faramir

This view is pretty much mainstream prolife. Would you say that someone like Fr. Pavone is a wolf in sheep's clothing?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

I see, Faramir, that you say the Prolife America Forum can be characterized by a youtube video that you located. It's entitled Madhouse. The man screams over and over, "This is a Madhouse". Anything you are trying to communicate Faramir?
The reality is that today's society is a madhouse. Nearly every movie that comes out these days has a gratuitus scene of sexual immorality. These people have a date with eternal death and are perishing. They think it's normal to proceed the world's way. These selfish people also murder babies. They don't think anything is wrong; they think everything is normal.
You think killing a child is so serious that maybe the perpetrators shouldn't even get the equivalent of a parking ticket.

reply from: Faramir

That is not just any scene, but a scene from the greatest movie of all time. Yes, I'm trying to communicate something. You don't get it? The handsome fellow in the jail represents normal people, in which company I consider myself, and the ugly gorilla with the hose...he's...well, I let others decide the posters he could be representing.
I think there should be a stern warning and possibly some community service. There should be some device in place which thoroghly informs her that what she did was wrong and why.

reply from: galen

we prosecute people for manslaughter when they act in the 'heat of passion'... wich means they don't get a premeditaion clause added to them. So why not charge someone who has killed their child in the same way. They reacted for emotional extremes but without the premeditation that the abortionist did.
It lets justice for the child be served at the same time reducing the charges against the woman...
everybody happy?

reply from: Faramir

Do you want her to do jail time?
I think that's the bottom line. No mater what it's called, I don't think she should go to jail, and I don't think mainstreamers like Priests for Life, or other Right to Life groups want that.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

I think you took what he said out of context. Believe it or not, it is true, some pro-lifers do believe that abortion should only be banned to punish the girl for having sex. Believe it or not, it happens, some parents do force their daughters to give birth to punish her.

reply from: galen

yes i believe that if you break the laws that fall under 'do not kill people' then you should do some jail time... this is not a parking violation.. the woman participated in taking someones life.. she can be sorry all she wants, but unless she was drugged and forced ( in which case those responsible have murder and kidnapping and assualt) she should have to pay some price that includes her removal fom society. maybe in minimum security , maybe some sort of halfway house for treatment for whatever anxiety that caused her to KILL someone.
Unlike some i do not believe in capitol punishment, but i do believe that taking a child of any age and killing them is one of the worst atrocities that we can commit upon one another in this world.

reply from: Skippy

Not even the most backwards theocracies where abortion is illegal punish it the same way they do murder, or even manslaughter. Few cases are prosecuted, and the ones that are rarely result in jail time.
Since we aren't a backwards theocracy, I think the anti-abortion folks will have a tough time selling "25 to life" for women who obtain an abortion.

reply from: sander

The pro-lifers want the child in the womb to receive personhood status.
Then they would enjoy the same protections as born people.
Where that falls under established law is secondary.
Prosecution should be left up to the appropriate authorities. Judgement should then be left up to judges and any jury that might be involved.
That doesn't seem like a backwards theocracy to me, it seems resonable.

reply from: galen

Not even the most backwards theocracies where abortion is illegal punish it the same way they do murder, or even manslaughter. Few cases are prosecuted, and the ones that are rarely result in jail time.
Since we aren't a backwards theocracy, I think the anti-abortion folks will have a tough time selling "25 to life" for women who obtain an abortion.
-------------------
Actually skipp i beg to differ with you.. but first i must ask wich 'backward theocracies' you speak of... the ones that come to mind for me are the ones that still stone women to death for having sex outside of marrige... and they also hang you for abortion.. woman and doctor.. so where sre you speaking of?

reply from: Faramir

[g]The pro-lifers want the child in the womb to receive personhood status.
Then they would enjoy the same protections as born people.
Where that falls under established law is secondary.
Prosecution should be left up to the appropriate authorities. Judgement should then be left up to judges and any jury that might be involved.
That doesn't seem like a backwards theocracy to me, it seems resonable.
It would be a dream come true for lawyers, and prison bulding contractors.

reply from: joe

Here is what pro-choice advocates think of this stance:
"@Archetype: But I think that is the point. If you really believe it is MURDER, then someone who commits the murder should probably be punished. Unless you're against punishment in general for any murder. The point that this film illustrates is that even anti-abortion protesters actually do intuitively sense that there is something different about a fetus and a full human being, and that's why they would never say that someone who murders a five year old shouldn't be punished (even the five year old's mother) but yet they think that a woman's own regret is enough punishment for abortion. The debate may never change but I think the point of this question is to call attention to the fault lines in the debate where the real issues come to light (which in my mind are the regulation of women's sexuality and the essentialism of motherhood). But I'm with you on the sex-ed!"
"I bet if you ask the same people what should happen to a doctor who performed an illegal abortion, they would not hesitate to argue for punishment. But the women? Well, they are viewed more like children and, consequently, not responsible for their actions.
Taken to its logical conclusion, if you think abortion is murder then you should support death or life in prison for someone who gets an abortion."
"Seriously? "I've never really thought about it?"
How is it that pro-life activists are prepared to make abortion illegal but are not prepared to actually punish someone who gets one anyway? Do they honestly believe that if abortions are illegal they'll simply stop happening? I'm so confused.
Look, if you're pro-life and you believe that abortion is murder, I can't agree with you. But you have to follow through here if you want to be heard. You have to accept that you are labeling the woman a criminal, a murderer, and accept that, as a result, she needs to be punished for her crime. "I don't have an answer for that" is not good enough. Think it through.
Deep breath. /end rant"
These are pro-choice advocates...even the enemy understands the truth.

reply from: sander

Thanks, Joe.
That's an interesting read. The enemy usually does understand the truth. Most wars that are lost are lost from within.

reply from: galen

-----------
I second this

reply from: teddybearhamster

that works for some cases but for others they need the maximum sentence.

reply from: galen

i agree in theory for a multple violator... but most of the time pregnancy is an emotional issue.

reply from: Banned Member

I think that when the script is not in front of him Barack Obama says exactly what he thinks, and means exactly what he says.

reply from: sander

What a horrifying, but true statement.
He scares the heck out of me...he's not a socialist...he's a baby killing marxist!

reply from: Banned Member

Yes, and barack didn't really mean that small town people are fearful religious people clasping their guns, filled with hate for people of other races. And I suppose that he went to the same church for 20 years and didn't happen tp notice that the man in the pulpit, the man Obama counted among his inner circle of spiritual advisers, was in fact a hate filled racist? Obama doesn't strike me as the type to sleep through the sermon, but he does strike as the lying kind.

reply from: Teresa18

There's no point in continuing to argue over whether or not the woman will be punished. Get a personhood bill passed, and the states and courts will decide how to apply the law or whether to have laws legislated that apply to the abortion situation. We are neither courts or legislators.

reply from: Faramir

Yes, and barack didn't really mean that small town people are fearful religious people clasping their guns, filled with hate for people of other races. And I suppose that he went to the same church for 20 years and didn't happen tp notice that the man in the pulpit, the man Obama counted among his inner circle of spiritual advisers, was in fact a hate filled racist? Obama doesn't strike me as the type to sleep through the sermon, but he does strike as the lying kind.
Barak Obama is irrelevant to this topic.
The topic is whether women should be punished.
I think that is an extremist postion which undermines the prolife cause.
Yes or no--do women have to go to jail to suit you?
If so, for how long?
And why stop there? Why not execution?

reply from: Banned Member

Maybe I simply took your question of of context, or maybe you can't put mine into context.
Do women have to go to jail for abortion? Yes, for how long? It would depend on the circumstances.
Tell me Faramir, are there are any crimes that are worthy of being imprisoned for?

reply from: 4given

Right. We do have an obligation to elect the proper people. I learned that the only hope we have is to elect pro-life representatives.. So now I have been searching for people of interest. I agree though. What is the point really, except that the lukewarm will be sold out- or the personhood bill discredited because of confusion or exceptions presented that don't follow what the bill represents..

reply from: Faramir

Of course there are plenty of crimes worthy of imprisonment.
But abortion is a complex situation. And the "criminal" is in an extremely vunlerable situation, and there are accomplices to her crime, such as a boyfriend or husband, or friend who encourages her, or parents who pressure.
But besides that, I honestly feel like I'm out of my league in trying to figure this out. Fr. Pavone is huge in the prolife movement, and is a fellow Catholic. I'm perfectly happy to let him help form my thinking about it, as well as others in the prolife movement, such as the host of this very board, whose thinking I understand is along the same lines. So I feel that I'm in good company, and I feel that I am deferring to those who have more knowledge and experience.
Why do you feel you know better than these people who have so much prolife knowledge and experience?

reply from: nancyu

The bottom line should be that personhood comes first, no matter what.
But just to state my personal opinion on punishment. I agree with leniency in the beginning, but if the message doesn't get through that abortion will NOT be tolerated then the punishment should be increased. And it shouldn't take years for the message to get through.
I don't think there is anything extreme in wanting laws to be enforced.

reply from: yoda

I agree with that 100%. Because of new drugs like RU486, we must maintain the option of punishment by jail time, at least for repeat offenders.

reply from: nancyu

I agree that there is no point in arguing about it. An unborn baby is a person, right? What is to there to argue about?

reply from: yoda

Exactly. And to insist that a "free pass" be written into any personhood bill is simply counterproductive and hurtful to the interests of the babies.

reply from: nancyu

Exactly. And to insist that a "free pass" be written into any personhood bill is simply counterproductive and hurtful to the interests of the babies.
And if the bill can not be passed without such an exception? What then? If we refuse to compromise under such circumstances, will that be "counterproductive and hurtful to the interests of the babies?"
No.

reply from: cracrat

Except that every law must be underwritten with a punishment for infraction of that law. If you, your fellow campaigners or your elected representatives in the legislature can not answer these questions then you need to spend a little more time discussing what it is you want. Just demanding a ban on abortion via some fashion isn't enough. The ban needs to be backed up with clear guidelines on punishment and at least some idea as to enforcement, otherwise it risks been made a mockery of.

reply from: nancyu

Except that every law must be underwritten with a punishment for infraction of that law. If you, your fellow campaigners or your elected representatives in the legislature can not answer these questions then you need to spend a little more time discussing what it is you want. Just demanding a ban on abortion via some fashion isn't enough. The ban needs to be backed up with clear guidelines on punishment and at least some idea as to enforcement, otherwise it risks been made a mockery of.
If an unborn child is a person then the punishment should be the same as for any other person.

reply from: yoda

I don't know how it is in Merry Ole England, but here in the colonies almost every criminal statute prescribes a range of punishment, not an exact sentence. Then it is up to the judge and/or jury to decide upon which sentence within those guidelines they will impose. Lawmakers here do not attempt to consider all possible mitigating circumstances for each crime, that's for a judge and/or a jury to consider.

reply from: cracrat

I don't know how it is in Merry Ole England, but here in the colonies almost every criminal statute prescribes a range of punishment, not an exact sentence. Then it is up to the judge and/or jury to decide upon which sentence within those guidelines they will impose. Lawmakers here do not attempt to consider all possible mitigating circumstances for each crime, that's for a judge and/or a jury to consider.
Of course, which is why the kid who gets pinched by the cops with a spliff in his hand gets a stern bollocking but probably no more, but the drug dealer whose name and face is known to every law enforcer in the city is brought up in front of the judge that afternoon.
But declaring a whole group of un-people people opens the door to all manner of new crimes, new punishable offences, new problems for law enforecers to deal with. If you, the proponants of this change, can not provide the answers to at least some of the questions that will inevitably be raised, then those in a position to affect the changes you desire are unlikely to take it seriously.

reply from: yoda

My, how blithely the phrase "un-people" rolls off your tongue... as it there really were human beings that were not people.... as if you bought the claims of the proaborts hook line and sinker. We should be so lucky as to have such problems as "dealing with the TRUTH about unborn human beings"!
We can answer any that are answerable. What we cannot do is put ourselves in the place of the law enforcement arm of every state and local government in this land, and tell you how they will interpret their duty to the unborn after they get "legal personhood". On such criminal matters, each state is sovereign and independent, and no one can predict how they will react.

reply from: nancyu

Exactly. And to insist that a "free pass" be written into any personhood bill is simply counterproductive and hurtful to the interests of the babies.
And if the bill can not be passed without such an exception? What then? If we refuse to compromise under such circumstances, will that be "counterproductive and hurtful to the interests of the babies?"
No.
So, if we could end abortion on demand today, simply by agreeing that only abortion providers would be prosecuted, refusing to do so, which would ensure that thousands of innocent human beings continue to be killed every day, wouldn't "hurt their interests?" Gee, I'm not sure you have a firm grasp on this issue, oh righteous one... I think I'll have to defer to someone with a little more patience to explain this to you. I don't think you are listening to me.
I am listening, are you? Hey you're one of the righteous too, so quit calling this kettle black.
I guess that could work, IF a self aborting woman would be considered an "abortion provider" Because we have to look at the long term picture, too
If a woman is given a pass for aborting after it is illegal, HOW oh fellow righteous one, will this stop abortions???

reply from: yoda

Exactly...... do you think you will get through this time?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Exactly...... do you think you will get through this time?
Earlier, I watched the video featuring the Michigan abortion clinic dumpster contents. After seeing them unwrap feet, legs, eyes and skulls of 16 to 22 week old aborted fetuses, there was no question in my mind, everyone involved is guilty of first degree intentional homicide and should receive the penalty corresponding thereto. The kids are just to important to let the mother, father or abortionist walk. 25 to life would be appropriate. Did you not see the feet, legs and skulls of these dismembered people? How can you say there should be no consequences? What could possibly be worse than murdering a young person? You are not dealing with reality when you let a person go scott free who has done such a thing to their brother or sister.

reply from: sander

Exactly...... do you think you will get through this time?
Earlier, I watched the video featuring the Michigan abortion clinic dumpster contents. After seeing them unwrap feet, legs, eyes and skulls of 16 to 22 week old aborted fetuses, there was no question in my mind, everyone involved is guilty of first degree intentional homicide and should receive the penalty corresponding thereto. The kids are just to important to let the mother, father or abortionist walk. 25 to life would be appropriate. Did you not see the feet, legs and skulls of these dismembered people? How can you say there should be no consequences? What could possibly be worse than murdering a young person? You are not dealing with reality when you let a person go scott free who has done such a thing to their brother or sister.
But, you're risking being accused of reacting out of emotion and not reality.
We have to be slow and careful how these bills are crafted and make sure all feelings are soothed...not to upset mommy dearest in anyway.

reply from: cracrat

I'm not blind to the sarcasm in these statements, but Sander's actually spot on. If you go bounding in, changing all sorts left, right and centre, along with saving some children you'll give the pro-choice campaign the biggest shot in the arm it's had in a generation. Going fast is good for your sense of self-satisfaction. Going slow is good for the permanence of the changes you make.

reply from: nancyu

Exactly...... do you think you will get through this time?
I guess I'm just too dumb to communicate with those of such a superior intellect. How is it Yoda, that you seem to understand me better than the others do? Are you as dumb as me, or are you bilingual?

reply from: faithman

It depends upon whether such compromises made it easier, or more diffecult to achieve full personhood and equality . The goal is personhood. If such "compromises" are a step towards personhood, then that is all they are and we continue to strive towards the mark. If the "compromises" are to gut equality for special interest lobbyist, and hurt the final goal with diversion of focus, then they would be a detrament from the get go. The final goal is clear. Equality thru personhood.

reply from: jujujellybean

I think you took what he said out of context. Believe it or not, it is true, some pro-lifers do believe that abortion should only be banned to punish the girl for having sex. Believe it or not, it happens, some parents do force their daughters to give birth to punish her.
Believe it or not, you didn't provide any proof....do you happen to have any?

reply from: nancyu

Are you serious?????!!!!!
Do you think we are not aware of the fact that it is going to be INCONVENIENT to declare unborn children people????
Tough!!!!! Deal with it people!!!
We have been slaughtering innocent, defenseless, helpless, voiceless, babies, human beings, people for 35 +++ years for the sake of our convenience.!!!!
It's time to pay the piper. This is the right thing to do. I can't live with another 35 years of this on my conscience. Can you?? If you can, then to hell with you!!! Pardon my *****ing french. This law had better turn around. I am calm compared to the way some people feel about this who don't speak up about it.
If you are the one reading this and there is something you can do to make legal personhood a reality, you had better quit dragging you ass about it and get it done.

reply from: sander

Now, there's a call to action! I like it, but remind me not to get on your bad side!

reply from: nancyu

Now, there's a call to action! I like it, but remind me not to get on your bad side!
I'm better now. breathe, breathe...

reply from: nancyu

Now, there's a call to action! I like it, but remind me not to get on your bad side!
I'm better now. breathe, breathe...
Sander, do you think I have a Jekyll and Hyde personality?

reply from: sander

Now, there's a call to action! I like it, but remind me not to get on your bad side!
I'm better now. breathe, breathe...
Sander, do you think I have a Jekyll and Hyde personality?
No. I think you're a woman with a passion for the unborn and are trying to work out as many ideas to save them as possible.
You're like so many of us who struggle with knowing the babies keep dying and feel helpless.
I admire your spunk and spirit.

reply from: nancyu

Get a personhood bill passed, and the states and courts will decide how to apply the law or whether to have laws legislated that apply to the abortion situation. We are neither courts or legislators.
Exactly. And to insist that a "free pass" be written into any personhood bill is simply counterproductive and hurtful to the interests of the babies.
Don't you see, you can't say "it is a only person if the mother isn't punished for trying to kill it?" This is personhood with exceptions. Is an unborn child a person or isn't it? It would be just as absurd if we said that an unborn child is only a person if the mother is punished. In some cases a mother should be punished. In others she should not. That is why I think this issue should be left to the courts, and the justice system to decide.
CP: And if the bill can not be passed without such an exception? What then? If we refuse to compromise under such circumstances, will that be "counterproductive and hurtful to the interests of the babies?"
If a personhood bill can't be passed, then it can't be passed. We will have to find other means of defending the unborn babies.
CP: So, if we could end abortion on demand today, simply by agreeing that only abortion providers would be prosecuted, refusing to do so, which would ensure that thousands of innocent human beings continue to be killed every day, wouldn't "hurt their interests?" Gee, I'm not sure you have a firm grasp on this issue, oh righteous one... I think I'll have to defer to someone with a little more patience to explain this to you. I don't think you are listening to me.
I am listening, are you? Hey you're one of the righteous too, so quit calling this kettle black.
I guess that could work, IF a self aborting woman would be considered an "abortion provider" Because we have to look at the long term picture, too
Please answer this one; will a self aborting mother be considered an abortion provider?
If a woman is given a pass for aborting after it is illegal, HOW oh fellow righteous one, will this stop abortions???
CP: I'll make one more attempt to "dumb it down" for you...
Thank you I appreciate that
CP: 1. A bill declaring the personhood of the unborn would end legal abortion on demand.
A bill declaring the personhood of the unborn is what I want regardless of anything else.
CP: 2. Ending legal abortion on demand would eliminate an estimated 90% of abortions by not allowing providers to operate. There will always be some abortions, and there's really no way we can stop them all. Women will "self abort," and most of the time, nobody will ever know they did so. Are you so determined to see as many women punished as possible that you would rather abortion on demand continue legally than risk one "getting away with it?"
Of course not! Part of being a "person" means that you have the right to justice for anyone who attempts to kill you doesn't it? Do you really think I am this stupid? I'm not. I know some women will get away with it. Some people get away with murder, but if they are caught they go to jail!
CP: 3. If the most important thing is personhood, how can anyone refuse to support a personhood bill unless they can be assured women who abort will be prosecuted?
I would NEVER refuse to support a personhood bill, and I do NOT need assurance that women will be prosecuted. It is women who need assurance that they will NOT be prosecuted who are blocking this bill. A personhood bill with exceptions is no personhood bill at all. An unborn child is a person, or it is not a person. How can it be a person unless the mother is NOT punished?? Dumb this one down for me a bit more, please.
CP: Some posters keep yelling that not prosecuting women would dehumanize unborn children, but a bill declaring they are persons would recognize their humanity regardless of who is or is not prosecuted and/or how they are prosecuted! Only a complete idiot would object that a bill declaring the personhood of the unborn is not a step toward "personhood for the unborn!" (As is illustrated by one who has implied just that on this very thread...)
This is exactly why I have said, if you would read my posts. Personhood comes first. Punishment or lack thereof is secondary. Punishment is a secondary argument. No one who wants personhood for the unborn would fight it for any reason. It is the ones who are afraid of punishment for women who are blocking this bill. It is not those of us who want punishment for women. But again, a personhood bill with exceptions is not a personhood bill! An unborn child is either a person or it isn't a person, comprehend? Can I rephrase this in any way that would make my position clearer to you?[/B]
CP:
Will this clear up some confusion:?
Are you talking about amnesty for those who have already aborted? or those who will abort after it is illegal?
(is this the department of redundancy department?)

reply from: nancyu

Of course, women who have aborted in the past should be granted amnesty, but it's wrong to grant amnesty to those who will break the law in the future.

reply from: yoda

I think you are actually encouraging more murder, mutilation, and mayhem by not providing any penalty at all.

reply from: yoda

Going fast is also good for the babies not yet killed, since 4,000 of them are being killed every day in this country.

reply from: yoda

Both, maybe? I guess we all tend to pick up on that which we like, or think more interesting or important, or easier to respond to.... and let the rest slide. Maybe your questions are just too hard?

reply from: yoda

We all have our different personalities, but quite honestly I find it impossible to understand why anyone would be a prolife activist without feeling any passion about this subject. It may be possible, but I'll be darned if I can figure out how.

reply from: yoda

No amnesty is needed, it's unconstitutional to retroactively punish anyone in this country who committed their action before it became illegal.

reply from: nancyu

Which brings us right back to the question: Why would anyone who calls them self pro life, deny personhood to the unborn?

reply from: Faramir

I don't know of anyone who does and why you need to ask the question.

reply from: nancyu

I don't know of anyone who does and why you need to ask the question.
Faramir, Nowhere in this document is "personhood" for the unborn mentioned. I have stated elsewhere why I disagree with Fr Pavone. I will look it up and repost it here.
And my question regarding personhood is in terms of "legal" personhood as well as "moral" personhood.
Personhood, in every sense of the word.

reply from: nancyu

Date Posted: 05/06/2008 10:28 AM
Posted By: carolemarie (Executive Member)
Originally posted by: isaiahmom5242007
Okay I am new and havent followed the threads . can I ask what is Carolmarie stance . Like I said I dont belive attacking someone or belittleing anyone solves anything and it goes againist my Faith , I jut want to know what the fuss is about. Do we not all agree that the unborn are just as human as me and you and they should be protected.
Sure! Here is my position on the personhood bill.
I don't believe America is ready to outlaw birth control and most prolifers are not ready to jail women, not to mention those who are prochoice. If we take care of those two items, you might have a chance of actually passing the bill.
America is deeply divided over the abortion topic. If our side insist in jailing women and outlawing birth control we will lose. It is more important to ban abortion than to make sure your view of justice is satisfied, IMHO
I believe that abortion will end when the profit is taken out and if we punish those who perform abortions, we will end it. I have a mainstream prolife opinion, like National Right for LIfe, Priest for Life...
Blessings,
Carolemarie
-------------------------
Carolemarie,
www.myspace.com/silentnomorewichita
This is a denial of personhood on the grounds that women may be punished, and may not have the option of abortifacient birth control.
The comment about Priest for Life and NRTL being in agreement with her, indicates to me that they would also deny personhood on these grounds.

reply from: Faramir

From what I can see she's all for personhood but wants to make sure it goes through in a way that does not come down too hard on the women who get caught.
I think she's said that lots of times already.
I really wonder if this is a pressing issue at all, because I think there are only a few on the fringe who are so concerned about making sure the women get punished.

reply from: Faramir

It's really not nearly so difficult as you seem to be trying to make it. You concede that women who "need assurance that they will NOT be prosecuted" are "blocking this bill." You concede that passing the bill is what really matters. If both these statements are true, then we can get the bill passed simply by agreeing to write in a clause giving amnesty to women, prosecuting only abortion providers, right? If you really mean what you have said here, you should be fighting to make others understand that we must agree to not prosecute the women who abort so we can get a personhood bill passed and end legal abortion on demand, not ranting about how we have to stick by our guns and insist those women be jailed! If abortion remains legal, women who abort will suffer no consequences (legally), right? So wouldn't it be better to outlaw abortion on demand and only prosecute providers than to allow it to remain legal? A personhood bill will prevent around 90% of abortions, even if we allow a clause giving women amnesty! If we can't pass the bill without making this concession, how can we not?
This is a great point.
Yes, let's turn the tables.
If there is personhood legislation that includes amnesty for women who get caught, will those of you who want personhood legislation support it?

reply from: yoda

You are totally missing the point, and I suspect intentionally.
Personhood may be proposed without any exceptions, exemptions, clauses, or technicalities. Just plain personhood, not strings attached.
If so, she has indicated that she will oppose it. Do you agree with that position?

reply from: yoda

I would not actively fight it, but I don't know if I could actively support it either.
Can you say the same about a "stripped down" version of a personhood bill that contains NO amnesty?
Do you think that carole can?

reply from: Faramir

You are totally missing the point, and I suspect intentionally.
Personhood may be proposed without any exceptions, exemptions, clauses, or technicalities. Just plain personhood, not strings attached.
If so, she has indicated that she will oppose it. Do you agree with that position?
Is there a special rule in this forum that there must always be suspicion?
I don't know much about how legislation is passed, but my guess would be that it would not be proposed in the pure form you stated. I think all the "what-ifs" would be worked out before it is proposed.

reply from: yoda

Ah, so you refuse to answer either question, based on your ignorance.
Wow, you come up with some doozies!!

reply from: Faramir

Ah, so you refuse to answer either question, based on your ignorance.
Wow, you come up with some doozies!!
I wouldn not want to see it passed if it would mean women would be exectuted for having abortions.
I think these contingencies need to be worked out and I think they would be worked out in advance of personhood proposal.
Is that an unreasonable assumption?

reply from: yoda

Not necessarily, but it certainly is not a direct answer to my questions, is it?
Do you ever use the words "yes" and "no"?

reply from: carolemarie

Here is what pro-choice advocates think of this stance:
They understand that if you publiclly agree with this, then your bill will die and you will lose. Or rather the babies will lose.
"@Archetype: But I think that is the point. If you really believe it is MURDER, then someone who commits the murder should probably be punished. Unless you're against punishment in general for any murder. The point that this film illustrates is that even anti-abortion protesters actually do intuitively sense that there is something different about a fetus and a full human being, and that's why they would never say that someone who murders a five year old shouldn't be punished (even the five year old's mother) but yet they think that a woman's own regret is enough punishment for abortion. The debate may never change but I think the point of this question is to call attention to the fault lines in the debate where the real issues come to light (which in my mind are the regulation of women's sexuality and the essentialism of motherhood). But I'm with you on the sex-ed!"
"I bet if you ask the same people what should happen to a doctor who performed an illegal abortion, they would not hesitate to argue for punishment. But the women? Well, they are viewed more like children and, consequently, not responsible for their actions.
Taken to its logical conclusion, if you think abortion is murder then you should support death or life in prison for someone who gets an abortion."
"Seriously? "I've never really thought about it?"
How is it that pro-life activists are prepared to make abortion illegal but are not prepared to actually punish someone who gets one anyway? Do they honestly believe that if abortions are illegal they'll simply stop happening? I'm so confused.
Look, if you're pro-life and you believe that abortion is murder, I can't agree with you. But you have to follow through here if you want to be heard. You have to accept that you are labeling the woman a criminal, a murderer, and accept that, as a result, she needs to be punished for her crime. "I don't have an answer for that" is not good enough. Think it through.
Deep breath. /end rant"
These are pro-choice advocates...even the enemy understands the truth.

reply from: Faramir

Exactly. And to insist that a "free pass" be written into any personhood bill is simply counterproductive and hurtful to the interests of the babies.
But what if that's how it ends up?
Will you support it?

reply from: Faramir

Not necessarily, but it certainly is not a direct answer to my questions, is it?
Do you ever use the words "yes" and "no"?
I've been thinking about this, and though I believe all the "what-ifs" would be worked out way before legislation would be introduced, I would support a personhood bill that did not address the punishment aspects. I think that would eventually work itself out, anyway.
So if I remember your question--the answer would be "yes" I would support it.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Exactly...... do you think you will get through this time?
I guess I'm just too dumb to communicate with those of such a superior intellect. How is it Yoda, that you seem to understand me better than the others do? Are you as dumb as me, or are you bilingual?
This is quite possibly the single most perceptive observation you have ever shared on this forum...
I have to admit, I was humored a long-time after reading your "single most perceptive observation" comment, although, personal attacks are nothing to laugh about. I thought you complained about other's making personal attacks? Well, maybe you considered your response "just the facts". I shouldn't have resurrected this, but I did bust a gut laughing at the eloquent manner in which you attempted to deliver a crushing blow. Constructive criticism should be given to help other's see their errors and therefore take positive corrective action. Hopefully, our goal in criticism is not to belittle, bring down and crush the spirit of another human being. I imagine I can be seen as virulent when I go after the wicked's behavior. But such behavior must be attacked forcefully.

reply from: nancyu

It's really not nearly so difficult as you seem to be trying to make it. You concede that women who "need assurance that they will NOT be prosecuted" are "blocking this bill." You concede that passing the bill is what really matters. If both these statements are true, then we can get the bill passed simply by agreeing to write in a clause giving amnesty to women, prosecuting only abortion providers, right? If you really mean what you have said here, you should be fighting to make others understand that we must agree to not prosecute the women who abort so we can get a personhood bill passed and end legal abortion on demand, not ranting about how we have to stick by our guns and insist those women be jailed! If abortion remains legal, women who abort will suffer no consequences (legally), right? So wouldn't it be better to outlaw abortion on demand and only prosecute providers than to allow it to remain legal? A personhood bill will prevent around 90% of abortions, even if we allow a clause giving women amnesty! If we can't pass the bill without making this concession, how can we not?
This is a great point.
Yes, let's turn the tables.
If there is personhood legislation that includes amnesty for women who get caught, will those of you who want personhood legislation support it?
You wish to turn the tables on whom?
Tell me how exactly would this "personhood legislation" be worded?

reply from: nancyu

This:
self-right·eous (slfrchs)
adj.
1. Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.
2. Exhibiting pious self-assurance: self-righteous remarks.
fits my definition of the word self-righteous
thefreedictionary.com
This doesn't mean I think I am morally superior to those who disagree with me. It just means that I believe that giving unborn humans the status of legal "personhood" is a morally superior idea than not granting them that status.
It looks to me CP that You are the one who believes himself to be morally superior to those who don't agree with you.
If you want to stop "beating" me that is fine by me, but I assure you, I am far from being a "dead horse"

reply from: joe

The babies already lost for 35 years. We cannot be sending a mixed message and expect the majority to understand this is human life. The pro-choice message is clear our message is conflicted.

reply from: carolemarie

Not necessarily, but it certainly is not a direct answer to my questions, is it?
Do you ever use the words "yes" and "no"?
I've been thinking about this, and though I believe all the "what-ifs" would be worked out way before legislation would be introduced, I would support a personhood bill that did not address the punishment aspects. I think that would eventually work itself out, anyway.
So if I remember your question--the answer would be "yes" I would support it.
What bill in your recent memory was passed without a clear understanding of how it would work?
Not trying to slam you or anything, just curious if you can come up with one...

reply from: Faramir

Not necessarily, but it certainly is not a direct answer to my questions, is it?
Do you ever use the words "yes" and "no"?
I've been thinking about this, and though I believe all the "what-ifs" would be worked out way before legislation would be introduced, I would support a personhood bill that did not address the punishment aspects. I think that would eventually work itself out, anyway.
So if I remember your question--the answer would be "yes" I would support it.
What bill in your recent memory was passed without a clear understanding of how it would work?
Not trying to slam you or anything, just curious if you can come up with one...
I don't know enough about legislation to answer that question.
I'm all for personhood, though. And I think that all the "what ifs" will be dealt with as part of the process.
Some of them are trying to paint you into a corner so they have an excuse to call you "evil." We can speculate all day about legislation, but all the concerns people have about punishment and imprisonment for the women would be addressed if any legislation is to be introduced. I think that would be part of the process.
I'm out of my league when it comes to legislation and how it would be passed, but I have seen enough examples to see that by the time a bill goes through two houses, a lot of work is done on it, and there is much give and take.

reply from: yoda

Good. Now let's see if carole will answer that same question. Oh, and I already answered your question about supporting a personhood bill "with exceptions".

reply from: yoda

We seem to have "specially privileged people" on this forum who feel immune to the same rules they try to impose on others. Some, for example, will curse people whom they don't like, and then rave and rant about people being too critical of others.

reply from: Faramir

Just because a "yes or no" question is asked, does not mean that it can be answered adequately with a yes or no.
There's nothing at all wrong with qualifying the answer.

reply from: yoda

How is that relevant? If it's the first one, so what? The only question we are qualified to answer her is whether we would support it, individually. We are not experts on legislation, are we?

reply from: sander

We seem to have "specially privileged people" on this forum who feel immune to the same rules they try to impose on others. Some, for example, will curse people whom they don't like, and then rave and rant about people being too critical of others.
Definition of hypocrite.
And too blinded by their own inflated egos to see it!

reply from: yoda

Of course not, you poor thing.
But there is something wrong with "qualifying", "quibbling", and "hedging" without ever actually giving a yes or no response.... it's called "dodging".


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