Home - List All Discussions

Should a woman abortionist be "punished"?

by: faithman

If the abortionist is a woman, and abortion on demand were illegal, should they get a free walk?

reply from: yoda

Of course. Haven't you been reading carole's posts?

reply from: sander

That is very often a painful assignment.

reply from: Shenanigans

If she lives, hell no. Throw her arse in jail.
Of course, it'd depend on the manner of the abortion, if she were a doctor or had medical knowledge or got her hands on RU486 or something "safe" then abso-foetus-loutely throw that murderer in the slammer.
If she used a rusty coat hanger or a douche of meths, then she belongs in a psych ward.

reply from: faithman

If she lives, hell no. Throw her arse in jail.
Of course, it'd depend on the manner of the abortion, if she were a doctor or had medical knowledge or got her hands on RU486 or something "safe" then abso-foetus-loutely throw that murderer in the slammer.
If she used a rusty coat hanger or a douche of meths, then she belongs in a psych ward.
You don't mean a case by case basis like we have been advocating do you? Like where a jury of citizens determines the out come?

reply from: Shenanigans

If she lives, hell no. Throw her arse in jail.
Of course, it'd depend on the manner of the abortion, if she were a doctor or had medical knowledge or got her hands on RU486 or something "safe" then abso-foetus-loutely throw that murderer in the slammer.
If she used a rusty coat hanger or a douche of meths, then she belongs in a psych ward.
You don't mean a case by case basis like we have been advocating do you? Like where a jury of citizens determines the out come?
Yeah, pretty much.
Any murder, regardless of the reasons and method is always put before the jury unless the accused pleas guilty, and usually a guilty plea will lessen the penalty.
Abortion, if ever illegal, should be treated as any other murder, because that's what it will be. And just like a husband walking in on his wife and best friend who kills them will get some level of sympathy and a lesser sentance, so the woman who was "forced" by circumstance or family, or a wife who kills her abusive husband in self defence, the woman who aborts because of rape or life risk should be held in the same manner.
I don't advocate a murderer getting off scott free, I advocate a fair and balanced and merciful justice system that doesn't paint everyone with the same brush.
To just let those women walk away will basically dehumanize the child worse then RvW.

reply from: faithman

If she lives, hell no. Throw her arse in jail.
Of course, it'd depend on the manner of the abortion, if she were a doctor or had medical knowledge or got her hands on RU486 or something "safe" then abso-foetus-loutely throw that murderer in the slammer.
If she used a rusty coat hanger or a douche of meths, then she belongs in a psych ward.
You don't mean a case by case basis like we have been advocating do you? Like where a jury of citizens determines the out come?
Yeah, pretty much.
Any murder, regardless of the reasons and method is always put before the jury unless the accused pleas guilty, and usually a guilty plea will lessen the penalty.
Abortion, if ever illegal, should be treated as any other murder, because that's what it will be. And just like a husband walking in on his wife and best friend who kills them will get some level of sympathy and a lesser sentance, so the woman who was "forced" by circumstance or family, or a wife who kills her abusive husband in self defence, the woman who aborts because of rape or life risk should be held in the same manner.
I don't advocate a murderer getting off scott free, I advocate a fair and balanced and merciful justice system that doesn't paint everyone with the same brush.
To just let those women walk away will basically dehumanize the child worse then RvW.
You just hate women, and want to see them punished.

reply from: 4given

Absolutely not! They should be punished just as any other murder for hire goon is.

reply from: faithman

Absolutely not! They should be punished just as any other murder for hire goon is.
Another woman hater.

reply from: nancyu

Absolutely not! They should be punished just as any other murder for hire goon is.
Another woman hater.
Oh the misogyny!

reply from: Shenanigans

Since she can't get a "free walk" unless the child is already dead, would you be willing to let her "walk" if doing so might save another child? Just curious....
I think this is about the woman being the actual abortionist as a self abortion as opposed to the seeking of another.
If she's the abortionist, then letting her walk will probably endanger further children if she were to fall preg again, she may think no one is watching her, she'll go in for round two.
I'm all for women who abort illegally getting lighter sentances if they dob in the abortionist, much how it is for people who dob in their accomplices in crimes.

reply from: sander

"Waste your time"...who the hell do you think you're kidding?
You thrive on massaging your massive, pompous ass ego.
You're so transparent, it's down right sickening.

reply from: faithman

"Waste your time"...who the hell do you think you're kidding?
You thrive on massaging your massive, pompous ass ego.
You're so transparent, it's down right sickening.
And the glaring omission of the monkey boy convict punk, is the fact that no personhood advocate promises to stand in opposition to the frivalous efforts of incrementalist. But we do have the phonies point blank say that they will not only voice, but take action against personhood efforts because of agendas other than standing for the womb child. Personhood is, and must be the final goal of any thing that claims to advocate for pre-born life. This is just another word twist to make an issue where there wasn't one. Nice straw man baboon lips, but it only proves you are into mis-truths, and whether intentional or not, you are a 5th column subversive trying to steal the focus from the answere.

reply from: yoda

I'd be inclined to say we are "wasting OUR time" responding to such tripe....

reply from: Darkmoon

Are you really advocating that women be punished for medical decisions? On what terms? Abortion is legal, currently. Do you speak from a perspective of illegality? Sort of a sci-fi alternate universe?

reply from: yoda

Can't you even read the thread title?
We have so-called prolifers on this forum who insist that even after abortion is made illegal again, we must not ever punish any women who have abortions, only the abortionist.
What if that abortionist IS a woman? What if a woman has a DIY abortions, does that not make HER the abortionist?
There now, I've brought you up to speed.......

reply from: faithman

Of course the scanc can read it. But they just can't help them selves in twisting things into what they are not. Misdirection is all they have.

reply from: Yuuki

Punishing a person for getting an abortion completely disregards WHY they had the abortion. We do not punish ANYONE without examining the reasons WHY they did what they did. Even if a person kills another person, they may in fact be innocent of any crime. If you consider abortion to be like rape, then punishing a person for obtaining an abortion is exactly like punishing a person for being raped.
If abortion were illegal, then the doctor should be punished after a trial if it is proven they did in fact perform the abortion on the person who sought it. They were not under the same psychological stress as their patient.

reply from: Yuuki

That is an interesting solution... You would also need to make it illegal to sell or distribute abortifacient medicines and outline EXACTLY which medications those were.

reply from: faithman

That is an interesting solution... You would also need to make it illegal to sell or distribute abortifacient medicines and outline EXACTLY which medications those were.
The thing the monkey boy punk leaves out, is the fact that the ones he besmurches as puritans have never stated that they would stand in the way of the incrementalists. /but we have had the incrementalist vow to stand in the way of personhood. How about it baboon puke?
Put your self righteousness where the sun don't shine. Hold your self to the same standard you would place on others. All incrementalism has done is legitamize abortion on demand, without saving one baby. Not a single womb child was saved by PBAB, or parental notification. there are loop holes big enough to drive a chartered bus full to planned parenthood. Nice straw man, but a straw man never the less. The issue has always been about personhood, and the issue does not go away until the pre-born child is an equal person under the law. And all it takes is a simple act of congress. That has been historicly known from the beginning.

reply from: yoda

You are so, so very talented at completely dodging the questions and issues in the posts you reply to....... how do you do that?
Like, in your post here you completely disregarded the thread title, and FMan's post, even though you quoted him.
Way to go!! You're really showing the proaborts how to do it!

reply from: yoda

Wait........ you're not supposed to point out things like that!!
You might embarrass them, and make them feel bad about themselves!!
Shame, shame!! (Oh no, wait, I'm not supposed to shame anyone... are you anyone?)

reply from: bozo

But as one poster mentioned, those who are "incrementalists" would not be hindered by those who are working for full rights from conception.
Is that true? Do those who are striving for all the marbles hinder the efforts of those who are attempting to chip away at the problem?

reply from: leftsfoil

Conspiracy to commit murder is a murder charge. All parties that participate in a premeditated murder are equal in guilt.

reply from: faithman

But as one poster mentioned, those who are "incrementalists" would not be hindered by those who are working for full rights from conception.
Is that true? Do those who are striving for all the marbles hinder the efforts of those who are attempting to chip away at the problem?
As always, we are misrepresented. They have a right to their opinion, but they don't have a right to mine. some may see incrementalism as a step to full equality by establishing personhood. The monkey boy punk has a whole army of strawmen, and word twisting games to play. The fatal flaw of his BS, is that incrementalism does not save one child from abortion. All it does is make abortion legitimate by regulation. It also waists time and money. But when all you want to do is jack your jaws, the baby becomes secondary. Gibon gums enjoys waisting his time, and mis directing others from the focus it takes to end the slaughter. and to answere your question, no one who wants all the marbles stands in the way of anyone else. On the contrary, as posted by them many times. They oppose personhood for the womb child because it would mean they would get equal justice under the law. All the mercy can be taken into consideration by a jury of citizens, just like any other crime.

reply from: yoda

If they were "hindering", you'd be all over it with examples.
Since you have none, I must assume that you know that is "true".

reply from: yoda

There is one other thing it does, and it's actually much more important: It keeps abortion in the news. That's by far the most important thing it accomplishes, by stimulating public debate about abortion. Every time the word abortion appears in the MSM, we gain and they lose.

reply from: faithman

There is one other thing it does, and it's actually much more important: It keeps abortion in the news. That's by far the most important thing it accomplishes, by stimulating public debate about abortion. Every time the word abortion appears in the MSM, we gain and they lose.
Always the silver lining seeker. Poly Anna would be proud.

reply from: fetalisa

That's exactly why abortion is still legal, all of these years after Roe. Our society will not buy into the extremist view that would make a woman a murderer simply because she doesn't want more kids.

reply from: faithman

That's exactly why abortion is still legal, all of these years after Roe. Our society will not buy into the extremist view that would make a woman a murderer simply because she doesn't want more kids.
SSSSOOOOO if killer mom doesn't want born kids we should allow her the "right" to murder them too, huh?

reply from: fetalisa

You are the author of the above argument, not I.

reply from: faithman

You are the author of the above argument, not I.
there is no difference in value to born, or pre born life. The penalty for taking either unjustly should be the same.

reply from: fetalisa

Opinion, which NONE in our society are morally obligated to live as if it were some type of truth.

reply from: yoda

That's similar to what slave owners said in 1860........ about slavery.

reply from: fetalisa

Do you have any historical examples where a slave inhabited the body of another person as ZEFs do?

reply from: yoda

Why should I? I'm talking about the supporters of slavery, not the slaves.
You really make rather stupid arguments, ya know?

reply from: fetalisa

The only stupidity here is your argument that laws applying to slaves have anything at all to do with laws applying to ZEFs. ZEFs inhabit the body of another, which brings that others rights into the equation. Slaves do not inhabit the body of another as ZEFs do. I am sorry such a simple concept escapes you.

reply from: yoda

The author of THAT argument would be YOU. No wonder it's a stupid argument.
BOTH slavery and elective abortion are MORAL EVILS.
Is that too complicated for you?

reply from: faithman

What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: fetalisa

It is YOUR PERSONALLY CHOSEN OPINION that abortion is a moral evil. NONE in our society are obliged to live by your PERSONALLY CHOSEN OPINIONS. And that's what really pisses you off the most. You have NO control over the decisions other's make over their bodies and you never will.

reply from: fetalisa

Your pet religious fantasy have no bearing whatsover on my life, nor the lives of any other citizen of this country.

reply from: yoda

I have no doubt that you think that both slavery and elective abortion are "not evil".
But that's what this forum is for, expressing PERSONAL OPINIONS.
If you aren't comfortable with that, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

reply from: faithman

Your pet religious fantasy have no bearing whatsover on my life, nor the lives of any other citizen of this country.
What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: fetalisa

Opinions can be wrong. Just because you believe the sky is green with pink polka-dots, doesn't make it so.

reply from: faithman

Opinions can be wrong. Just because you believe the sky is green with pink polka-dots, doesn't make it so.
And just because you "choose" to ignore the constitutional right of a womb child to live, change the fact it exists.

reply from: fetalisa

You can't demonstrate our laws are wrong, other than pointing to a Random House dictionary definition and calling abortion murder. Did you ever wonder why the public won't buy into such nonsense?

reply from: faithman

What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: yoda

So when the laws said that slavery was okay, you think that was "right"?
Or when German laws said Jews were not people, you think that was "right"?
You think that ALL LAWS are ALWAYS RIGHT?

reply from: fetalisa

How does stating I agree with our abortion law as it presently stands end up meaning I agree with ALL of our law as it presently stands?

reply from: yoda

You did challenge me to prove that "our laws are wrong", so you must think that ALL OUR LAWS are ALWAYS RIGHT.......
Or do you?

reply from: fetalisa

What you guess I must think is speculation on your part.

reply from: yoda

Not really. You're as transparent as a pane of glass.

reply from: fetalisa

That's apparently exactly what our society has decided with respect to prolife arguments against abortion.

reply from: yoda

Dictionary.com ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus. http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby

reply from: fetalisa

Yet in our society, babies and children are persons due constitutional rights, while ZEFs are not.

reply from: sk1bianca

"DA LAAAAW" is always "right", yoda... even if it's made by brain-dead chimps...
whatever "DA LAAAAW" says MUST be ok since it's written in "DA LAAAAW". we are nothing but brainless zombies and we NEED "DA LAAAAW" to tell us not to kill each other, not to steal, not to rape...
but apparently, "DA LAAAAW" says it's ok to kill your unborn child! and in a couple of years "DA LAAAAW" will say it's ok to kill your born child or your grandma if they're "suffering to much"... that's when we evil anti-choice controll freaks will decide that pro-aborts suffer too much because of their stupidity and will put them out of their misery

reply from: Yuuki

You are so, so very talented at completely dodging the questions and issues in the posts you reply to....... how do you do that?
Like, in your post here you completely disregarded the thread title, and FMan's post, even though you quoted him.
Way to go!! You're really showing the proaborts how to do it!
I removed the gender from the question because it isn't about gender. It is about whether or not we should punish the doctor, the victim, or both.

reply from: faithman

You are so, so very talented at completely dodging the questions and issues in the posts you reply to....... how do you do that?
Like, in your post here you completely disregarded the thread title, and FMan's post, even though you quoted him.
Way to go!! You're really showing the proaborts how to do it!
I removed the gender from the question because it isn't about gender. It is about whether or not we should punish the doctor, the victim, or both.
You can't punish the victim, because the womb child is already dead by abortion. But you are right to remove gender from the discussion. A murderer should be punished no matter the gender. We send killers of the born to prison no matter the gender, then we should do the same for the preborn as a point of equality. No one should get a free walk when they take an innocent life.

reply from: yoda

Neither are foreigners........ are they not "people"?

reply from: yoda

I think that even the regular proaborts on this forum are wary of this one... they don't seem to be rushing to his defense.... apparently they recognize the symptoms of speed (meth).

reply from: yoda

Gender was important to the thread, or it would not have been included in the title. And I see that in your sig, you say "Being female does not give me a right to kill my children."
Why did you include gender in that?

reply from: Yuuki

You are so, so very talented at completely dodging the questions and issues in the posts you reply to....... how do you do that?
Like, in your post here you completely disregarded the thread title, and FMan's post, even though you quoted him.
Way to go!! You're really showing the proaborts how to do it!
I removed the gender from the question because it isn't about gender. It is about whether or not we should punish the doctor, the victim, or both.
You can't punish the victim, because the womb child is already dead by abortion. But you are right to remove gender from the discussion. A murderer should be punished no matter the gender. We send killers of the born to prison no matter the gender, then we should do the same for the preborn as a point of equality. No one should get a free walk when they take an innocent life.
The woman who received the abortion is the second victim.
The original question was an attempt to lure pro-choicers into a trap so you could call them women-haters. It's as shallow as that. However, it is possible to actually deepen it, which is what I did. It also let me avoid the trap you set, in which the person answers "Yes the abortionist should be punished even if she is female" to which you would have gotten to reply "You woman hater!". I don't play those games.

reply from: Yuuki

Gender was important to the thread, or it would not have been included in the title. And I see that in your sig, you say "Being female does not give me a right to kill my children."
Why did you include gender in that?
See my reply to Faithman. The thread is a trap, simply meant to get pro-choicers into replying in a way that allows you to call them women haters for punishing a woman for performing an abortion. There was no substance meant behind this thread. It's meant to bait and insult.

reply from: faithman

Gender was important to the thread, or it would not have been included in the title. And I see that in your sig, you say "Being female does not give me a right to kill my children."
Why did you include gender in that?
See my reply to Faithman. The thread is a trap, simply meant to get pro-choicers into replying in a way that allows you to call them women haters for punishing a woman for performing an abortion. There was no substance meant behind this thread. It's meant to bait and insult.
I don't need bait to insult.

reply from: bozo

You are so, so very talented at completely dodging the questions and issues in the posts you reply to....... how do you do that?
Like, in your post here you completely disregarded the thread title, and FMan's post, even though you quoted him.
Way to go!! You're really showing the proaborts how to do it!
I removed the gender from the question because it isn't about gender. It is about whether or not we should punish the doctor, the victim, or both.
You can't punish the victim, because the womb child is already dead by abortion. But you are right to remove gender from the discussion. A murderer should be punished no matter the gender. We send killers of the born to prison no matter the gender, then we should do the same for the preborn as a point of equality. No one should get a free walk when they take an innocent life.
Did any women self-abort before Roe v Wade and were any caught?
If so, what punishment did they receive?

reply from: yoda

You cannot be "trapped" by giving an honest answer to any question.
You can only trap yourself by lying or refusing to answer.
As you well know, some posters on this forum have indicated that only the abortionist should be punished, not the woman seeking and paying for the abortion.
That smacks of gender discrimination, so the question is relevant to that.

reply from: yoda

Suppose the answer is "no", how would that affect the morality of the issue?
Suppose the answer is "yes", how would that affect the morality of the issue?

reply from: nancyu

Yes. We should get right on legalizing that -- Right Away!

reply from: bozo

Suppose the answer is "no", how would that affect the morality of the issue?
Suppose the answer is "yes", how would that affect the morality of the issue?
I just want to know how the law dealt with self-aborters when abortion was illegal, and why or why not that would not be the model for the future if and when abortion is once again illegal.

reply from: yoda

I have never heard of this issue being dealt with pre-Roe, but even if there were such cases I don't think they should be treated as "precedent". Why not deal with this issue with a clean slate?

reply from: bozo

I'm not sure what to think of all this.
I don't see why precedent isn't one way to look at this, however, and I'm curious how this was handled in the past and how much punishment was given.
Also, I'm not sure I can accept the premise of this thread since a woman who self-aborts, possibly in an act of desperation, is not an "abortionist."

reply from: yoda

She isn't? Then who is?
Did the baby abort itself? Should we execute the baby after it aborts itself?

reply from: bozo

I think of an abortionist as someone who does it as a practice or on a regular basis, and someone who has acquired the necessary "skills."
Is a man who stiches up his own cut in an emergency a "doctor"? Is a woman who self-aborts in state of panic or depression an "abortionist"?
At any rate, I found an interesting article regarding punishment of women when abortion was illegal, and have posted exerpts below.
The entire article is at: http://www.lifenews.com/nat4513.html
">http://www.lifenews.com/nat4513.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For 30 years, abortion advocates have claimed - without any evidence and contrary to the well-documented practice of ALL 50 states - that women were jailed before Roe and would be jailed if Roe falls (or if state abortion prohibitions are reinstated).
This claim rests on not one but two falsehoods:
First, the almost uniform state policy before Roe was that abortion laws targeted abortionists, not women. Abortion laws targeted those who performed abortion, not women. In fact, the states expressly treated women as the second "victim" of abortion; state courts expressly called the woman a second "victim." Abortionists were the exclusive target of the law.
--------------------------------------
Why did the states target abortionists and treat women as a victim of the abortionist?
It was based on three policy judgments: the point of abortion law is effective enforcement against abortionists, the woman is the second victim of the abortionist, and prosecuting women is counterproductive to the goal of effective enforcement of the law against abortionists.
The irony is that, instead of states prosecuting women, the exact opposite is true. To protect their own hide, it was abortionists (like the cult hero and abortionist Ruth Barnett when Oregon last prosecuted her in 1968), who, when they were prosecuted, sought to haul the women they aborted into court. As a matter of criminal evidentiary law, if the court treated the woman as an accomplice, she could not testify against the abortionist, and the case against the abortionist would be thrown out.
-------------------------------
There are "only two cases in which a woman was charged in any State with participating in her own abortion": from Pennsylvania in 19111 and from Texas in 1922.2 There is no documented case since 1922 in which a woman has been charged in an abortion in the United States.
--------------------------------
States did not treat women who had the abortion as either principals or accomplices. As the Oregon Supreme Court held as late as 1968, the abortionist commits the act, and the woman aborted is the object of that act. "A reading of the statute indicates that the acts prohibited are those which are performed upon the mother rather than any action taken by her. She is the object of the acts prohibited rather than the actor."3
As one legal scholar in the 1980s who studied this issue concluded after surveying the 50 states, women "were never charged with murder, only seldom were named co-conspirators, and still more rarely were regarded as accomplices."4
While some women were prosecuted for their abortions under the English common law, by the 1870s or 1880s, most American states came to recognize that the better policy was to not prosecute women. That was the position of New York by 1885.
--------------------------------------
Were women ever prosecuted for SELF-abortion?
Never in the United States. The last was in 1599 - the end of the 16th century. As Villanova Law Professor Joseph Dellapenna, author of the encyclopedic book, Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History, has demonstrated, "in the entire history of Anglo-American law, it appears that the only woman to have been charged with a crime for self-abortion was Margaret Webb---in 1599."
Iowa, as early as 1863, held that a woman could not be indicted for a self-abortion.13
-----------------------------------------
Conclusion
The wisdom of not prosecuting women was based on extensive practical law enforcement experience in many states, over many years.
It will certainly be influential with prosecutors and state policy makers when Roe is overturned, and that should be the policy of legislators who are interested in the effective enforcement of abortion law.
Based on the 50-state record of enforcing abortion law for more than a century before Roe, Linton concluded that "if Roe is overruled, no woman would be prosecuted for self-abortion or consenting to an abortion, even in those few States where abortion prohibitions would be enforceable."
Prolife legislators and pro-life leaders do not support the prosecution of women and will not push for such a policy when Roe is overturned. This is demonstrated by abortion regulations enacted in the past 20 years - like the federal partial birth abortion ban - in which women are expressly excluded from any possible prosecution. Instead, pro-life legislators are advocating laws that defend the unborn and protect women from the negative impact of abortion.

reply from: yoda

Then you are playing word games. A "professional abortionist" would fit that description, but an "abortionist" is one who performs an abortion.
a·bor·tion·ist NOUN: One who performs abortions.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/abortionist

What about the questions I asked you? When a woman has a DIY abortion, is the baby the abortionist, or is there "no abortionist involved"? Does killing your own baby with your own hands absolve you of all guilt? Why are you dodging this issue?
Such a man is his own "healer", is he not?
Such a woman is THE abortionist in her abortion. How on earth can you try to absolve a woman from the killing of her own child with your excuses of "panic or depression"? Would you accept those excuses for the killing of born children? What do you gain by making excuses for abortion? Favor with the proabort crowd? Is that what you seek?
Sure, just like the person who hires a killer to off their spouse is a "victim", right? Wow, you turn the protagonist, the perpetrator, the initiator of the killing into a "victim"? Is all of your world totally upside down, or just this part?
If that is indeed the case, then why oppose personhood on that basis? Isn't that just a trifle dishonest?

reply from: faithman

In the game of golf, you have folks who play for fun, and you have folks who play for money. But both groups are called golfers. The motivation of playing golf does not determine being called a golfer if one plays the game. If one aborts a womb child, then they are an abortionist. If you play the game, you earned the name.

reply from: yoda

Ah, but Farty is determined to exonerate all self-aborting women by the use of word games!! Kinda reminds me of how proaborts exonerate all who abort by saying "it's not a baby".
Word gamers, don't you just love them?

reply from: bozo

Then a pregnant girl who throws herself down a flight of stairs with the intent to cause a miscarriage, if successful, is now "an abortionist"?
When abortion was illegal, were those who self-aborted referred to as "abortionists"?
It seems like a stretch, but I'll concede that point for the sake of discussion.
But whether they should be punished and not what they are called is the main point of the OP, and it seems according to the attorney from Americans United for Life, that women were not punished for self-aborting in the past:
For over four centuries women were not indicted for self-abortion, and NEVER in the US, and I think that precedent is a good reason to believe that will be the case again, if and when abortion is illegal.

reply from: faithman

For over four centuries women were not indicted for self-abortion, and NEVER in the US, and I think that precedent is a good reason to believe that will be the case again, if and when abortion is illegal.
And is was this "soft" approach that gave us roe in the first place. I believe we should not redo the mistakes of the past. Establish equality thru personhood and let the chips fall where they may with the laws already on the books, and the final say of citizen jurist.

reply from: yoda

Roe is now considered a legal precedent, are you in favor of protecting and favoring that precedent too?
Come on, tell us why we should keep Roe intact.....

reply from: bozo

I quoted an article written by a pro-life legal expert. If you think he is not credible or that he has erred in his article, please demonstrate why.
I am in favor of the quickest means to put an end to abortion, and saving as many lives as possible as soon as possible.
If pushing for punishment of self-aborters is a means to that end, I am entirely infavor of it.
If letting women off who have had abortions or who have self-aborted is a means to that end, I am entirely in favor of it.
Whatever will save the most lives the soonest...

reply from: yoda

You're not capable of even discussing the basic principles you are claiming support your position? You make the claim, and then say "I'm no expert"? If you're not knowledgeable enough about the subject of "precedent', why did you use it as a supporting argument?
Push whatever you want. What I'm saying is that to rule it out at this stage of the process is way, way premature.

reply from: bozo

You're not capable of even discussing the basic principles you are claiming support your position? You make the claim, and then say "I'm no expert"? If you're not knowledgeable enough about the subject of "precedent', why did you use it as a supporting argument?
Push whatever you want. What I'm saying is that to rule it out at this stage of the process is way, way premature.
I didn't state a position.
I wanted to find out more about what was done pre-Roe, and came up with that article.
But the article makes perfect sense to me, and I think that there is no reason to worry about punishment at this stage, and my personal opinion is that it will never happen, anyway, or at least nowhere in the near future (if and when abortion becomes illegal). I think the laws will always be constructed in a way that will let the women off the hook, even for being their own "abortionist."

reply from: yoda

You implied support of that position by posting that article, and saying it makes "perfect sense".
And yet, you side with those who wish to use the possibility of such future punishment as justification to oppose personhood.
You really do talk out of both sides of your mouth!

reply from: bozo

Whatever works to stop the injusitice of abortion works for me.
And I do not oppose personhood because of any possibility of punishment.
But I think it's clear from that article that punishment of the women isn't going to happen, regardless of whatever laws that will make abortion illegal, including personhood.
And I believe the women-in-jail scenario is largely a pro-choice ploy designed to distort reality and scare away support of the pro-life cause.
Regarding the original post--during 500 years of abortion being illegal, there is no known case of a woman being indicted for self-aborting, and I see no reason that would change.
Because I believe that, it doesn't mean that's what I necessarily "want" and it doesn't mean I would oppose another approach. I'm just saying what seems to make sense based on the statements of a pro-life legal expert.

reply from: yoda

You do realize that you're running the risk of disappointing your favorite poster, right?


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