How Much Time Should She Serve?

[vern_humphrey]

I am guessing that there are very few women who drive themselves to the abortion clinic. You’d better be prepared to charge everyone involved as accomplices–boyfriend, mom, dad, grandmom, and anyone else who participated in making this happen, and impose the severest punishments.

That is the general rule for murder – the man who drives the getaway car is as guilty as the man who pulled the trigger.

You’d better be prepared to march into your church on Sunday and haul out all the women who’ve had abortions and turn them over to the law.

Women who have had abortions under the present law would be immune from arrest under the ex post facto provision of the Constitution. However, once abortion is illegal, I would treat it like any other crime. Why not?

This sort of talk just gives more ammunition to pro-aborts and makes it less likely that Roe will ever be rescinded.

So we should go around sayint abortion is not murder?

 

[JimG]

Abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being. Under existing criminal law, abortion is not murder. What it would be if Roe were reversed would be defined by State laws at that time, unless Congress passed a federal law to take precedence.

Murder, under criminal law, admits of varying degrees, from involuntary manslaughter all the way up to first degree murder. It doesn’t particularly help the pro-life argument at its current stage to assume how abortion would be treated under a post-Roe legal system.

Neither, I think, does it advance the pro-life cause by advocating wholesale executions or jailing of women who have had abortions. Would 13 year olds be treated the same as 18 year olds, or 30 year olds? I’ve already mentioned that there would be boyfriends, husbands, moms, dads, teachers, and others who could be charged as accomplices. What about school friends who knew of the proposed abortion but kept quiet? Or those who learned of it later and kept quiet? Accomplices before and after the fact? Project Rachel, would of course, have no clients under the new regime, as they would also be accomplices after the fact. Any women who came to them would be subject to prosecution. We will need a new Oliver Cromwell to handle the prosecutions.

On the other hand, we won’t, because if the pro-life movement takes this tack, abortion will remain legal forever.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being. Under existing criminal law, abortion is not murder. What it would be if Roe were reversed would be defined by State laws at that time, unless Congress passed a federal law to take precedence.

Murder, under criminal law, admits of varying degrees, from involuntary manslaughter all the way up to first degree murder. It doesn’t particularly help the pro-life argument at its current stage to assume how abortion would be treated under a post-Roe legal system.

Neither, I think, does it advance the pro-life cause by advocating wholesale executions or jailing of women who have had abortions. Would 13 year olds be treated the same as 18 year olds, or 30 year olds? I’ve already mentioned that there would be boyfriends, husbands, moms, dads, teachers, and others who could be charged as accomplices. What about school friends who knew of the proposed abortion but kept quiet? Or those who learned of it later and kept quiet? Accomplices before and after the fact? Project Rachel, would of course, have no clients under the new regime, as they would also be accomplices after the fact. Any women who came to them would be subject to prosecution. We will need a new Oliver Cromwell to handle the prosecutions.

On the other hand, we won’t, because if the pro-life movement takes this tack, abortion will remain legal forever.

I respect your opinion, but do not agree with it for reasons I have stated.

We should not treat the murder of a child six months before it is born any differently from the way we would treat the murder of a child six months **after **it is born.

If we treat these two cases differently, we admit that the pre-born child is not worth the same protection as the one already born – which is the crux of the pro-abortion artgument.

 

[JimG]

I respect your opinion, but do not agree with it for reasons I have stated.

We should not treat the murder of a child six months before it is born any differently from the way we would treat the murder of a child six months **after **it is born.

If we treat these two cases differently, we admit that the pre-born child is not worth the same protection as the one already born – which is the crux of the pro-abortion artgument.

That is certainly a point worth making, especially since that seems to be the next issue on the horizon. Dr. Peter Singer, head of Princeton University’s ethics department (talk about irony) has proposed that newborns not be given full human rights until several months after they are born. Thus, parents would be enabled to have post-natal abortions, if the child didn’t meet all their expectations.

Still, the law makes distinctions all the time between acts which are similar in their essence, and provides different penalties.

During the past 15 years, the number of abortion clinics has declined from around 2000 to about 690 currently. In the U.S., 86% of all counties have no abortion provider, and that’s a good thing. The fewer abortionists there are, the fewer abortions will be performed. That’s one reason I think that abortion penalties should be directed at doctors, not women.

The pro-life message has, I think made good progress with the general public. A discussion of penalties to be applied to women is not only, in a sense, going off-message: it is exactly where the pro-aborts would like us to be. I see the question posed in this thread title being used primarily as a tool by the pro-abortion side. Watch for it in the election debates.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That is certainly a point worth making, especially since that seems to be the next issue on the horizon. Dr. Peter Singer, head of Princeton University’s ethics department (talk about irony) has proposed that newborns not be given full human rights until several months after they are born. Thus, parents would be enabled to have post-natal abortions, if the child didn’t meet all their expectations.

Gives a whole new meaning to, “Don’t make Mama mad.”

Still, the law makes distinctions all the time between acts which are similar in their essence, and provides different penalties.

But in the case of homicide, it is the degree of culpability that determines that – there’s a difference between accidental killing, killing in an afray, and deliberate cold-blooded killing.

During the past 15 years, the number of abortion clinics has declined from around 2000 to about 690 currently. In the U.S., 86% of all counties have no abortion provider, and that’s a good thing. The fewer abortionists there are, the fewer abortions will be performed. That’s one reason I think that abortion penalties should be directed at doctors, not women.

Personally, I’d like an approach where they get sued out of existance – for performing abortions on young girls who are forced to under go them, or for not providing their “patients” with enough information to make an informed choice.

But the question is, “How Much Time Should She Serve?” And in response to that, I say one mother who kills her child should not be treated differently from another who does the same thing, merely because one was still in the womb at the time of death.

The pro-life message has, I think made good progress with the general public. A discussion of penalties to be applied to women is not only, in a sense, going off-message: it is exactly where the pro-aborts would like us to be. I see the question posed in this thread title being used primarily as a tool by the pro-abortion side. Watch for it in the election debates.

Forewarned is forearmed.

 

[mapleoak]

Murder, under criminal law, admits of varying degrees, from involuntary manslaughter all the way up to first degree murder. It doesn’t particularly help the pro-life argument at its current stage to assume how abortion would be treated under a post-Roe legal system.

It is speculation to assume how all cases as a whole would be dealt with. Ideally, when an unborn child dies, it would have to be determined under prosecution whether it was murder, manslaughter, accessory to murder, or whatever the case may be. Remember, innocent until proven guilty is how our legal system works. No automatic sentences. Now, if someone is found guilty of (murder) they should be treated no different than anyone else who commits murder.

Neither, I think, does it advance the pro-life cause by advocating wholesale executions or jailing of women who have had abortions.

Innocent until proven guilty. Extenuating circumstances usually factor into the sentence dished out by the jury.

Would 13 year olds be treated the same as 18 year olds, or 30 year olds?

Are 13 year old treated the same as 18 year olds and 30 year olds presently? Why would you suggest abortion be any different. Now of course, maybe it could be said that abortion is an even higher crime than adult murder.

I’ve already mentioned that there would be boyfriends, husbands, moms, dads, teachers, and others who could be charged as accomplices.

And they should be. Are you saying abortion is not murder and should be treated leniently?

What about school friends who knew of the proposed abortion but kept quiet? Or those who learned of it later and kept quiet?

And of the school friend who knew their neighbor was going to be killed, but kept quiet? Is abortion less than murder?

 

[JimG]

And of the school friend who knew their neighbor was going to be killed, but kept quiet? Is abortion less than murder?

I do not intend to minimize the seriousness of abortion. It is classified as a “crime” under canon law; but canon law does not provide the death penalty or jail time.

I am somewhat amazed at these replies. Would anyone agree to go with the penalties that were in effect before Roe v Wade? Even though I haven’t been able to find the details on pre-Roe laws, I think I would remember if women and others complicit in abortion were being given the death penalty or life sentences.

Do you really want to make this the newest aspect of the pro-life movement? “How much time should she serve” is a question that will be used by pro-aborts, along with “How Many Women Will Go to Jail if X is elected?”

Abortionists will love this new theme.

 

[SoCalRC]

You are either inexperienced or poorly informed. Many people have or urge abortions because they do not want children. Survival is virtually never at issue. It is always a convenience issue, like throwing out the old batteries in the TV remote control.

I don’t think that is nec. fair. Although some activists are leary because of it’s founder’s one time connection to Planned Parenthood, most parties on both sides of the abortion debate accept the Guttmacher Institutes reports on abortion rates and trends to be the best data available:

guttmacher.org/presentations/trends.pdf

Notice that, as of 2000, poor and low income women accounted for about 60% of all abortions in the US. If we raise the bar to 3 times the poverty level (I know that sounds like a lot, but it could still mean an annual income of less than $30,000), the number jumps to near 80%

Also notice that, since 1990, over half of all women procurring abortions are already mothers (the number has been over 40% since the 1970s).

Last, notice that Hispanics are proportionally over represented. I don’t think we can deny that there are a lot of Catholic mothers out there choosing abortion because of what they perceive to be financial desperation - particular as it appears that many of them are sole providers.

Do circumstances necessarily forgive sin? Of course not. But I do not think we can lose sight of the fact that our other Christian obligations appear to be connected to this problem.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

An eye for an eye… leaves the whole world blind and toothless. Correct me if necessary, since I may be wrong, but I know of no women in recent history who were executed for killing a live baby.

Honestly, this kind of talk is counter-productive. I imagine if even one pro-choicer was to read some of these opinions, it could only result in a renewed commitment to make sure the day never comes when such penalties could be inflicted! Why energize those who want to keep abortion legal?

You’re not very wise seekerz.

Ghandi blasphemed God when he said “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” You know who gave the law “An eye for an eye…life for life”? Do you know who gave that law to the world? JESUS CHRIST GAVE THAT LAW!

Jesus Christ gave that law to Moses in Ex 21, the chapter immediately after He gave the Ten Commandments that include You Shall Not Murder. Read what Jesus Christ said in Ex 21. He gives this law in reference to when a man harms a baby in the womb!

Exodus 21:22-25 " If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine.] 23 "But if [any] harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 "burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

I highly recommend that you utterly rehect the blasphemous statement that Ghandi (who is probably burning in Hell right now) made which you quoted and instead acknowledge that the law God gave is good and just and will make your community better if it is followed and not worse as Ghandi claimed.

God over Ghandi every time.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

to treat abortion differently from infanticide is to tacitly admit the unborn child is not worth as much as one already born.

Right on vern!

To treat abortion differently from the typical murder you hear of on the news is to tacitly admit that the preborn is less than fully human unhuman.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

You’d better be prepared to march into your church on Sunday and haul out all the women who’ve had abortions and turn them over to the law.

This sort of talk just gives more ammunition to pro-aborts and makes it less likely that Roe will ever be rescinded.

That would be applying the law RETROACTIVELY Jim. That would be unjustice.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Wouldn’t it be interesting if a father could prevent that from happening? How many do you suppose would step up to the plate?
Kathy

I know a dad from Ireland who used the European Union court system to get an injunction where his girlfriend in California could not abort his daughter, and she had the baby before the injunction ran out.

Today he is raising his 3 year-old daughter in Ireland and is extremely glad he went through the hassle required to save his girl from being murdered

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being. Under existing criminal law, abortion is not murder. What it would be if Roe were reversed would be defined by State laws at that time, unless Congress passed a federal law to take precedence.

I really abhor the lawyeristic attitude and allegiance to the US Constitution where they say things like “Roe v Wade ought to be overturned so the individual states can decide whether to legalize murder or not.”

Of corse, they don’t say “murder”, they say abortion.

Read what I am about to say very closely folks.

NO LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT HAS THE LEEWAY TO LEGALIZE MURDER OR ANY OTHER CRIME!!

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Would 13 year olds be treated the same as 18 year olds, or 30 year olds?

YES!!

All murderers would be given a fair and speedy trial, and upon conviction surely, swiftly, painfully and publicly executed.

 

[dessert]

YES!!

All murderers would be given a fair and speedy trial, and upon conviction surely, swiftly, ainfuplly and publicly executed.

But not all muderers are given a fair and speedy, does not usually go together, trial, and thank God, upon conviction, there is some atonement, and painfully? hopefully at the last resort executed.

What about the parents that accidentally, through negligence, their children die?

I have heard a better statement that abortion is the culture of death. Which includes many more murdering self destructive behavior acts.

We need to get more of our government back into the culture of Life, Jesus Christ, His Church.
The woman that is agreeing to an abortion is also hurting her own body, allowing a doc to do this, like slicing her wrists or shooting up. It is self destructive and needs medical and mental attention
so dp for this is not going to help an ever esculating proablem without direct intervention, not execution.
IMHO Dessert

 

[Mirdath]

Ghandi blasphemed God when he said “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” You know who gave the law “An eye for an eye…life for life”? Do you know who gave that law to the world? JESUS CHRIST GAVE THAT LAW!

Actually, no, no, he didn’t. He said ‘turn the other cheek’. The guy you’re thinking of was Hammurabi.

YES!!

All murderers would be given a fair and speedy trial, and upon conviction surely, swiftly, painfully and publicly executed.

How… pro-life. I especially like your specification that death must be painful.

 

[dessert]

You’re not very wise seekerz.

Ghandi blasphemed God when he said “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” You know who gave the law “An eye for an eye…life for life”? Do you know who gave that law to the world? JESUS CHRIST GAVE THAT LAW!

Jesus Christ gave that law to Moses in Ex 21, the chapter immediately after He gave the Ten Commandments that include You Shall Not Murder. Read what Jesus Christ said in Ex 21. He gives this law in reference to when a man harms a baby in the womb!

Exodus 21:22-25 " If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine.] 23 "But if [any] harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 "burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

I highly recommend that you utterly rehect the blasphemous statement that Ghandi (who is probably burning in Hell right now) made which you quoted and instead acknowledge that the law God gave is good and just and will make your community better if it is followed and not worse as Ghandi claimed.

God over Ghandi every time.

verse 17; 'Any one who curses his father or mother must be put to death."
Many times I think there was no death but it was left to avengence of the victims family.
Death was the prescribed punishment for many for the following sins …(too many to list)
source…
Archaeological Study Bible NIV 2005
That is why Jesus comes back with Matthew 5; 38

I am pro life and anti abortion and abhore it as anyone.

 

[seekerz]

You’re not very wise seekerz.

Ghandi blasphemed God when he said “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” You know who gave the law “An eye for an eye…life for life”? Do you know who gave that law to the world? JESUS CHRIST GAVE THAT LAW!

Jesus Christ gave that law to Moses in Ex 21, the chapter immediately after He gave the Ten Commandments that include You Shall Not Murder. Read what Jesus Christ said in Ex 21. He gives this law in reference to when a man harms a baby in the womb!

Exodus 21:22-25 " If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine.] 23 "But if [any] harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 "burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

I highly recommend that you utterly rehect the blasphemous statement that Ghandi (who is probably burning in Hell right now) made which you quoted and instead acknowledge that the law God gave is good and just and will make your community better if it is followed and not worse as Ghandi claimed.

God over Ghandi every time.

Which translation of the Bible do you read?

 

[seekerz]

The penalty for adultery was stoning to death (no law had to be changed to make it so) when Jesus saved the woman caught in adultery. Maybe we can learn from His attitude.

I’m not saying their shouldn’t be a penalty, but some of these suggestions seem somewhat over the top! Painful death is not even applied as the penalty for murder.

I blush to think that pro-lifers may chance upon this thread and go out there to terrify people into ensuring Roe v. Wade remain forever. The battle is already difficult, do we need to make it more so?

I’d prefer to concentrate my efforts on convincing/educating people not to choose abortion, rather than spend time fantasizing how to punish them. Something about that just doesn’t jive with the message of the Gospels which we are called to live by.

 

[Mirdath]

I’d prefer to concentrate my efforts on convincing/educating people not to choose abortion, rather than spend time fantasizing how to punish them. Something about that just doesn’t jive with the message of the Gospels which we are called to live by.

This is the kind of pro-life attitude and effort I can respect: get rid of the need and the demand will drop. Good job