How Much Time Should She Serve?

[vern_humphrey]

So a rape victim carries the memory of her rape in her mind and you want to add the memory that she killed her child?

Nothing you’ve said here negates the fact that abortion is the deliberate murder of a living, human being.

In case of a pregnancy due to rape, the child is as much a victim as the mother. What other crime carries a death sentence for the victim?

 

[Delphinus85]

I think women who get an abortion shouldn’t serve time. I feel that necessary counselling is in order. She damaged herself, and women typically get abortions because they feel they have no other option. I think abortionists (doctors who perform illegal abortions) should face life in prison. They are preying on women who are emotionally vulnerable to make a buck. Now, women who have to regret, and did it out of cold blood (think women who are married and financially stable, but accidentally got pregnant and doesn’t want another kid) she should face some more serious. As should her husband.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think women who get an abortion shouldn’t serve time. I feel that necessary counselling is in order. She damaged herself, and women typically get abortions because they feel they have no other option.

How is this different from any other murder?

Many an armed robber, for example, has killed his victim because he “felt” he had no other option to prevent the victim from identifying him and testifying against him.

I think abortionists (doctors who perform illegal abortions) should face life in prison. They are preying on women who are emotionally vulnerable to make a buck. Now, women who have to regret, and did it out of cold blood (think women who are married and financially stable, but accidentally got pregnant and doesn’t want another kid) she should face some more serious. As should her husband.

Which is why we have trials – so each case can be decided on its individual merits. But a jury should have the option of finding an abortion as serious as any other murder.

 

[Delphinus85]

How is this different from any other murder?

Many an armed robber, for example, has killed his victim because he “felt” he had no other option to prevent the victim from identifying him and testifying against him.

Which is why we have trials – so each case can be decided on its individual merits. But a jury should have the option of finding an abortion as serious as any other murder.

Because a pregnant woman (especially if she is a teen) will generally have not only worlly pressures (no man will want me now, I don’t want to be a mom, my parents will find out I had sex, I’ll never have a career, my life is over etc…) on top of ALL OF THIS, she probably has a boyfriend telling her he doesn’t want to be a father, parents ready to kill her, etc. Then on top of even all of that she has hormonal swings that men can’t imagine, and women who have never been pregnant can’t imagine. What causes the woman to take the step to actually get the abortion? Pressure. Her parents telling her they will disown her if she gets pregnant, or a boyfriend who will dump her. A woman who has lost all support (and usually by the man who impregnated her) is the woman who gets an abortion. The man is getting of scott free in this case. He leaves her high and dry, she feels he has no option so she gets an abortion because no one supported her. No one helped. We as christians, when everyone else has failed need to give her help. Jesus gave PROSTITUTES a step up. Now if everyone was helping her, she wouldn’t feel the need for an abortion. If she had somewhere to go. But she doesn’t. So on top of all that here comes a doctor who can now charge axorbitant amounts of money to do an illegal operation to “end it all” usuallreinforcing that she has no choice and she has to do it. So she goes for it. Who do you blame in this case? She was pressured into this. And he (the doc) took advantage of that. If he wasn’t around, she wouldn’t do it. There would be no way to do it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Because a pregnant woman (especially if she is a teen) will generally have not only worlly pressures (no man will want me now, I don’t want to be a mom, my parents will find out I had sex, I’ll never have a career, my life is over etc…) on top of ALL OF THIS, she probably has a boyfriend telling her he doesn’t want to be a father, parents ready to kill her, etc.

And the armed robber will have pressures, too “My victim can identify me!” “The police will consider me armed and dangerous and may kill me!” “If I go to prison, I may be raped!”

So what’s the difference.

Then on top of even all of that she has hormonal swings that men can’t imagine, and women who have never been pregnant can’t imagine.

And no doubt the defense attorney will make that argument and the jury will consider it.

What causes the woman to take the step to actually get the abortion? Pressure. Her parents telling her they will disown her if she gets pregnant, or a boyfriend who will dump her. A woman who has lost all support (and usually by the man who impregnated her) is the woman who gets an abortion. The man is getting of scott free in this case. He leaves her high and dry, she feels he has no option so she gets an abortion because no one supported her. No one helped.

And no doubt the defense attorney will make that argument and the jury will consider it.

But by no means all abortions fall under those circumstances – many are the result of cold and selfish decisions. To automatically assume all abortions fall under the circumstances you list would be an injustice to the dead child – and to the abortionist, who doesn’t get such consideration.

We as christians, when everyone else has failed need to give her help. Jesus gave PROSTITUTES a step up. Now if everyone was helping her, she wouldn’t feel the need for an abortion.

And if everyone was helping the armed robber, he would’t “feel the need” to commit robbery and murder.

If she had somewhere to go. But she doesn’t.

I work very hard to see that she always has somewhere to go. And I’m not the only person working to help pregnant girls who need somewhere to go.

So on top of all that here comes a doctor who can now charge axorbitant amounts of money to do an illegal operation to “end it all” usuallreinforcing that she has no choice and she has to do it. So she goes for it. Who do you blame in this case?

The same person I blame in the armed robbery. I will allow any person charged with a crime a defense attorney, who will make the best possible argument for his client.

She was pressured into this. And he (the doc) took advantage of that. If he wasn’t around, she wouldn’t do it. There would be no way to do it.

And no doubt the defense attorney will make that argument and the jury will consider it.

 

[paradoxy]

If the abortionist is convicted and has to serve time, that’s enough to deter abortions, isn’t it? If they can’t get the profit and have to go to jail, why would they do it? They’re the rational ones in the situation. And it IS about stopping abortions, and not just PUNISHING the culpable ones, right?

Delphinus85, I know what you’re talking about when it comes to hormones. I’ve ALWAYS been pro-life. I was happily married. We were completely open to a child. And when I got pregnant, during the first trimester I kept having ideas about abortion (I’d never do it, but it was often on my mind) and was very depressed about my pregnancy, for reasons unknown to me. When I entered the second trimester, I was overjoyed and now have a lovely daughter. No one can ever understand this, except women who have experienced it.

Now imagine a young girl w/o the perfect baby situation that I had and add the hormones… I’d never convict her. If girls didn’t have anyone to do it, and it wasn’t a legal option, the fathers would be more responsible and there wouldn’t be all the pressure. There’s just no logic in convicting the pregnant woman.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Now imagine a young girl w/o the perfect baby situation that I had and add the hormones… I’d never convict her.

And that’s why in our system we consider guilt and sentencing on a case-by-case basis. Let the jury sort these issues out – some women are serial killers, such as the one mentioned in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette coming to Little Rock for her **third **abotion!

For others there may be factors in extenuation and mitigation.

Leave it to the jury.

 

[JimG]

When condoms were largely unavailable, abortion was rare, because premarital sex was rare. When condoms became ubiquitous, so did premarital sex, and so did abortion.

That said, every state in the union had laws regulating abortion before Roe V Wade.
Roe v Wade invalidated all those laws.

Pre-Roe, there were no women in jail for violating abortion laws, because the laws penalized abortionists, not women.

If R v W were overturned, abortion law would return to the states.

If pro-life people begin proposing abortion penalties for women which are far more draconian than anything that existed pre-Roe, I expect that the pro-life movement will be set back considerably.

 

[blessedtoo]

Pre-Roe, there were no women in jail for violating abortion laws, because the laws penalized abortionists, not women.

Do you have any links to support the statement that there were no penalties for women who had abortions pre Roe v Wade?

 

[JimG]

Do you have any links to support the statement that there were no penalties for women who had abortions pre Roe v Wade?

Sorry, I looked, but while I can find numerous links on the history of abortion and abortion law, from both the pro-life and pro-choice perspectives, I don’t find any which specifically outline the penalties attached to pre-Roe abortion laws. To get that, I would probably have to do some research at a law library and who does library research anymore?

Nevertheless, I was there at the time, and while there was much controversy on both sides of the issue, including the alleged specter of “back alley” abortions, I don’t recall any discussion whatsoever about the plight of women jailed for having abortions. Nor were there any news stories of women languishing in jail waiting for the law to be changed. The issue would no doubt have been raised had it been a reality or even a possibility.

 

[blessedtoo]

Sorry, I looked, but while I can find numerous links on the history of abortion and abortion law, from both the pro-life and pro-choice perspectives, I don’t find any which specifically outline the penalties attached to pre-Roe abortion laws. To get that, I would probably have to do some research at a law library and who does library research anymore?

Nevertheless, I was there at the time, and while there was much controversy on both sides of the issue, including the alleged specter of “back alley” abortions, I don’t recall any discussion whatsoever about the plight of women jailed for having abortions. Nor were there any news stories of women languishing in jail waiting for the law to be changed. The issue would no doubt have been raised had it been a reality or even a possibility.

I was there also.
Here is what I remember.
Women were terrified to go for an illegal abortion because they might get caught.
Why were they afraid?
They were engaging in an illegal activity. They must have feared there would be penalties. I am sure their fear was not for the “doctor”.

Isn’t it interesting how hard it is to get info about the days of illegal abortion? I know that I have attempted to research facts about the actual numbers of abortions that occurred pre Roe v. Wade as well as the mortality rates of those who procured abortions and the information I find is minimal. Usually, the same few sites with the same facts come up and it can get very frustrating.

I agree with you about the research! Heaven forbid I drag myself away from the computer screen and actually enter a library, hold a book in my hand, and read! How lazy we have become!

Thanks for trying!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Do you have any links to support the statement that there were no penalties for women who had abortions pre Roe v Wade?

Here is the scoop on what was happening in Canada prior to the passage of the ‘omnibus’ law which legalized abortion in Canada:

In the late 1960s… Attempting to induce an abortion is a crime punishable by life in prison, or two years imprisonment if the woman herself is convicted. link

In November 1973 a Quebec jury acquitted Morgentaler on the charge of conspiracy to perform an abortion, but his legal troubles were far from over. The Quebec Court of Appeal threw out the verdict and found him guilty. Morgentaler was sentenced to 18 months in prison after the Supreme Court of Canada rejected his appeal. On March 27, 1975, he began serving his sentence. link

There is an audio clip there which is short enough but well enough reported. You might recognize the voice of that women on the History Channel.

 

[JimG]

I was there also.
Here is what I remember.
Women were terrified to go for an illegal abortion because they might get caught.
Why were they afraid?
They were engaging in an illegal activity. They must have feared there would be penalties. I am sure their fear was not for the “doctor”.

Isn’t it interesting how hard it is to get info about the days of illegal abortion? I know that I have attempted to research facts about the actual numbers of abortions that occurred pre Roe v. Wade as well as the mortality rates of those who procured abortions and the information I find is minimal. Usually, the same few sites with the same facts come up and it can get very frustrating.

I agree with you about the research! Heaven forbid I drag myself away from the computer screen and actually enter a library, hold a book in my hand, and read! How lazy we have become!

Thanks for trying!

Yes, I don’t doubt that they were terrified. I just don’t know if they were terrified of going to jail. There seem to be a lot of women, even now, who are terrified even as they go into a legal abortion clinic.

I viewed a couple of the clips in the link provided by An Ibi; they seemed to be highly sympathetic toward Dr. Morgantaler, the Canadian abortionist. It is noteworthy that Morgantaler, having performed over 7,000 illegal abortions, was acquited by a jury after a half-hour of deliberation. I just find it hard to believe that if a renowned abortionist could so easily be acquited, that women would be convicted.

Looking back at 1973, I don’t recall there being much of a stir among Catholics or others opposed to abortion, when Roe came down. It seemed to be thought that, while this was a wrong decision, it probably wasn’t going to be that big of a deal.

But the law is a teacher: If abortion was now legal, it must be right. Soon, the numbers of abortions exploded–one million and more per year. That’s what gave the impetus to the pro-life movement.

As to prosecution, it seems to me that enforcement of abortion laws has always been lax or non-existent. On paper, Kansas has a pretty restrictive abortion law. In practice, Dr. Tiller has remained as a prime destination for those seeking late term abortions. The restrictions are not actually looked at, as long as he finds another doc to sign off on them.

PS–With respect to abortion history, I found repeated references to a book by Joseph W. Dellapenna, Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History.

 

[blessedtoo]

Looking back at 1973, I don’t recall there being much of a stir among Catholics or others opposed to abortion, when Roe came down. It seemed to be thought that, while this was a wrong decision, it probably wasn’t going to be that big of a deal.

I remember. Unfortunately, at the time, I was on the other side marching and carrying signs and trying to out-shout those crazy pro-lifers. Obviously, a very dark and shameful period of my past.

I don’t know how many were Catholic but their numbers were great enough to warrant a counter offensive. Even though the pro-aborts had won their most important battle, they still realized the tenuous grip they had in the face of this opposition. It is still true today although I do believe the zeal and fervor for abortion has diminished greatly since the 70’s and 80’s. It is either due to the complacency of this generation who believe that Roe v. Wade is here to stay OR we in the pro-life movement have actually made some inroads. Obviously I pray it is the latter!

 

[TheOpenTheist]

If a mom is guilty of murdering a child then she is to be given a fair and speedy trial and upon conviction a sure, swift, painful and public execution just like any other person who is convicted of murder.

 

[seekerz]

If a mom is guilty of murdering a child then she is to be given a fair and speedy trial and upon conviction a sure, swift, painful and public execution just like any other person who is convicted of murder.

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?

 

[vern_humphrey]

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?

That’s kind of like saying you shouldn’t hit back in a boxing ring, because it might make the other guy mad. The pro-abortionists are already doing all they can – our actions will not make them do more.

But death penalty aside, there is a logic in applying the same penalty to killing an unborn child as we apply to killing one already born. If we accept a lesser penalty for abortion we are saying that abortion really isn’t murder, and that the unborn is worth less than those already born.

 

[seekerz]

That’s kind of like saying you shouldn’t hit back in a boxing ring, because it might make the other guy mad. The pro-abortionists are already doing all they can – our actions will not make them do more.

But death penalty aside, there is a logic in applying the same penalty to killing an unborn child as we apply to killing one already born. If we accept a lesser penalty for abortion we are saying that abortion really isn’t murder, and that the unborn is worth less than those already born.

This isn’t about hitting back, it’s about picking a new fight about something that can’t be achieved in any case until the present battle is won…Is it worth the aggravation it might cause?

 

[vern_humphrey]

This isn’t about hitting back, it’s about picking a new fight about something that can’t be achieved in any case until the present battle is won…Is it worth the aggravation it might cause?

It isn’t picking a new fight. It’s the same old fight – I once heard Phil Donohue ranting about this. To say the fight hasn’t already reached that point is to ignore what the opposition says.

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

 

[JimG]

If a mom is guilty of murdering a child then she is to be given a fair and speedy trial and upon conviction a sure, swift, painful and public execution just like any other person who is convicted of murder.

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.

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.