How Much Time Should She Serve?

[paradoxy]

The idea is to stop abortions, and not necessarily inflict punishment on all who are guilty. It is enough to convict the abortionist.

Convicting the mother is impractical as well as unnecessary. Imagine what would follow - investigations of every miscarriage or even pregnancy suspected by others that does not result in a live birth. Imagine losing a baby and then being under investigation! It would especially be hard on large families - who’ll believe a mother of 5 that she really wanted #6, but miscarried? And if she tells her friend she’s a bit worried about being able to handle 6 kids, and then miscarries, the friend’s testimony combined with the size of the family and other circumstantial evidence just might convict her!

30% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Imagine the police work involved! But the police would have to investigate, b/c there is a possible crime every time if the mother is to be punished too.

If you focus on the abortionists, you avoid this and still get the same result.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The idea is to stop abortions, and not necessarily inflict punishment on all who are guilty. It is enough to convict the abortionist.

Convicting the mother is impractical as well as unnecessary. Imagine what would follow - investigations of every miscarriage or even pregnancy suspected by others that does not result in a live birth. Imagine losing a baby and then being under investigation! It would especially be hard on large families - who’ll believe a mother of 5 that she really wanted #6, but miscarried? And if she tells her friend she’s a bit worried about being able to handle 6 kids, and then miscarries, the friend’s testimony combined with the size of the family and other circumstantial evidence just might convict her!

30% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Imagine the police work involved! But the police would have to investigate, b/c there is a possible crime every time if the mother is to be punished too.

If you focus on the abortionists, you avoid this and still get the same result.

That’s starting to sound like Phil Donahue – “If you make abortions illegal, you’ll have to force every woman to come in every month for a pregnancy test!! You’ll have to assign a cop to guard every woman!!”

 

[seekerz]

The idea is to stop abortions, and not necessarily inflict punishment on all who are guilty. It is enough to convict the abortionist.

Convicting the mother is impractical as well as unnecessary. Imagine what would follow - investigations of every miscarriage or even pregnancy suspected by others that does not result in a live birth. Imagine losing a baby and then being under investigation! It would especially be hard on large families - who’ll believe a mother of 5 that she really wanted #6, but miscarried? And if she tells her friend she’s a bit worried about being able to handle 6 kids, and then miscarries, the friend’s testimony combined with the size of the family and other circumstantial evidence just might convict her!

30% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Imagine the police work involved! But the police would have to investigate, b/c there is a possible crime every time if the mother is to be punished too.

If you focus on the abortionists, you avoid this and still get the same result.

I tend to agree with you except that all the difficulties you mentioned apply also to the abortionist. Which is why (I know I’m gonna get flak for this) I believe the definitive solution to abortion is through evangelization and education - changing laws isn’t gonna do it.

Imagine a doctor being dragged before the courts for performing an abortion when actually it was a miscarriage? In some countries where abortion is illegal, lots of fingers get pointed and reputations get lost just through malicious gossip.

At some stages of pregnancy, it’s very hard to distinguish a spontaneous pregnancy loss from an intentional one, even with the help of pathologists because processes used can mimic the natural process of miscarriage. On the other hand, both a baby dead from natural causes and one who is alive can be suctioned out of the uterus with similar end results.That is precisely how some abortionists and abortion-seekers get away with their crime in places where it is a crime.

The issue is hardly as straightforward as some might imagine. The idea of executing someone who has a chance of being the unfortunate victim of nature’s processes or malicious tongues, really turns my stomach as much as abortion does, I’m afraid.

 

[dessert]

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

Open Theist; This is a great intervention thanks for sharing this.

Dessert

 

[Kaninchen]

There are practical reasons for being very cautious about what you wish for. People have got to be arrested, charged, prosecuted and judged in a society with mixed views on the subject (including the arresting officers, prosecutors, judges and juries involved in the process). My guess is that the chance of getting convictions would fall with the severity of the potential punishment.

Where half of jury members don’t think it should be a crime anyway, the chances of getting something like a capital murder conviction would be pretty slim and society seriously doesn’t need flagship laws that very publicly don’t work.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I tend to agree with you except that all the difficulties you mentioned apply also to the abortionist. Which is why (I know I’m gonna get flak for this) I believe the definitive solution to abortion is through evangelization and education - changing laws isn’t gonna do it

Changing the laws ended segregation in this country and went a looooong way toward reducing racial discrimination.

Imagine a doctor being dragged before the courts for performing an abortion when actually it was a miscarriage? In some countries where abortion is illegal, lots of fingers get pointed and reputations get lost just through malicious gossip.

How is this any different from someone being dragged before the courts for murder or manslaughter when it was actually justifiable self-defense?

At some stages of pregnancy, it’s very hard to distinguish a spontaneous pregnancy loss from an intentional one, even with the help of pathologists because processes used can mimic the natural process of miscarriage. On the other hand, both a baby dead from natural causes and one who is alive can be suctioned out of the uterus with similar end results.That is precisely how some abortionists and abortion-seekers get away with their crime in places where it is a crime.

And they may continue to do so – just as other murderers get away with their crimes. But a lot of them get caught, too.

The issue is hardly as straightforward as some might imagine. The idea of executing someone who has a chance of being the unfortunate victim of nature’s processes or malicious tongues, really turns my stomach as much as abortion does, I’m afraid.

No complex issue is straightforeward. But the idea that someone would be executed for “being the unfortunate victim of nature’s processes or malicious tongues” is simply hyperbole.

 

[dessert]

I think there should be some loss of rights, not going against the individual rights or constitution, and there has been some changes over the past years.

Threats don’t even work, so there needs to be more involvement in the entire family structure, even though courts like to blame the mother , the mother of the mother on down the line thinking the only way to break the cycle is to put the child in a foster home.

A thirteen year old girl having a baby is really a child having a child.
There needs to be support for both and the girl may have to lose some rights, it is not something you can send her to her room, as punishment.

These children need probation assistance, counseling about consequences. Having a baby should not be a crime, but is the consequenc of having the pleasure and / or in the some circumstances we are discussing rape or sex before marriage.

It should be a blessed event and should be planned. Children are not accidents or mistakes.

But I think planned parenthood goes about it all wrong anyways there wasn’t any when I was young and we didn’t have as trouble waiting or planning it on our own.

Dessert

 

[Jerusha]

But the idea that someone would be executed for “being the unfortunate victim of nature’s processes or malicious tongues” is simply hyperbole.

But good hyperbole because gossip is kin to murder because it can lead to suicide.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think there should be some loss of rights, not going against the individual rights or constitution, and there has been some changes over the past years.

Threats don’t even work, so there needs to be more involvement in the entire family structure, even though courts like to blame the mother , the mother of the mother on down the line thinking the only way to break the cycle is to put the child in a foster home.

A thirteen year old girl having a baby is really a child having a child.
There needs to be support for both and the girl may have to lose some rights, it is not something you can send her to her room, as punishment.

These children need probation assistance, counseling about consequences. Having a baby should not be a crime, but is the consequenc of having the pleasure and / or in the some circumstances we are discussing rape or sex before marriage.

It should be a blessed event and should be planned. Children are not accidents or mistakes.

But I think planned parenthood goes about it all wrong anyways there wasn’t any when I was young and we didn’t have as trouble waiting or planning it on our own.

Dessert

I don’t see how “rights” enters into this discussion – other than the Right to Life, which is being infringed on a wholesale basis in this country right now.

There is no “right” to murder a helpless child. Nor does a 13-year old have a “right” to use drugs, alcohol, or have sex. Indeed, parents have a duty to take positive action to prevent her from doing that.

Now, as for support, I suggest that’s our responsibility. What are we doing, in our individual parishes, to help troubled children? What are we doing to support and help a girl who is already pregnant? And how can we do it better?

 

[dessert]

That’s starting to sound like Phil Donahue – “If you make abortions illegal, you’ll have to force every woman to come in every month for a pregnancy test!! You’ll have to assign a cop to guard every woman!!”

Well that wouldn’t be so bad.

Smoking and drinking is illegal under a certain age .Why ?
Because it is harmful to the body and too young is too dumb.

Smoking is illegal in a lot of restaurants today in many cities . why?
Because it is harmful to all of us.

I think abortion should be illegal, and I am not for ABC.
Dessert

 

[dessert]

I don’t see how “rights” enters into this discussion – other than the Right to Life, which is being infringed on a wholesale basis in this country right now.
I disagree I think this whole issue is about rights

Now, as for support, I suggest that’s our responsibility. What are we doing, in our individual parishes, to help troubled children? What are we doing to support and help a girl who is already pregnant? And how can we do it better?

I agree abortion hurts all of us as a whole society, it is a culture of death. Yes you make a good point.
Dessert

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well that wouldn’t be so bad.

With a 40-hour week, and time off for vactions, mandatory training and sick leave, that’s 5 cops per citizen.

And since some cops are females, we’d have to assign 5 more cops to all the female cops.

Smoking and drinking is illegal under a certain age .Why ?
Because it is harmful to the body and too young is too dumb.

Smoking is illegal in a lot of restaurants today in many cities . why?
Because it is harmful to all of us.

I think abortion should be illegal, and I am not for ABC.
Dessert

I agree – and I say arguments like, “You’d have to have every woman tested for pregnancy every month,” or “some abortionists would hide their evil deeds and not get caught” are mere sophistry.

 

[dessert]

With a 40-hour week, and time off for vactions, mandatory training and sick leave, that’s 5 cops per citizen.

And since some cops are females, we’d have to assign 5 more cops to all the female cops.



I agree – and I say arguments like, “You’d have to have every woman tested for pregnancy every month,” or “some abortionists would hide their evil deeds and not get caught” are mere sophistry.

Let’s talk seriously about the rights, of all the individuals involved. ?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let’s talk seriously about the rights, of all the individuals involved. ?

Okay. The baby has a right to life.

The 13-year old girl has a right to parental control and supervision.

An accused person has the right to to be informed of the charges against him, to refuse to be a witness against himself, to have assistance of counsel, to confront the witnesses against him, and to a jury trial.

 

[dessert]

The most important person is of course God , ababy is made woth three people man woman and the spirit of God the creator.

I wrote a short paper for college once and really like researching this entire subject.

Abortion is not just about the mother the baby and the doctor, it negates all the generations that is handed down through the family genes, and there should be a celabration of life not death.

The father of the baby has rights, I am all for testing the DNA to see if the baby is surely his.

The doctor is negating his/her rights to preserve life, picking and chossing like he/she is God.

The babies rights to life and all that it has to offer are negated such as, to bear children on it’s own to go to a church it chooses,
the right to know it’s own mother, and father.

Abortion harms the physical and mental health of the mother which is going to have it’s effect on all the members of the family, and is phsycologically affecting the doctors life too if not immediate, later.

It is a murder in more ways than one as if the mother had went to a store and did a rob gun and run and guess who are all in the getaway car. Everyone loses and the women are under complete ignorance to the entire situation. The woman is depending on society to make the descion for her, when there are so many laws to pic and chose from like a cafeteria society.
Dessert

 

[dessert]

Okay. The baby has a right to life.

The 13-year old girl has a right to parental control and supervision.
Yes, and if this fails, does she have a right to sue her parents, for negligence? So are the consequences for both? Should it be? Just wondering as I know there are laws now that I think try to put the parents in jail, when kids are truant or something like that, I might be wrong on this.

An accused person has the right to to be informed of the charges against him, to refuse to be a witness against himself, to have assistance of counsel, to confront the witnesses against him, and to a jury trial. ** I agree. **

Sorry I have to go out for awhile>

 

[vern_humphrey]

The 13-year old girl has a right to parental control and supervision.

Yes, and if this fails, does she have a right to sue her parents, for negligence? So are the consequences for both? Should it be? Just wondering as I know there are laws now that I think try to put the parents in jail, when kids are truant or something like that, I might be wrong on this.

There are already provisions in law for removing a child from parental custody if the parents are not doing their job. And, yes, parents can be sued or jailed in some circumstances.

 

[SoCalRC]

Changing the laws ended segregation in this country and went a looooong way toward reducing racial discrimination.

Actually, there is little to suggest this is true. When it comes from everything from death penalty convictions to calling balls and strikes all the numbers suggest that racial discrimination itself is still rampant.

It would be nice to believe that there is significantly less discrimination, because then we could remove seemingly blatant quota type systems without effect. But again, all the evidence appears to suggest that when such systems are removed, detectable discrimination re-appears.

Besides, a more meaningful comparison might be laws of prohibition. While such laws typically have some effect, they generally do not have a significant effect on gambling, illegal drugs, alchohol, prostitution etc. even when the penalties are severe. It would be nice to believe that abortion would be somehow different, but there is no evidence to really suggest that. For example, Pope Sixtus V established a 3 year ban on abortions with extremely severe penalties (it was potentially a capital crime) and even the Church appears to agree it was a failure - doing little to curb abortions, but driving people away from confessions and the Church. And this was in a theocratic Catholic City/State.

Secular society has not faired much better. It would be nice to believe that there was a pre-Roe v. Wade golden era, but the evidence seems contrary. First, the prohibition laws themselves didn’t exist all that long. They started appearing in the 19th century, but as late as 1870 abortion services were still being advertised in newspapers (using ‘discrete’ language, much as prostitution is advertised in phone books today). Before antibiotics abortion related deaths would sometimes run in the thousands each year here in the US, and that is just based on death certificates. So we know there were huge surges in the 20s (great depression?) and in the 40s (WWII?), so it seems that perceived ‘need’ was high enough to accept even greater personal risk.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, there is little to suggest this is true. When it comes from everything from death penalty convictions to calling balls and strikes all the numbers suggest that racial discrimination itself is still rampant.

That’s two different arguments:

1. Is there less racial discrimination in this country than in the 1950s, at the time Brown v Board of Education was handed down?
2. Did Brown V Board of Education, the various laws which were passed as a result and their enforcement have anything to do with it.

Having lived through that era, I have to say the answer to both is yes.

The fact that there is still some prejudice doesn’t mean we haven’t made great strides.

 

[SoCalRC]

Having lived through that era, I have to say the answer to both is yes.

The fact that there is still some prejudice doesn’t mean we haven’t made great strides.

It is in our nature to put over emphasis on personal experience and impression. That is why the scientific method requires repeatablity and peer review.

Think of it this way, many African Americans contend that progress has only been superficial. Are their experiences less meaningful than yours?

So instead of conflicting battles of annecdotal experience, we tend to look at things like poverty rates, unemployment, inequity in pay, health care, longevity, and etc. Viewed that way the picture is not very good. For example, per capita, African American business ownership is lower now than in 1960. We can’t blame all this on poverty because financial mobility has been shrinking for awhile, but African Americans are still disproportionately represented.

In any event, this is seemingly only tangent to abortion, though there is a close relationship between poverty and abortion. As of 2000, 60% of all abortions were for poor and low income women - if we expand that to 300% of the poverty rate (roughly $30,000 per year), it jumps to nearly 80%. So Blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately represented. So, if we presume there to be a link between racism and higher rates of poverty, it would seem a reasonable hypothesis to also suppose that there is a link between racism and abortion.