How would we enforce new abortion laws?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JimG

Guest
An article in The Catholic Thing discusses the possible problems of enforcing any new abortion laws. The fact that laws are passed does not mean that they enforce themselves. Many states already have laws in place which restrict abortion, and those are enforceable through regulation of abortion facilities and abortionists. For those who are in favor of prohibiting all abortion, however, the problems of enforcement are worth considering. The author has some interesting thoughts in this regard. But one part of his essay which struck me particularly was this:

“Enforcement challenges, however, are not the biggest problem. Behind the scenes, but pervasive, and all but unnoticed by president, pope, or pundit, is the specter of contraception. The almost universal acceptance of contraception implies the right to sex without procreation. A legal injunction prohibiting abortion would be the most conspicuous denial of this “absolute” right. Abortion is the ultimate backup for contraception.”

What pro-abortion people are really protecting is this—the right to sex without procreation. If such a right is demanded, abortion will always be demanded as the ultimate backup. Not only that, but the “right to sex without procreation” leads to more non-marital sex, more contraceptive failure and more abortion.


How would we enforce new abortion laws?
 
It’s the perverse exaltation of personal freedom. It’s only nominally about sexuality.
 
Target those who perform abortions with sting operations.

Investigate women who obtain an abortion based on plain view or probable cause.
 
TheTrinitySaves said:
What would qualify as “plain view”
Click to expand...
If a police officer perceives evidence of illegal activity and he is lawfully present, the evidence he gathers may be utilized without running afoul of prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure.
 
Abortion will be diminished not by the law of the land but by the law in our hearts.

President Trump’s efforts, though limited and imperfect, may help (and I believe are already beginning to help) simply by initiating dialogue between family members, friends, and neighbors that shines light in the darkness, frees us from ignorance, and softens the hardened heart. By our efforts and with God’s help it is possible.
 
In the first place, removing all government funding and any charitable tax exemptions from any organisation that provides or promotes abortion whether domestically or overseas.

In the second place, criminalise performing an abortion, having an abortion, providing information concerning the availability of abortion and providing funds for the purposes of abortion. Provide for robust penalties including huge fines for organisations. If someone breaks the law, they will be arrested and prosecuted as with any other crime.

In the third place, stigmatise abortion to medical professionals. For instance, anyone even suspected of performing an abortion could have their medical licence suspended pending investigation.

Fourthly, with all the money saved from not subsidising abortion invest in subsidies for adoption services and help programs for new parents.
 
How about not making laws? Roe V Wade is under the 14th amendment so a woman has the right to choose.
 
NM505StKate said:
Which is sad as it would be unwise to make laws against something protected by the amendment.
Click to expand...
Are you pro life? Do you believe that roe vs wade was a wrong decision by the courts (judicial activism)? Most pro lifers will say the court was legislating from the bench.
 
JimG said:
…the right to sex without procreation.
Click to expand...
Oh, the horror! To imagine that perverts would be allowed to have sex without procreation? And make it a right? Apage, Satanas!

Let’s enact “chastity belt” laws (for both sexes, of course), and let’s put the keys into the hands of the “procreation-police”! The belt would be removable only in the presence of a certified “procreator”, who would make sure that ejaculation can only happen in the vagina. The only problem would be the proliferation of locksmiths (licensed or otherwise) and the production of lock picks from the (freshly) illegal hardware stores.

/sarcasm off
 
JimG said:
An article in The Catholic Thing discusses the possible problems of enforcing any new abortion laws. The fact that laws are passed does not mean that they enforce themselves. Many states already have laws in place which restrict abortion, and those are enforceable through regulation of abortion facilities and abortionists. For those who are in favor of prohibiting all abortion, however, the problems of enforcement are worth considering. The author has some interesting thoughts in this regard. But one part of his essay which struck me particularly was this:

“Enforcement challenges, however, are not the biggest problem. Behind the scenes, but pervasive, and all but unnoticed by president, pope, or pundit, is the specter of contraception. The almost universal acceptance of contraception implies the right to sex without procreation. A legal injunction prohibiting abortion would be the most conspicuous denial of this “absolute” right. Abortion is the ultimate backup for contraception.”

What pro-abortion people are really protecting is this—the right to sex without procreation. If such a right is demanded, abortion will always be demanded as the ultimate backup. Not only that, but the “right to sex without procreation” leads to more non-marital sex, more contraceptive failure and more abortion.


How would we enforce new abortion laws?
Click to expand...
The bolded part is ridiculous. You cannot legislate what people do in their bedroom, that is a violation of human rights to tell people they cannot have sex because it violates the catholic religion. Abortion their is a another human being.
 
NM505StKate said:
I am pro choice.
Click to expand...
Ahh. That would explain it. Well we cannot really discuss that on this thread, that would be a topic for a entirely new thread. You might make some enemies on here with that statement, especially with the fact that you are catholic. so i will forewarn you.
 
The power of Choice is given us so we may choose good. To love.

Not so we can kill the life of an innocent child in the womb.
 
TheTrinitySaves said:
The bolded part is ridiculous. You cannot legislate what people do in their bedroom, that is a violation of human rights to tell people they cannot have sex because it violates the catholic religion. Abortion their is a another human being.
Click to expand...
True, bedroom behavior is not something that can be a matter of legislation. Nevertheless, until 1930, the entire Christian world, Protestant as well as Catholic, had the same prohibition on contraception as what is now considered to be just a Catholic doctrine.

From the reformation until 1930, every Protestant denomination had the exact same teaching on contraception as the Catholic Church. The doctrine has been continuous in the Catholic Church for 2000 years, and was continuous in the Protestant denominations for 400 years, until the Lambeth Conference of 1930, which allowed for it only in exceptional cases.

With all of Christianity united not only on contraception but on sexual morality, the demand for abortion was naturally quite low. But once Anglicanism accepted contraception even in limited cases, it soon became a widespread defection from historic Christian doctrine.

That enabled the sexual revolution, which drove the need for abortion. As long as contraception is accepted, I don’t see abortion ever going away.
 
NM505StKate said:
How about not making laws? Roe V Wade is under the 14th amendment so a woman has the right to choose.
Click to expand...
Roe v Wade was not decided on the basis of the 14th Amendment. Rather, the Court found an implied privacy right under which abortion could be legal. Even then, it used a trimester basis, saying that states could not prohibit abortion in the first trimester, but they could in the second and third trimesters provided that exception was made for health or life of the mother.

It’s companion case, Doe v Bolton, went on to define “health” in such a way as to include not only physical or mental health, but family circumstances or anything affecting the woman’s well being. Under the Doe v Bolton definition of health, abortion was essentially legal for all nine months of pregnancy.

(The 14th amendment was adopted in 1868. It’s authors did not have abortion in mind when writing it or passing it. Although it is a shame that the phrase “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” does nothing to protect a new human being even in the process of being born. His or her life may be destroyed without due process of the law.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top