I want your opinion about a pretend situation

[MPat]

Let’s pretend that Roe v Wade is overturned and all states outlaw abortion. I know this would be a joyous occasion for Catholics but I would like your honest opinions on how you would vote on follow up issues. I’m not asking you to vote on your ideal scenario but on how you would vote for what is best in the follow up society that exists.

1. Legal punishment (or not) for anyone providing the abortion
2. Legal punishment (or not) for the mother obtaining an abortion
3. Provision of birth control (free or low cost) to anyone wanting it (remember this is for all of society, not just Catholics)
4. How should society deal with the ability to obtain chemical abortificants including obtaining them from overseas online

Please feel free to answer all or any that you feel strongly about.
I understand the Catholic position on abortion and support your right to hold them but I really don’t know how you see society dealing with legalities after a ban. I want to know your thoughts.

OK, the point is simply that abortion is a kind of murder, just as, let’s say, poisoning a rich uncle to inherit his property is murder.

That gives us solutions.

Legal punishment (or not) for anyone providing the abortion

Do we have legal punishments for hitman who murders someone’s rich uncle for money? Sure. The same works for abortionists.

Legal punishment (or not) for the mother obtaining an abortion

Do we have legal punishments for someone hiring a hitman to murder the rich uncle? Sure. The same works for someone hiring an abortionist.

Of course, just as we can take extenuating circumstances into account when we’re dealing with a different kind of murder, we can take them into account here.

Provision of birth control (free or low cost) to anyone wanting it (remember this is for all of society, not just Catholics)

Do we provide, let’s say, free lockpicking courses for people with rich uncles, so that they could steal their property without having to murder them? No? That would be silly? Well, it would be silly in case of abortion too.

How should society deal with the ability to obtain chemical abortificants including obtaining them from overseas online

How should society deal with ability to buy poison from overseas? It depends. For example, is there an alternative use for poison? The same works for poisons that can be used in abortion.

Would you then determine that every mother found to have aborted a child should have to have a legal determination as to her state of mind when she had the abortion?

Why not? If we allow “insanity defence” for any other murder, why not for this kind of murder?

 

[Pattylt]

Quick comment on medical people losing their licenses. Yes, that is a valid punishment. What about those that are not in a licensed field…the aunt or friend that performs the procedure. Same as a doctor or nurse?
Edited to add: referring to prison time. Obviously there is no license to lose.

 

[phil19034]

Since several of you have agreed that the purchasing of online abortificants should be prosecuted, I would now like to ask how this should be pursued? I ask because if abortion was illegal, I think this avenue would explode. It is very hard to trace the purchase and also to prove that it was used to cause the “miscarriage”. I don’t know that there is a good answer to it. I think it is just a reality that will happen and cringe at the thought of the cost of investigation and prosecution to prove it. It could lead to almost as many abortions but the numbers would be completely unknown as an underground activity. Would you support a government agency being set up specifically to look into this activity? Funding it?

Would we just have to begrudgingly accept that it is happening? Or, do you think this would be a small set of abortions and why?

This is one of the issues that confound me the most. Even 10 years ago this would not have been an issue yet I think it could become huge if abortion was outlawed.

As I said, maybe this HAS no answers and would just BE there. It really scares me.

I think it would be difficult, and would most likely be one of those situations where websites are investigated and people are busted in bulk, rather than one-by-one. In otherwords, every year or so, there is one big sting that busts a punch of people who bought the drug.

I don’t think you could perform a “war on drugs” against it, but you could have a steep enough penalty that people would fear getting caught.

I don’t think you could ever go after someone using it to kill a child without some serious evidence. But again, you can treat it just like any other contraband.

God Bless

 

[phil19034]

Quick comment on medical people losing their licenses. Yes, that is a valid punishment. What about those that are not in a licensed field…the aunt or friend that performs the procedure. Same as a doctor or nurse?
Edited to add: referring to prison time. Obviously there is no license to lose.

Yes, they would simply face jail time since they would have no license to lose.

Basically, a doctor would be in a lot more trouble.

 

[Pug]

1. Yes, punish them for providing an abortion. (But I don’t really “buy” that RvW is going to overturn).
2. No, that would not be helpful in that scenario. However, a personal meeting wherein information is offered - various support services, etc. might be warranted.
3. I don’t want to pay for people’s birth control, nor their elective cosmetic implants, nor other sorts of optional services. However, for some reason people right now want me to pay for it, so I don’t think what I want will matter.
4. Investigate feasibility of tracking movement of these types of drugs. Some things aren’t enforceable.

For example, you might end up with people being prescribed legitimate drugs but are really using them to abort. I do not know if that is trackable. I mean getting a cancer drug or arthritis drug and using it to abort.

 

[JulianN]

Not disagreeing, but pointing out that overturning RoevWade doesn’t make abortion illegal.

 

[phil19034]

Not disagreeing, but pointing out that overturning RoevWade doesn’t make abortion illegal.

I never claimed it did. But the original post set the pretend situation that all 50 states had outlawed abortion too.

 

[JulianN]

Sorry, the first sentence of that post was unclear. It could be read as if the second clause was part of a single thought. I was just clarifying.

 

[Brendan_64]

1. Legal punishment (or not) for anyone providing the abortion
2. Legal punishment (or not) for the mother obtaining an abortion
3. Provision of birth control (free or low cost) to anyone wanting it (remember this is for all of society, not just Catholics)
4. How should society deal with the ability to obtain chemical abortificants including obtaining them from overseas online

1. Yes. The deliberate killing of an innocent child is murder.
2. Yes, unless it is shown that she was forced into it.
3. No. Why should this be provided by the taxpayer? It isn’t a health matter.
4. It should be an illegal act to buy or provide chemical abortificants, punishable with a jail term.

 

[Pattylt]

Further question on those opposing free or low cost birth control: would it be acceptable for insurance companies to provide this benefit assuming there could be alternative insurance companies that could exclude this benefit for those with an objection to it? If you work for a company that includes BC you could opt out and purchase insurance on your own using one you considered more ethical? By the same token, one who wants that coverage could opt out of their employers plan and purchase one on their own that included it?

Some tax dollars may always go toward something that someone else deems unacceptable like a pacifist that still must pay taxes that supports the military or a vegetarians taxes used to benefit the meat industry, etc. Since birth control would fall under health benefits but the birth control that uses tax dollars is not an abortificant, merely a contraception prevention, could you compromise your stance on that? If not, would you accept charitable organizations providing free birth control yet getting tax exemptions for it?

I really thank all of you for your responses! I find many of the responses fascinating!

 

[on_the_hill]

Since birth control would fall under health benefits but the birth control that uses tax dollars is not an abortificant, merely a contraception prevention, could you compromise your stance on that? If not, would you accept charitable organizations providing free birth control yet getting tax exemptions for it?

I really thank all of you for your responses! I find many of the responses fascinating!

The reality is that people have always had sex without regard for potential pregnancy and always will. I’d rather have people access contraception than have abortions, but I’m willing to compromise to get something rather than hold fast to values and get nothing

 

[phil19034]

Further question on those opposing free or low cost birth control: would it be acceptable for insurance companies to provide this benefit assuming there could be alternative insurance companies that could exclude this benefit for those with an objection to it? If you work for a company that includes BC you could opt out and purchase insurance on your own using one you considered more ethical? By the same token, one who wants that coverage could opt out of their employers plan and purchase one on their own that included it?

Some tax dollars may always go toward something that someone else deems unacceptable like a pacifist that still must pay taxes that supports the military or a vegetarians taxes used to benefit the meat industry, etc. Since birth control would fall under health benefits but the birth control that uses tax dollars is not an abortificant, merely a contraception prevention, could you compromise your stance on that? If not, would you accept charitable organizations providing free birth control yet getting tax exemptions for it?

I really thank all of you for your responses! I find many of the responses fascinating!

I don’t think most of us have an issue with insurance companies offering birth control as part of their plans.

I think what most of us would object to is the govt mandating the coverage without religious exceptions for churches, non-profits, religious schools, religious hospitals, non-profits, and small family owned businesses if they believe such a thing goes against their religion.

If the insurance companies all elected to always cover it on their own, that’s their choice. But the govt should not mandate birth control coverage. The free market should determine that.

Afterall, birth control is not health care, it’s a lifestyle choice. Health insurance plans usually don’t cover condoms and it can be argued that they are more of a health preventative measure than the pill.

I hope I’m making sense.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

It would be joyous if globally, abortion was exposed as murder.

Humanity has a way to go before that happens

 

[joeybaggz]

Nothing we can do about that. People flying to places where prostitution is legal isn’t a valid enough reason to make prostitution legal.

Never said anything about making abortion legal. Simply said you are not going to stop abortion.

 

[Pattylt]

Yes, you made perfect sense. BTW, I’m not too thrilled with insurance companies covering Viagra. If the government mandated it be covered, I’d be quite upset!

 

[glorybe]

So how do you deal with the mother who cannot financially raise her child? She works 3 jobs just to pay rent, and cannot take maternity leave under any circumstances.

Something a responsible person would have thought about before getting pregnant. If there isn’t a way possible that she can afford her baby, there’s adoption.

 

[13pollitos]

That seems rather cold to me. Asking a mother to turn back the clock and be “more responsible” or give baby up for adoption, but not provide support for mom if she can’t go back in time (can any of us?) or she isn’t able to give baby up is exactly why many see prolife people as simply anti abortion. Adoption isn’t a realistic possibility for many moms. The biological father must also agree to the adoption. Most moms bond tremendously with their baby and many cannot deal with the trauma of separation. The Catholic Church is pro adoption (and I have adopted 6 of my nieces and nephews), but the ideal is always for parents to raise their own children. As someone who is 100% prolife, I cannot see not providing support service to help mom (and/or dad) and baby remain an intact family unit as the default, and adoption in cases where the parents freely decide it is best for their child.

 

[Elf01]

Most moms bond tremendously with their baby and many cannot deal with the trauma of separation.

Yet they have no trouble killing them.

As someone who is 100% prolife, I cannot see not providing support service to help mom (and/or dad) and baby remain an intact family unit as the default, and adoption in cases where the parents freely decide it is best for their child.

I agree with that.

The biological father must also agree to the adoption.

In general I support that. If a biological relative wants to raise the child it should be preferred. However in cases involving rape or abuse that should not be allowed.

 

[PennyinCanada]

If we are going to pretend…
I would wave a magic wand and have every person wait until they met their life partner and got married before they had sex.

That would bring an end to…

1. sexually transmitted diseases
2. teenage pregnancy
3. the financial drain on the country to provide free abortions
4. almost eliminate single parent families (accidents and misfortune do happen)
5. the broken hearts of parents when their child says I’m pregnant. The broken hearts of our girls when they get pregnant and dumped.

There are probably more.
Marriage and family life, done God’s way, is a source of great blessing and joy. It’s a blessing to it’s country. It builds a society when the family unit is healthy.

That scenario, which seems impossible it achieve, was actually the reality when I was a kid. I don’t have to imagine. I remember how it was.

 

[Pug]

I can’t really conceive of a near future where insurance companies won’t typically cover birth control, so I can agree to exist in that environment. I’d be resistant if the government wanted to force people to use birth control or to force people to offer birth control.