Should Abortion Become Illegal

[Starwynd]

first of all I think your numbers are way off

That would depend on a few things. But the largest factors would be if on a state or national level. Some want the issue delegated to the states and that means some states would not make abortion illegal. Sure, I can see the numbers reducing, but probably not by much. There are roughly one million abortions per year in America.

The law wouldn’t be retroactive.

Of course not. I never said anything about being retroactive. But when the law goes into effect, consider that previous to this law there is roughly one million abortions per year, according to the CDC. That number will go down of course, but after the law there still will be hundreds of thousands of abortions not to mention an underground abortion movement that would have to be dealt with.

 

[estesbob]

That would depend on a few things. But the largest factors would be if on a state or national level. Some want the issue delegated to the states and that means some states would not make abortion illegal. Sure, I can see the numbers reducing, but probably not by much. There are roughly one million abortions per year in America.

Of course not. I never said anything about being retroactive. But when the law goes into effect, consider that previous to this law there is roughly one million abortions per year, according to the CDC. That number will go down of course, but after the law there still will be hundreds of thousands of abortions not to mention an underground abortion movement that would have to be dealt with.

How many women and abortion providers went to prision in the decades before Roe was imposed on the country? Wouldnt that be the best indicator of how things would be after Roe was repealed?

 

[Starwynd]

Wouldnt that be the best indicator of how things would be after Roe was repealed?

I don’t agree.

But I don’t know if there were any who were sent to prison. But things were pretty bad for desperate women when it was illegal.

I firmly believe that they would be sent to prison because it’s a crime of murder. This is a different age and time after all. After all, people are being sent to prison for illicit drugs for decades, sometimes even longer than people who kill others.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t agree.

But I don’t know if there were any who were sent to prison. But things were pretty bad for desperate women when it was illegal.

I firmly believe that they would be sent to prison because it’s a crime of murder. This is a different age and time after all. After all, people are being sent to prison for illicit drugs for decades, sometimes even longer than people who kill others.

You can believe what you want but their is no historical evidence whatsoever that what you believe would be true. I guess its far easier to discuss fantasies than it is the fact 2,000 children have been slaughtered since you started this thread.

 

[Starwynd]

 

[Paul2274]

Do you really live in a town called “Weed”

 

[Starwynd]

Yes I do.

It’s named after the founder, Abner James Weed. And I’ve heard an awful lot of pot jokes and simply do not like them. But people can’t help themselves.

It is on the California map. It’s in Northern California by Mount Shasta and north of Redding.

 

[Paul2274]

Yes I do.

It’s named after the founder, Abner James Weed. And I’ve heard an awful lot of pot jokes and simply do not like them. But people can’t help themselves.

It is on the California map. It’s in Northern California by Mount Shasta and north of Redding.

:Giggle: I can just imagine the kind of souvenirs one could pick up there. The T-shirts and glasses and foam can holders.

Sorry for being off topic… just a good afternoon giggle for me that’s all.

Thanks,

Paul

 

[Starwynd]

Yeah, every time I see those souvenirs i can imagine that some tourist kid buys one and then wears one in their school in some other state. Then of course, they’d get in trouble for it. Because some of those tee-shirts actually say things like “High in Weed” because we’re in a mountainous region.

 

[BioCatholic]

How many women and abortion providers went to prision in the decades before Roe was imposed on the country? Wouldnt that be the best indicator of how things would be after Roe was repealed?

This is irrelevant now because of the unusual push of State Legislators to “do something” and levy new criminal statutes. If States want to address something, they pass a new Law attempting to make it, or something pertaining it to be illegal.

Many of the law in past decades were “fake” or “feel good” laws. The State could say “X is illegal in our Great State!!!”, but in reality the Law was unconstitutional or never enforced. See Florida’s Adultery and cohabitation statutes. There is a word “lasciviously” in there that makes it near impossible to determine for indictments. But “technically” speaking, they are “illegal”, but 100% unenforceable.

Look at a recent Ohio attempt at an abortion ban. Rep Brinkemann attempted to pass language that made it illegal for someone to transport a woman across an Ohio State line, out of the State for an abortion. Since when can a State restrict the travel of non-indicted persons? that’s the whole point of Federalism. If you don’t like the laws where you are, then go somewhere where what you want to do is LEGAL. But that didn’t stop a zealot like Brinkemann.

Pretty soon you’d see laws making it illegal to travel with 1000 feet of a state line to get an abortion; using the Internet to research abortion clinics in Pro-choice States; “conspiring” to make transport plans out of state ect. There is no limit to what State Legislatures might try to do and get creative. But the real fact is that a State simply can not under any circumstances restrict the travel or intent of a person to leave a state and go where favorable laws for them are.

 

[estesbob]

This is irrelevant now because of the unusual push of State Legislators to “do something” and levy new criminal statutes. If States want to address something, they pass a new Law attempting to make it, or something pertaining it to be illegal.

Many of the law in past decades were “fake” or “feel good” laws. The State could say “X is illegal in our Great State!!!”, but in reality the Law was unconstitutional or never enforced. See Florida’s Adultery and cohabitation statutes. There is a word “lasciviously” in there that makes it near impossible to determine for indictments. But “technically” speaking, they are “illegal”, but 100% unenforceable.

Look at a recent Ohio attempt at an abortion ban. Rep Brinkemann attempted to pass language that made it illegal for someone to transport a woman across an Ohio State line, out of the State for an abortion. Since when can a State restrict the travel of non-indicted persons? that’s the whole point of Federalism. If you don’t like the laws where you are, then go somewhere where what you want to do is LEGAL. But that didn’t stop a zealot like Brinkemann.

Pretty soon you’d see laws making it illegal to travel with 1000 feet of a state line to get an abortion; using the Internet to research abortion clinics in Pro-choice States; “conspiring” to make transport plans out of state ect. There is no limit to what State Legislatures might try to do and get creative. But the real fact is that a State simply can not under any circumstances restrict the travel or intent of a person to leave a state and go where favorable laws for them are.

More baseless speculation-meanwhile the children continue to die while we argue over baseless scenarios.

 

[BioCatholic]

More baseless speculation-meanwhile the children continue to die while we argue over baseless scenarios.

Umm, it’s not baseless. Look and see the text of the Rep Brinkemann abortion bill. He specifically tried to usurp powers unilaterally granted to the Federal government alone by the Constitution. And he put it inside a MASSIVE bill that had critical provisions that needed to be passed quite soon at the time.

Virginia once tried to pass a bill that made “advertising, marketing, or providing information for” abortions, including internet sites not within state borders. They wanted to invoke a “long-arm jurisdiction” provision.

Sherrifs departments in Florida are currently attempting and have attempted to invoke long-arm jurisdiction for porn websites not hosted in FL, yet violate state and county obscenity statutes. Even though long-arm jurisdiction has been ruled to be very, very, very narrow in its scope allowed for use by States. That still doesn’t stop them.

Don’t assume that because 50 years ago this didn’t happen that it won’t now. There are 1000% more tools and creative ways law enforcement and Legislatures can have a go at anyone they want. They are doing it as we speak.

 

[estesbob]

Umm, it’s not baseless. Look and see the text of the Rep Brinkemann abortion bill. He specifically tried to usurp powers unilaterally granted to the Federal government alone by the Constitution. And he put it inside a MASSIVE bill that had critical provisions that needed to be passed quite soon at the time.

Virginia once tried to pass a bill that made “advertising, marketing, or providing information for” abortions, including internet sites not within state borders. They wanted to invoke a “long-arm jurisdiction” provision.

Sherrifs departments in Florida are currently attempting and have attempted to invoke long-arm jurisdiction for porn websites not hosted in FL, yet violate state and county obscenity statutes. Even though long-arm jurisdiction has been ruled to be very, very, very narrow in its scope allowed for use by States. That still doesn’t stop them.

Don’t assume that because 50 years ago this didn’t happen that it won’t now. There are 1000% more tools and creative ways law enforcement and Legislatures can have a go at anyone they want. They are doing it as we speak.

Agsin you have no basis for your specualtion. Such specualtion only plays into the hands who want the slaughter to continue.

 

[Starwynd]

.

 

[historyb]

Thanks for clarifying. I clearly need to brush up on these issues better.

I thought that passage only referred to when the criminal person is still, while in prison, an imminent threat to other people’s safety. In a sense (at least if my understand is correct), killing a murderer like that wouldn’t in essence be the death penalty, but rather just an act of prevention to protect another person.

Would your stance be that *all *abortion doctors ought to be subject to capital punishment, or would it pertain only those who are *dangerously unstable *and able to kill again and again behind bars? It was a little unclear with the previous posts; in your response in post #5, it seemed that you’re advocating the death penalty for all abortion doctors in the scenario where abortion were outlawed.

The way it seems to me, abortion doctors, if thrown in jail, wouldn’t be able to perform abortions anymore; they’re also not likely to kill other people either, so killing those doctors wouldn’t seem to be particularly pro-life.

After that law would take effect, yes. I wish they would use the CP better, I am very pro-CP I was before I was Catholic and will be long after I stop being Catholic, if I ever do again. I am Pro-Life for Babies, not for scum bag criminals.

 

[grandfather]

If abortion is to be defined as murder, then that means there will be hundreds of thousands new inmates. Will you be bothered by that?

Are you bothered that over a million babies are murdered in the U.S. every year?

In NY they are going to jail people for not mowing their lawns. Who is going to pay for that? If we did not jail rapists think of all the money that would be saved. If armed robbery were decriminalized still more would be saved. How about decriminlaizing attempted murder. After all no one got killed. We could save billions. If drunk drivers who kill people were not jailed that woiuld save space and money. They didn’t mean to kill anyone. It was an accident. Why should I have to pay for jailing the drunk who ran over someone else’s child?

 

[Mystic_of_God]

After that law would take effect, yes. I wish they would use the CP better, I am very pro-CP I was before I was Catholic and will be long after I stop being Catholic, if I ever do again. I am Pro-Life for Babies, not for scum bag criminals.

What is “CP”?

(Don’t call criminals “scum-bags”. Don’t consider yourself necessarily above them.

 

[historyb]

Capital punishment

 

[marymol]

In a country where the dollar bills proclaim - ’ In God we trust’ , is it not a lie and anachronism that abortion is legal !

May be one of these days there will be a candidate who sees through the clear and simple truth - how making abortion illegal and helping those who are tempted to do as well as rehabilitating those who bring its consequences to themselves and all of society is the smart thing to do !

He could look around and determine who would be the best group to take up this mission …and have outcome evaluations on an ongoing basis to determine again, who would continue to do the job the best …

unitypublishing.com/godskingdom/AbortionIsNotTheProblem.html

One article that mention ways to take some measures in the area of prevention…

And such preventive measures would continue , in schools where the real truth of wrong choices are shared - such as what the Priesst for Life group are doing - what abortion is , its consequences for all involved !

There might be need for creative and ’ radical ’ ways - to help the parents who have made themselves into the like of the Gerasene demoniac , screaming in the tombs - may be not audible but with their bodies and psyche that fall apart …and leave the burden , in one way or other for society to bear !

A burden that not only could have been prevented but all possibility of good persons being in the world , to uplift many now having been thwarted !

So, again, the smart politician would look for a group that can bring prevention and healing - so that the tremendous cost of broken mind and body can be compassionatly handled !

Not with jail terms , but in settings that offer total healings …

May be some of those billions being misspent on embryonic stem cell research would be mandated to be donated to - having some old cruise ships refurbished …for 2-3 month healing pilgrimage cruise - to include the broken , from all walks , with healers that can offer the best - and we know who that is !

And such a candidate may be can confidantly offfer coverage for basic health care for all - knowing that a society that care to enforce such just meausres will have enough at hand - from savings of wasted lives and illspent money on patching up broken lives ; the amounts that are currently spent in hidden cost for those who are suffering from deep psychic wounds of such choices may be more than enough as well as the savings from wars avoided and settled !

Peace !

 

[MIZER]

Andrushak,

From post # 4 you seem to be correcting the termonology appropriately used by pro-life activists when you insist:

1. Poorer women will still be able to go to abortion clinics (not “mills”)

If you will look up the two words, “clinic” and “mill” you will find that the more appopriate word is mill. More than a million children are systematically killed (often by a method that would mirror grinding) in this country alone, in these facilities.

The primary method used by the abortion industry to stay in busines has been to manipulate the mindset of the American people by manipulating the language through the use of propaganda. Calling Abortion mills “clinics” is allowing this to continue by allowing people to continue in their denial of the fact that we are talking about an act of violence that kills a child.