What would it mean to make abortion illegal?

[Listener]

It’s funny - I have wondered about that same question myself. I am old enough to remember when abortion was illegal, but I think it was kind of “swept under the rug.” It seems that nobody in polite society would even mention the word, “abortion.”

One thing for sure, I never heard of a woman being tried for murder because of an abortion. I think there must have been some kind of penalty for the doctor.

Years ago on the news, there was something about a woman who was traveling to Sweden because she was going to have an abortion. This was big news back then.

When John Kennedy was running for president, I don’t remember the word “abortion” ever being mentioned. Most Catholics were known for voting Democratic.

I would like to see laws against abortion, but I do sometimes wonder how these laws would be enforced in this day and age. A woman could so easily travel to a foreign country or order a pill on the Internet.

 

[kozlosap]

As with murders, there would be different degrees of abortion base on circumstances. For example the person who procures an abortion just because birth control failed would be different than a woman pressure into it by a family member, boyfriend etc.

Take a look at first semester criminal procedure law textbooks and you will realize that trying to figure out motive in criminal cases is beyond absurd. How could you ever figure out if someone was using an abortion for failed birth control or because their family was using duress?

 

[JimG]

It’s funny - I have wondered about that same question myself. I am old enough to remember when abortion was illegal, but I think it was kind of “swept under the rug.” It seems that nobody in polite society would even mention the word, “abortion.”

One thing for sure, I never heard of a woman being tried for murder because of an abortion. I think there must have been some kind of penalty for the doctor.

Years ago on the news, there was something about a woman who was traveling to Sweden because she was going to have an abortion. This was big news back then.

When John Kennedy was running for president, I don’t remember the word “abortion” ever being mentioned. Most Catholics were known for voting Democratic.

I would like to see laws against abortion, but I do sometimes wonder how these laws would be enforced in this day and age. A woman could so easily travel to a foreign country or order a pill on the Internet.

Yes, it’s quite true that women were not prosecuted for having abortions prior to 1973. Each state had its own laws, and none of those laws included prosecution for women. It was abortionists who were at risk of criminal penalties.

The same would apply if we returned to the pre-1973 laws. And pre-Roe, abortion was neither completely prohibited, nor completely legalized. There’s a lot of regulation and legislation between zero abortion, and 9 month partial birth abortion. Sadly, Roe and Doe took us to the ‘legal through nine months’ position, making even minimal regulation hard to enforce.

 

[surritter]

Take a look at first semester criminal procedure law textbooks and you will realize that trying to figure out motive in criminal cases is beyond absurd. How could you ever figure out if someone was using an abortion for failed birth control or because their family was using duress?

I think StTommyMore was simply saying that there should be different degrees of the crime – we certainly have “first-degree murder” and second and third, right? So while the exact motive is nearly impossible to prove, the background situations can be presented in court to establish similar degrees. I don’t necessarily advocate such, but I’m just saying that you can’t entirely dismiss the idea of establishing levels or degrees.

 

[StTommyMore]

Take a look at first semester criminal procedure law textbooks and you will realize that trying to figure out motive in criminal cases is beyond absurd. How could you ever figure out if someone was using an abortion for failed birth control or because their family was using duress?

We know now that some 60% of abortions are under duress…if we can figure it out now, then why would we not be able to in the future?

 

[PetersKeys]

what does the Church actually seek in terms of making abortion illegal? What should the punishment be? who should be punished?

yes it should be illegal. The punishment would be under the infanticide laws. Probably prison.

 

[CAROLOFTHEBELLS]

Perhaps a better approach would be moving towards a full consensis of an unborn child’s human rights under the law. Working towards that seems a more positive/proactive approach than imagining what punishment might be imposed on doctors who perform abortions.
.

This would be a good way to go. We need to change the way our society and laws look at the unborn’s rights. One thing we really need right now is a strong “campaign” to reduce the number of abortions - and I mean a government sponsored campaign. It needs to start with the belief that the abortion rate is too high in order to gain the consensis. Otherwise, the issue of a “woman’s right to choose” will always be a blockade for change. A government that wants to reduce smoking cigarettes as much as the USA that it does all kinds of campaigns, can certainly come up with a reason why abortions should be reduced and create a campaign around that! Perhaps the emotional effects of abortion on the woman?

 

[CAROLOFTHEBELLS]

my biggest fear about making abortion completely illegal is the women who will die as a result of trying to terminate their pregnancies through any means. No person can not ignore this fact.

Women did die prior to legalized abortions (mostly poorer women). And women were also ashamed of becoming pregnant out of wedlock. And before Roe v. Wade, birth control was less effective. (Her pregnany occured before the birth control pill, if I am correct.) Things have changed. Single motherhood is acceptable in our society. Having a child out of wedlock is not shameful and even encouraged at times. (Although I am not condoning it.) We as a society (hopefully) no longer blame the rape or incest victum and we offer help and encouragement to them. So what is the reason for abortion? Inconvenience? Poverty? These things can be fixed. Adoptions can be encouraged.

Back in the day, 1972/73, I believed abortion should be legal - because I saw pictures of bloody and dead women in the pages of Ms. Magazine when I was 18 and my eyes were opened. Years later I realized that those women did have a choice and what happened to them happened because they choose fear, shame, an easy way out (that ended up harder than they ever thought).

Do we - as a society - even need abortion anymore? I mean, there is an upside to our lack of morals in that there is no shame and no fear in facing the world and saying, “I’m pregnant.” Abortion is just plain not even necessary anymore and much more a fabric of our society out of a tradition of “choice” and laws that are outdated.

 

[Katrinka_Yobotz]

It’s funny - I have wondered about that same question myself. I am old enough to remember when abortion was illegal, but I think it was kind of “swept under the rug.” It seems that nobody in polite society would even mention the word, “abortion.”

That’s true. When I was in high school a woman I worked with told me her daughter thought she was pregnant. Then she took her to the doctor for what she called a “D and C”. She told me that meant her daughter wouldn’t become pregnant. When I was in college a roommate thought she might be pregnant. I helped her to get a doctor’s appointment for a test. The results were not instantaneous then. She later confided that they told her the test came back positive and she had gone back after hours for an abortion. Then when I was pregnant with our first child in 1973 and was experiencing the reality of life in the womb, I was appalled to hear on the news about Roe v. Wade, and have been staunchly pro-life since.

One important function of the law is moral instruction, which can bring an appropriate sense of shame and guilt to those who break the law.

 

[JackQ]

my biggest fear about making abortion completely illegal is the women who will die as a result of trying to terminate their pregnancies through any means. No person can not ignore this fact.

No, you can’t ignore it, because it’s a real possibility. But that’s not a reason to keep abortion legal. What we need to do instead is address as a society why a woman would try to terminate her pregnancy through any means. How did we get to the point that a pregnancy is ever a tragedy? Even in the case of rape the idea that a pregnancy is a tragedy is the result of social constructs. Specifically, it is a residue of the notion of women as property. Women still feel they are property, and so in the case of rape there is a portion of themselves that feel as if they are damaged goods. The pregnancy, then, serves as a reminder of their shaming.

Of course, a rape victim has done nothing wrong, and does not deserve to feel shame. Women are not property, and should never feel they are damaged goods, because they aren’t “goods” to begin with (in the property sense of the word). Something needs to be done to make these realities not only understood, but felt.

In the non-rape cases there are other circumstances that prevail, such as poverty. Support systems need to be instituted in order to help these women understand that abortion is not their only option, and to make that a reality. The provision of health care for the infant, both before and after birth, would be essential to such a program. And while I’m thinking about it, why doesn’t the Church get involved in seeing that these babies get adopted when that appears necessary?

In sum, making abortion against the law, though important, will only accomplish so much. Social programs will be necessary, and, in some areas, a cultural revolution will be required. It will be a very long road worth travelling.

 

[Timothias]

The state should never make all abortion illegal, no matter what, and I am an anti abortionsist as such. We have no right for eg, when a woman is visciously raped and tortured etc and then becomes pregnant unfortunately to the situation that we must FORCE her to carry the child through to birth.

Simply put, in such cases the mental and pysical risk to life attached with carrying your torturers baby to birth would in many cases result in the death of the mother through some form of suicide, and don’t say it does not happen.

Its a big problem becasue whilst the majority of abortions are for inconvenience related issues ( and such practices/ reasons should be stamped out) there are genuine cases where the mother of the the baby in the womb must retain the right to abort.

That is why we pro lifers will not win this battle in terms of all abortion. If your daughter was raped and tortured and left to die etc and then was pregnant and was hysterical on an ongoing basis about being pregnanat would you dare say to her no abortion. I don’t think so. There must be room for abortion, its just that we must limit as much as reasonably possible the reasons for such thing

The first thing any one should do is civil action agains tthe state. If the state is going to grant all rights to the woman then fathers of children bear no responsibility at all adn therefor should not be paying any monies.

Justice requires that if you give the Father no choice in whether a woman aborts or carries through to birth, then you cannot make fathers liable for the positive choices woman make about carryign through to birth. This includes all cases where couples have agreed to have babies etc.

The law gives all rights to the woman, therefor it should also give no liabilities to the father. Whilst I think from a Christian point of view the father should be liable for his actions, the reality is that the state seeks to ultimately destroy the legal bond attached to the woman as regards the rights of other parties.

Think about it, if the state had to pay for babies upbringing rather than fathers, the extra costs the state would seek to shift to public via taxes would not be tolerated and they would be out of office. Ultimatley the only way forward for the State would be to dissalow abortion generally and that would reattach the contraction obligations the Father of a child has for the upbringing of the child.

 

[StTommyMore]

The state should never make all abortion illegal, no matter what, and I am an anti abortionsist as such. We have no right for eg, when a woman is visciously raped and tortured etc and then becomes pregnant unfortunately to the situation that we must FORCE her to carry the child through to birth.

Simply put, in such cases the mental and pysical risk to life attached with carrying your torturers baby to birth would in many cases result in the death of the mother through some form of suicide, and don’t say it does not happen.

Its a big problem becasue whilst the majority of abortions are for inconvenience related issues ( and such practices/ reasons should be stamped out) there are genuine cases where the mother of the the baby in the womb must retain the right to abort.

That is why we pro lifers will not win this battle in terms of all abortion. If your daughter was raped and tortured and left to die etc and then was pregnant and was hysterical on an ongoing basis about being pregnanat would you dare say to her no abortion. I don’t think so. There must be room for abortion, its just that we must limit as much as reasonably possible the reasons for such thing

The first thing any one should do is civil action agains tthe state. If the state is going to grant all rights to the woman then fathers of children bear no responsibility at all adn therefor should not be paying any monies.

Justice requires that if you give the Father no choice in whether a woman aborts or carries through to birth, then you cannot make fathers liable for the positive choices woman make about carryign through to birth. This includes all cases where couples have agreed to have babies etc.

The law gives all rights to the woman, therefor it should also give no liabilities to the father. Whilst I think from a Christian point of view the father should be liable for his actions, the reality is that the state seeks to ultimately destroy the legal bond attached to the woman as regards the rights of other parties.

Think about it, if the state had to pay for babies upbringing rather than fathers, the extra costs the state would seek to shift to public via taxes would not be tolerated and they would be out of office. Ultimatley the only way forward for the State would be to dissalow abortion generally and that would reattach the contraction obligations the Father of a child has for the upbringing of the child.

Abortion can NEVER be justified under any circumstances. It is what is called an intrinsic moral evil. That means that the act itself is a moral evil by its very nature. Allowing abortion to be legal is tacit approval by the state of an evil act.

 

[surritter]

Timothias,
Sorry, but you are not as anti-abortion as you claim to be. The brutual murder of an innocent baby does NOT rectify the tragedy done to a woman by rape. (Even if it did somehow, it is intrinsically evil.) Read Evangelium Vitae by John Paul II.

 

[Timothias]

Listen to youselves and read what I said, the law, inlcuding Gods law allows for killing of another in self defence. I effectively said that things are so bad with a rape victim that not aborting the baby would likley result in the suicide of the rape victim.

Be careful about being too pure, anyone who is in genuine fear of their life may take the life of the person.

It is exactly the responses below my first point as to why they will never ban abortion completely. Whislt ideally we should avvoid wherever possible in aborting life, we must not make it an absolute. They used special clauses in Roe V Wade precisely becasue anti abortionsists were so hard line that they had no compassion for any possible genuine cases.

Now answer my question. So lets assume a mother of 3 children gets raped and tortured and then becomes pregnant to the offender. What your saying is that better she suicide and naturally enough the baby in her womb dies and leave her kids motherless, and husband wifeless etc etc ,just to satisfy your desire that in no case at all should a woman have an abortion.

See we are left with a hard choice now tell me your answer and open youself to the consequences. Choices are raped Mother has abortion and baby dies, or raped mother suicides and takes the aborted baby with her and leaves her kids motherless etc.

Come on have the guts to answer the question.

 

[StTommyMore]

Listen to youselves and read what I said, the law, inlcuding Gods law allows for killing of another in self defence. I effectively said that things are so bad with a rape victim that not aborting the baby would likley result in the suicide of the rape victim.

Be careful about being too pure, anyone who is in genuine fear of their life may take the life of the person.

It is exactly the responses below my first point as to why they will never ban abortion completely. Whislt ideally we should avvoid wherever possible in aborting life, we must not make it an absolute. They used special clauses in Roe V Wade precisely becasue anti abortionsists were so hard line that they had no compassion for any possible genuine cases.

Now answer my question. So lets assume a mother of 3 children gets raped and tortured and then becomes pregnant to the offender. What your saying is that better she suicide and naturally enough the baby in her womb dies and leave her kids motherless, and husband wifeless etc etc ,just to satisfy your desire that in no case at all should a woman have an abortion.

See we are left with a hard choice now tell me your answer and open youself to the consequences. Choices are raped Mother has abortion and baby dies, or raped mother suicides and takes the aborted baby with her and leaves her kids motherless etc.

Come on have the guts to answer the question.

There is no justification for killing the most innocent. NO EXCEPTIONS

 

[Banaticus]

In the US, even back before Roe vs Wade, when abortion was illegal, there were legal exemptions and legal abortions for victims of rape/incest and where the health of the mother was at risk, such as ectopic pregnancies.

So, even when abortion was illegal, there were still legal abortions in the US. That’s what it would mean if abortion was illegal. It would mean that every abortion was carefully considered, which I really approve of, I don’t approve of all these willy-nilly abortions.

That being said, I understand the justification for some abortions. If a woman really really doesn’t want to have a baby, they’re not going to have it. Silphium doesn’t exist anymore, but Queen Anne’s Lace isn’t that uncommon (the USDA says that the noxious weed is in every continental US state, most of Canada, and Puerto Rico). If a woman is bound and determined not to have a baby, what are we going to do about it – sedate her for nine months? Unwanted children are the most likely to be aborted before they’re born (obviously). Unwanted children who go full term are more likely to turn to crime. Since abortions have become far more freely available, the crime rate has dropped: freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

 

[CAROLOFTHEBELLS]

These are a couple of interesting articles about abortion for victums of rape/incest. The first one is especially good. I can understand someone thinking that abortion is the best thing for these women, but I believe that emphathetic feeling is misguided and a victum doesn’t need another tragic occurance in her life. I think that God always has a plan when He creates new life. Keep in my that God is the creator, not the rapist.

afterabortion.org/rape.html

abcnews.go.com/Health/Health/story?id=2851119&page=1

 

[Timothias]

StTommyMore, So I just want to be sure on this, your all for mothers dying from ectopic pregnancies and the like just to see if their is a miracle and the baby is able to develop in the tube. Please tell me what other genuine option there is besides terminating the pregnancy.

Nobody want to see the innocent die, but sometimes there are numeorus victims and sometimes some victims have to come before other victims.

 

[StTommyMore]

StTommyMore, So I just want to be sure on this, your all for mothers dying from ectopic pregnancies and the like just to see if their is a miracle and the baby is able to develop in the tube. Please tell me what other genuine option there is besides terminating the pregnancy.

Nobody want to see the innocent die, but sometimes there are numeorus victims and sometimes some victims have to come before other victims.

ectopic pregnacie can be treated provided that it is done so by removing the tube and there is no other viable option. This is calle dthe principle of double effect. I suggest you buy a Catechism and study it.

 

[Momofmyangels]

Listen to youselves and read what I said, the law, inlcuding Gods law allows for killing of another in self defence. I effectively said that things are so bad with a rape victim that not aborting the baby would likley result in the suicide of the rape victim.

Be careful about being too pure, anyone who is in genuine fear of their life may take the life of the person.

It is exactly the responses below my first point as to why they will never ban abortion completely. Whislt ideally we should avvoid wherever possible in aborting life, we must not make it an absolute. They used special clauses in Roe V Wade precisely becasue anti abortionsists were so hard line that they had no compassion for any possible genuine cases.

Now answer my question. So lets assume a mother of 3 children gets raped and tortured and then becomes pregnant to the offender. What your saying is that better she suicide and naturally enough the baby in her womb dies and leave her kids motherless, and husband wifeless etc etc ,just to satisfy your desire that in no case at all should a woman have an abortion.

See we are left with a hard choice now tell me your answer and open youself to the consequences. Choices are raped Mother has abortion and baby dies, or raped mother suicides and takes the aborted baby with her and leaves her kids motherless etc.

Come on have the guts to answer the question.

Are the Ten Commandments now a mere novelty? The 5th states, “Thou shall not kill”. Abortion is killing. It does not state, “Thou shall not kill, unless you feel it is necessary”. It is pretty cut and dry in its original wording. Although rape is a terrible, terrible offense against a woman, it does not give her justification to kill her unborn child if a pregnancy results. Even in the case of rape, God decides to send a baby. Yes, we do not conceive babies on our own, God allows a baby to come into existence. Why? We could never possibly know. But, what we do know, is that God is all perfect and thus does not make mistakes. Perhaps the woman is now being asked to carry a cross for some greater good.

I understand your concern for the woman, but we must extend that concern to her unborn child. It is a child, remember, not some thing that can be discarded at will.