Why shouldn't abortion have legal consequences?

[guanophore]

 Abortion SHOULD have legal consequences, the same as killing any other person does, but in reality, according to US law, they already recognize the fetus as a life, as Ive said many times, in cases where a pregnant woman is killed, the killer is normally charged with 2 COUNTS OF MURDER...this means, by law, the fetus IS RECOGNIZED as a life.

I don’t think this is the case. I know this happens, but rarely, and usually in civil, rather than criminal court. In the US, the child is not legally a person until it is born. Who are these “they recognize” to whom you are referring?

Even if that woman was planning to abort, the courts would still charge the killer with 2 counts of murder.

No.

 It seems to me, they only like to recognize it as a life when it best suits them at the time, the way it is now, really a mother should not be charged with any crime if she kills her 2 yr old child, its still her child, her choice, still the same 'life' as when it was fetus, so...???

Yes, I think this is true. It is only recognized when it suits someone - like a father with a lot of money and vested interest. You are right that it makes no logical sense to treat the child as a person after the moment of birth, yet not before.

 If they charge the mother for killing the 2 yr old, this means (according to them) the moment of birth is when life begins, but then again, they can still charge a person twice for killing a pregnant woman...?? its really confusing.

And illogical!

I just had this discussion with someone last week. He was saying that pregnant women who drink or use drugs should be taken by Children’s Protective Services and placed in a sober environment until they give birth, to save the taxpayers the cost of caring for a lifetime of Fetal Alcoholism Spectrum Disorder.

 

[guanophore]

John Kerry said something similar when he voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act: “I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy.”

He hit that nail on the head!

 

[Lea101]

women who have an abortion do not realise that the fetus is “alive”, “have a soul” or something along those lines. A lot think that they are a bunch of cells. Most abortions happen during the 1st trimester too, they just don’t see it as a human being. Murders, however, like the killing of a newborn, a 5 year old, or a 80 year old, is different. The murderer is usually aware that the person is “alive”/ a “human being”, but they kill anyway. A lot of women, if they get educated about the real truth about pregnancy, abortions, fetuses etc, they would change their minds. So to treat abortion as murder in terms of law (not sin-wise), is quite ridiculous in my opinion.

Also, to a pregnant woman who is considering abortion, a “thing” is growing inside her body and it is completely dependant on her body. So she gets rid of it, because that thing will either end her life, use up all of her savings, be a possible “reminder” of rape, be the reason why her family cut her off, etc.

Punishing women who have an abortion won’t help. We can slowly reduce and end abortion by, first of all, making it compulsory for those women to learn about fetal development, hear the heartbeat, see the ultrasound, etc and then give them a choice if they still want to proceed. I heard this happens in some places, but I’m not too sure. But education first is key. Not prosecution! We need people to see that unborn children are still children, not a parasite.

I agree that a fetus is just as valuable and important as a newborn, or any human of whatever age, but we cannot act like killing a fetus is exactly the same as killing, say a 5 year old. Not in this society no! Compassion and love is our “weapon” against this, not judgement and prosecution.

 

[exnihilo]

I don’t think this is the case. I know this happens, but rarely, and usually in civil, rather than criminal court. In the US, the child is not legally a person until it is born. Who are these “they recognize” to whom you are referring?

No, there are criminal laws that cover someone killing a fetus and by their very nature, due to court rulings, they exempt the abortionist and the mother. Look up Feticide in Wikipedia.

As for personhood my understanding is that the courts left this an open question in Roe v Wade and haven’t settled it since. Also, there is no federal law that establishes personhood. This is why some say all the federal congress needs to do is pass a law establishing personhood begins at conception. That would end abortion. Politics being as it is the pro abortion side wouldn’t lay down. But I do think the current status is that personhood is undecided.

women who have an abortion do not realise that the fetus is “alive”, “have a soul” or something along those lines. A lot think that they are a bunch of cells. Most abortions happen during the 1st trimester too, they just don’t see it as a human being. Murders, however, like the killing of a newborn, a 5 year old, or a 80 year old, is different. The murderer is usually aware that the person is “alive”/ a “human being”, but they kill anyway. A lot of women, if they get educated about the real truth about pregnancy, abortions, fetuses etc, they would change their minds. So to treat abortion as murder in terms of law (not sin-wise), is quite ridiculous in my opinion.

We can’t over generalize. But I do think many women don’t realize how alive fetus are. I spoke with someone who had an abortion. She was a strong supporter of abortion. Since seeing the Planned Parenthood videos she has actually changed her position. I also spoke with her about Trump’s comments about penalizing women who have abortions. She agreed with the basic logic.

I think your mentioning of the 80 year old example is important. A lot of men don’t think the aged or the severely infirmed are anything but a clump of cells. A man might want to ‘euthanize’ him. Why shouldn’t the same logic apply to alleviate him of any responsibility? While there is a subjective element to the application of laws we don’t completely eliminate a whole category of crimes simply because some people may not think it a crime. If we didn’t prosecute any crime where the accused simply said he didn’t think it was wrong the jails would be empty.

 

[LightBound]

No, there are criminal laws that cover someone killing a fetus and by their very nature, due to court rulings, they exempt the abortionist and the mother. Look up Feticide in Wikipedia.

As for personhood my understanding is that the courts left this an open question in Roe v Wade and haven’t settled it since. Also, there is no federal law that establishes personhood. This is why some say all the federal congress needs to do is pass a law establishing personhood begins at conception. That would end abortion. Politics being as it is the pro abortion side wouldn’t lay down. But I do think the current status is that personhood is undecided.

We can’t over generalize. But I do think many women don’t realize how alive fetus are. I spoke with someone who had an abortion. She was a strong supporter of abortion. Since seeing the Planned Parenthood videos she has actually changed her position. I also spoke with her about Trump’s comments about penalizing women who have abortions. She agreed with the basic logic.

I think your mentioning of the 80 year old example is important. A lot of men don’t think the aged or the severely infirmed are anything but a clump of cells. A man might want to ‘euthanize’ him. Why shouldn’t the same logic apply to alleviate him of any responsibility? While there is a subjective element to the application of laws we don’t completely eliminate a whole category of crimes simply because some people may not think it a crime. If we didn’t prosecute any crime where the accused simply said he didn’t think it was wrong the jails would be empty.

Did you also tell this woman you believe women should have voting rights or own property?

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

Is this supposed to be a joke?

**Are you serious about reducing the incidence of the murder of unborn children? Or do you just want to prosecute people who commit actions that you don’t approve of?

Our current child support laws obviously motivate men to advocate for and finance abortions.
If we are really serious about reducing the incidence, we should annul these laws.
That our taxes would have to be raised in order to make up the support payments should be of no concern to us.**

 

[guanophore]

women who have an abortion do not realise that the fetus is “alive”, “have a soul” or something along those lines. A lot think that they are a bunch of cells. Most abortions happen during the 1st trimester too, they just don’t see it as a human being.

This is so true, Lea 101. I used to work in a clinic that did “pregnancy counseling” and women; teens were not given this information.

If they get educated about the real truth about pregnancy, abortions, fetuses etc, they would change their minds.

As far as working on this from a lega perspective ,I think this makes the most sense as a first step. If they were required to have an ultrasound, or to be educated about the fetus, many woudl turn back.

Also, to a pregnant woman who is considering abortion, a “thing” is growing inside her body and it is completely dependant on her body. So she gets rid of it, because that thing will either end her life, use up all of her savings, be a possible “reminder” of rape, be the reason why her family cut her off, etc.

Even in cases where rape is not the issue, ,the Church needs to be standing by to help women with unwanted pregnancies, whatever the circumstances. In most cases, including rape, the woman knows the father, and does not want to have a chld with him. I mean to say, most rapists are known to their victims, and women will most often become impregnated by a man they do not intend to remain with or don’t want to raise a child with.

We can slowly reduce and end abortion by, first of all, making it compulsory for those women to learn about fetal development, hear the heartbeat, see the ultrasound, etc and then give them a choice if they still want to proceed. I heard this happens in some places, but I’m not too sure. But education first is key. Not prosecution! We need people to see that unborn children are still children, not a parasite.

Legally requiring this is a good step.

I agree that a fetus is just as valuable and important as a newborn, or any human of whatever age, but we cannot act like killing a fetus is exactly the same as killing, say a 5 year old. Not in this society no! Compassion and love is our "weapon" against this, not judgement and prosecution.

And education in compassion.

 

[guanophore]

**Are you serious about reducing the incidence of the murder of unborn  children?  Or do you just want to prosecute people who commit actions that you don't approve of?**

Is it a problem to prosecute people who commit actions I don’t like?

Seriously, though it is not the child support laws that are the problem. These are relativelyi recent in the scope of unwanted pregnancy. Men have always been willing to disown the child, for reasons of reputation, responsibility, etc. This is not a matter of civil law but of natural law. Even in scripture we have examples of men impregnating women and not wanting to take responsibility, so this phenomena predates our legal system by millennia.

1] Our current child support laws obviously motivate men to advocate for and finance abortions.

It is not the child support laws that are doing this but the motivate of the man to avoid responsibility for his choices. This phenomena is as old as the Garden of Eden, where Adam blamed Eve for what he had done!

 If we are really serious about reducing the incidence, we should annul these laws.

That our taxes would have to be raised in order to make up the support payments should be of no concern to us.

And why is that of no concern to us?

How is it beneficial to the man for him to engage in actions with 18 year consequences to his own offspring, and to society, and not have responsbility for them?

I agree with your principle, though. Making people accountable for their behavior makes them want to avoid taking responsibility for it. Eve then turned and blamed the serpent…it is our fallen nature that causes this problem.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I recall several years ago seeing an ad in a magazine. It showed a photo of a very worried woman answering her front door, with the police on her doorstep. The text underneath implied that if Roe v Wade was overturned, every woman who had a miscarriage would be arrested until she could prove she hadn’t had an abortion.

It was, of course, a scare tactic. Since when has this country operated under a “Guilty Until Proven Innocent” assumption? Even when abortion was illegal, the police didn’t arrest women who’d had miscarriages. But if the pro-life movement endorses punishment for women who have abortions, you can bet ads like that one will be resurrected.

 

[Jeanne_S]

The argument that women must be punished for abortion if it is illegal has never been accepted by any mainstream pro-life organization. Pro-life organizations consider women to be the second victims of abortion.

Not only that, but before Roe v Wade, abortion laws punished abortionists, not women. If abortion is illegal, abortionists are the ones who risk fines and jail. If there are no abortionists to do abortions, abortion will cease to be a problem.

The idea that if we make abortion illegal, we must send women to jail is a pro-abortion talking point, not a pro-life tenet. It is always put forward by pro-abortionists as an argument for keeping abortion legal. It’s a strawman argument by the pro-abortion side,

This!

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

Is it a problem to prosecute people who commit actions I don’t like?

Seriously, though it is not the child support laws that are the problem. These are relativelyi recent in the scope of unwanted pregnancy. Men have always been willing to disown the child, for reasons of reputation, responsibility, etc. This is not a matter of civil law but of natural law. Even in scripture we have examples of men impregnating women and not wanting to take responsibility, so this phenomena predates our legal system by millennia.

It is not the child support laws that are doing this but the motivate of the man to avoid responsibility for his choices. This phenomena is as old as the Garden of Eden, where Adam blamed Eve for what he had done!

And why is that of no concern to us?

How is it beneficial to the man for him to engage in actions with 18 year consequences to his own offspring, and to society, and not have responsbility for them?

I agree with your principle, though. Making people accountable for their behavior makes them want to avoid taking responsibility for it. Eve then turned and blamed the serpent…it is our fallen nature that causes this problem.

**When a man impregnates a woman and lacks the means to support that child for the next 18 years and further faces incarceration if he fails to do so, enabling an abortion for a few hundred dollars becomes an attractive alternative.

I say that our draconian child support laws motivate men to advocate for and finance abortion, and that, without these laws the incidence of the murder of the unborn would be reduced.
It really is that simple, and our concern should be for the lives of the unborn, and not for our pocket books.**

"Alas also for you experts at law because you load on men and women burdens that are unendurable, burdens that you do not move a finger to alleviate."

 

[LightBound]

I recall several years ago seeing an ad in a magazine. It showed a photo of a very worried woman answering her front door, with the police on her doorstep. The text underneath implied that if Roe v Wade was overturned, every woman who had a miscarriage would be arrested until she could prove she hadn’t had an abortion.

It was, of course, a scare tactic. Since when has this country operated under a “Guilty Until Proven Innocent” assumption? Even when abortion was illegal, the police didn’t arrest women who’d had miscarriages. But if the pro-life movement endorses punishment for women who have abortions, you can bet ads like that one will be resurrected.

It may have been a scare tactic here in the US, but it’s a reality in other places not too far away on the map:

latimes.com/world/great-reads/la-fg-c1-el-salvador-women-20150415-story.html

 

[JimG]

**When a man impregnates a woman and lacks the means to support that child for the next 18 years and further faces incarceration if he fails to do so, enabling an abortion for a few hundred dollars becomes an attractive alternative.

I say that our draconian child support laws motivate men to advocate for and finance abortion, and that, without these laws the incidence of the murder of the unborn would be reduced.
It really is that simple, and our concern should be for the lives of the unborn, and not for our pocket books.**

"Alas also for you experts at law because you load on men and women burdens that are unendurable, burdens that you do not move a finger to alleviate."

I understand your point, but shouldn’t a man who impregnates a women have responsibility for his child? To paraphrase Anthony Esolen, he engages in the “baby making thing” and is then surprised to find that a baby is created. It’s not just her child; it’s his child too. How responsible is it for him to say “I"ll pay to kill the kid but not to support it?”

 

[Padres1969]

I recall several years ago seeing an ad in a magazine. It showed a photo of a very worried woman answering her front door, with the police on her doorstep. The text underneath implied that if Roe v Wade was overturned, every woman who had a miscarriage would be arrested until she could prove she hadn’t had an abortion.

It was, of course, a scare tactic. Since when has this country operated under a “Guilty Until Proven Innocent” assumption? Even when abortion was illegal, the police didn’t arrest women who’d had miscarriages. But if the pro-life movement endorses punishment for women who have abortions, you can bet ads like that one will be resurrected.

Yeah I don’t think most people are arguing that the pro-life movement should be advocating for punishing women who have abortions for this reason among others. But the argument is that it is a logical position to take that women who willingly have abortions should be punished just as women who kill (or arrange to kill) their live born children are punished. Yes the pro-life movement doesn’t endorse that for the added level of complexity and opposition it would engender.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

I understand your point, but shouldn’t a man who impregnates a women have responsibility for his child? To paraphrase Anthony Esolen, he engages in the “baby making thing” and is then surprised to find that a baby is created. It’s not just her child; it’s his child too. How responsible is it for him to say “I"ll pay to kill the kid but not to support it?”

I understand your point as well.
My belief is that the protection of the life of an unborn child must take precedence over the desire to hold its creators responsible for its financial support.

 

[jmjZelie]

I still don’t see how any punishment of women who sought abortions could occur without also involving the grieving women who lose their baby due to miscarriage or stillbirth. No one seems to want to address that question, or elsewhere when I have asked it.

In El Salvador, there are mothers doing long prison terms for aborting their child, when in fact they had a miscarriage/stillbirth. There was no way to prove they had not done something to cause the death of their baby. They passed out during a traumatic miscarriage and awoke handcuffed to their hospital bed, only to discover that their baby had died.

What possibly could be done to avoid invasive exams, traumatic investigations, and false accusations and imprisonment from happening to innocent mothers of miscarried babies, if the law sought to punish mothers who obtained an abortion? My guess is that there will be no protection, because only an exam and investigation could prove that an abortion had not been obtained. It would be a case of guilty until proven innocent, at an extremely high cost.

Can anyone address this? If not, then I remain adamantly opposed to enacting legislation to punish mothers who seek abortions, especially as a woman who has experienced multiple miscarriages.

 

[JimG]

I still don’t see how any punishment of women who sought abortions could occur without also involving the grieving women who lose their baby due to miscarriage or stillbirth. No one seems to want to address that question, or elsewhere when I have asked it.

In El Salvador, there are mothers doing long prison terms for aborting their child, when in fact they had a miscarriage/stillbirth. There was no way to prove they had not done something to cause the death of their baby. They passed out during a traumatic miscarriage and awoke handcuffed to their hospital bed, only to discover that their baby had died.

What possibly could be done to avoid invasive exams, traumatic investigations, and false accusations and imprisonment from happening to innocent mothers of miscarried babies, if the law sought to punish mothers who obtained an abortion? My guess is that there will be no protection, because only an exam and investigation could prove that an abortion had not been obtained. It would be a case of guilty until proven innocent, at an extremely high cost.

Can anyone address this? If not, then I remain adamantly opposed to enacting legislation to punish mothers who seek abortions, especially as a woman who has experienced multiple miscarriages.

It could not occur, and it will never occur. We will not be punishing women or investigating miscarriages. The whole thing is just a pro-abortion talking point. They want to tell the pro-life movement: you cannot prohibit abortion unless agree to send women to jail. It’s just ridiculous. There are a little more than 1,720 abortionists in the U.S. It will be they who will be sanctioned. Not women, no matter how often the pro-abortion side tells us we must put women in jail. Won’t happen.

 

[Lea101]

No, there are criminal laws that cover someone killing a fetus and by their very nature, due to court rulings, they exempt the abortionist and the mother. Look up Feticide in Wikipedia.

As for personhood my understanding is that the courts left this an open question in Roe v Wade and haven’t settled it since. Also, there is no federal law that establishes personhood. This is why some say all the federal congress needs to do is pass a law establishing personhood begins at conception. That would end abortion. Politics being as it is the pro abortion side wouldn’t lay down. But I do think the current status is that personhood is undecided.

We can’t over generalize. But I do think many women don’t realize how alive fetus are. I spoke with someone who had an abortion. She was a strong supporter of abortion. Since seeing the Planned Parenthood videos she has actually changed her position. I also spoke with her about Trump’s comments about penalizing women who have abortions. She agreed with the basic logic.

I think your mentioning of the 80 year old example is important. A lot of men don’t think the aged or the severely infirmed are anything but a clump of cells. A man might want to ‘euthanize’ him. Why shouldn’t the same logic apply to alleviate him of any responsibility? While there is a subjective element to the application of laws we don’t completely eliminate a whole category of crimes simply because some people may not think it a crime. If we didn’t prosecute any crime where the accused simply said he didn’t think it was wrong the jails would be empty.

Because not a lot of people view an 80 year old=fetus. The 80 year old is still seen as a human, someone that is not living inside a woman’s body. The 80 year old is not a tiny little thing that is inside a womb. The person has “lived” (talked to people, ate, laughed, worked, etc). People do see him as a person, not a clump of cells. A fetus however, to many people, is a clump of cells. It doesn’t “look” human, it’s living inside a body, it doesn’t talk, we don’t know that they are thinking etc. If we are going to punish women because they had an abortion, you are putting pro lifers at a disadvantage. Look at it at their POV, they removed a “thing” that will become a human, they don’t see it as a human being killed.

They already see us as people who value a thing over the woman’s life. Most pro life people don’t even care about poor children, sick children etc! They only care about the life of the child when the child is inside a womb!! If we punish women who had abortions, their opinion becomes fact. If you want abortions to be treated as murder, people need to see fetuses=human beings, alive, etc first. Then it’ll make sense. As of now, punishing women will only help the pro choice agenda

 

[guanophore]

** When a man impregnates a woman and lacks the means to support that child for the next 18 years and further faces incarceration if he fails to do so, enabling an abortion for a few hundred dollars becomes an attractive alternative.**

I agree, but people do not go to jail for child support. The system wants them to work and pay for their responsibilities. If this is the right answer, then it should be ok to murder the kids after they are born too, shouldn’t it?

Passing the responsibility to other taxpayers is not the answer.

** I say that our draconian child support laws motivate men to advocate for and finance abortion, and that, without these laws the incidence of the murder of the unborn would be reduced.
It really is that simple, and our concern should be for the lives of the unborn, and not for our pocket books.**

There is nothing draconian about our child support laws. People are expected to be responsible for their actions. Perhaps you have had an unpleasant personal experience?

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that lack of child support laws would reduce abortion?

I agree that our focus needs to be the unborn, but that does not mean pocket books can’t be a part of being responsible for the lives of children. When a couple creates a child, they are responsible for the child. They are welcome to give the child up for adoption, so they don’t have to raise it or pay child support. Killing the child is not the answer, and neither is pretending the parents are not responsible for their actions.

**
“Alas also for you experts at law because you load on men and women burdens that are unendurable, burdens that you do not move a finger to alleviate.”**

I think you have it backwards, Jeffrey. A man and woman who create a child and fail to take responsibility for their actions are the ones who are placing burdens on society. Even you are suggesting that the rest of us taxpayers support the unwanted child.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

I agree, but people do not go to jail for child support. The system wants them to work and pay for their responsibilities. If this is the right answer, then it should be ok to murder the kids after they are born too, shouldn’t it?

I never said that abortion should be legal. But since it is, one way to reduce the number of murders is to annul child support laws.
And US citizens are frequently incarcerated for failure to pay:
nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/jail-time-unpaid-child-support.html

msnbc.com/msnbc/how-falling-behind-child-support-can-end-jail#56748

nbcnews.com/id/44376665/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/unable-pay-child-support-poor-parents-land-behind-bars/#.VwVBQ_krKUk

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that lack of child support laws would reduce abortion?
It is well known that unwed fathers advocate and pay for their girlfriends abortions. Does this idea actually need debate?
csmonitor.com/1985/1127/awis.html

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230343/

I think you have it backwards, Jeffrey. A man and woman who create a child and fail to take responsibility for their actions are the ones who are placing burdens on society. Even you are suggesting that the rest of us taxpayers support the unwanted child.

That’s just silly. The USA is set to spend one trillion dollars just on nuclear weapons alone, not to mention the new submarines and ICBMs.
This country is focused on death rather than life It would rather force men to choose between enabling abortions or going to jail than it would to make a few paltry welfare payments.