G
guanophore
Guest
You seem to have very little understanding of the welfare system, if you think the State costs of raising children are “paltry”. But I do agree with you, our country is focused on a culture of death.
- Status
P
pragmatist91
Guest
Just read through some more posts and thought I would respond to the points that stuck out.
First, let me address the point made about miscarriages being mislabeled as murder. Even if abortion is outlawed and reclassified as murder, you are not going to catch everyone. Presently, there are criminals walking the streets who are guilty of rape and murder. Sometimes they get caught and sometimes they live out their years in free society. In the event that an unborn child dies, a murder investigation would not begin right away. Miscarriages are a fact of life. However, if there is plausible reason to begin such an investigation, then there would be one. Yes, such an investigation would be intrusive, but modern homicide investigations are intrusive. The authorities ravage your house, subpoena bank/phone records, talk to everyone you know, look for possible motives, etc. What El Salvador does is very sketchy and questionable. Their problem is that their evidence requirements are too low. That being said, I doubt every woman they have locked up for abortion is innocent. You undoubtedly have some that are lying just to get off the hook and stay on their family’s good side. But the evidence requirements would have to be higher than that.
Now let’s address the issue of teen pregnancy. Most people get through their teen years without getting pregnant/impregnating a girl. Getting pregnant at such a young age is in most cases, a very serious transgression. If a teen girl gets an abortion because her parents pressured her into it, I still say she should be charged with murder and locked up for it. Despite what the pro-choice crowd says, most pregnant teen girls are not raped. They have consensual sex and either didn’t use protection or the protection failed. If a pregnant girl is told by her parents to either get an abortion or move out, then she still has options. She can contact a Church for help, speak to a counselor at school about what to do, contact CPS, etc. Will her life be radically altered by keeping her child? Yes. But that’s still not an excuse/explanation/(any other euphemism you wish to use) for killing her child. By imprisoning women for abortion, you are preventing them from getting a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc abortion. Preventing more unborn children from getting killed is a higher priority than being cuddly with the girl and trying to bring her back to the Church (assuming she even believed in Jesus to begin with). Remember, a teen boy who kills someone would not be getting this type of treatment. Talk about a gynocentric society.
With respect to child support, I do agree that it should be abolished. Some European countries do that already and the stars did not fall from the sky. This point touches on a bigger issue: the welfare state. I never understood why so many American Catholics oppose abortion but vote for fiscally reactionary Republicans who oppose welfare like the plague. A significantly larger welfare state and higher taxes are a necessity if we are even going to have a shot at reducing abortion, let alone eliminating it. The child support laws certainly help fuel the abortion holocaust. In the mind of a secular guy:
Unwanted child + low income mother = expensive problem + possible jail time
Few hundred $ + abortionist = cheap solution
A few others have asked me why I don’t just forget about criminal prosecution of abortion and simply being like everyone else in the movement. I don’t see the pro-life movement being very successful. It is more of a cuddly fuddly PR campaign than a theologically consistent movement.
First, let me address the point made about miscarriages being mislabeled as murder. Even if abortion is outlawed and reclassified as murder, you are not going to catch everyone. Presently, there are criminals walking the streets who are guilty of rape and murder. Sometimes they get caught and sometimes they live out their years in free society. In the event that an unborn child dies, a murder investigation would not begin right away. Miscarriages are a fact of life. However, if there is plausible reason to begin such an investigation, then there would be one. Yes, such an investigation would be intrusive, but modern homicide investigations are intrusive. The authorities ravage your house, subpoena bank/phone records, talk to everyone you know, look for possible motives, etc. What El Salvador does is very sketchy and questionable. Their problem is that their evidence requirements are too low. That being said, I doubt every woman they have locked up for abortion is innocent. You undoubtedly have some that are lying just to get off the hook and stay on their family’s good side. But the evidence requirements would have to be higher than that.
Now let’s address the issue of teen pregnancy. Most people get through their teen years without getting pregnant/impregnating a girl. Getting pregnant at such a young age is in most cases, a very serious transgression. If a teen girl gets an abortion because her parents pressured her into it, I still say she should be charged with murder and locked up for it. Despite what the pro-choice crowd says, most pregnant teen girls are not raped. They have consensual sex and either didn’t use protection or the protection failed. If a pregnant girl is told by her parents to either get an abortion or move out, then she still has options. She can contact a Church for help, speak to a counselor at school about what to do, contact CPS, etc. Will her life be radically altered by keeping her child? Yes. But that’s still not an excuse/explanation/(any other euphemism you wish to use) for killing her child. By imprisoning women for abortion, you are preventing them from getting a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc abortion. Preventing more unborn children from getting killed is a higher priority than being cuddly with the girl and trying to bring her back to the Church (assuming she even believed in Jesus to begin with). Remember, a teen boy who kills someone would not be getting this type of treatment. Talk about a gynocentric society.
With respect to child support, I do agree that it should be abolished. Some European countries do that already and the stars did not fall from the sky. This point touches on a bigger issue: the welfare state. I never understood why so many American Catholics oppose abortion but vote for fiscally reactionary Republicans who oppose welfare like the plague. A significantly larger welfare state and higher taxes are a necessity if we are even going to have a shot at reducing abortion, let alone eliminating it. The child support laws certainly help fuel the abortion holocaust. In the mind of a secular guy:
Unwanted child + low income mother = expensive problem + possible jail time
Few hundred $ + abortionist = cheap solution
A few others have asked me why I don’t just forget about criminal prosecution of abortion and simply being like everyone else in the movement. I don’t see the pro-life movement being very successful. It is more of a cuddly fuddly PR campaign than a theologically consistent movement.
J
JimG
Guest
“Theological consistency” doesn’t require advocacy of punishment for any sin. The pro-life movement seems to follow the Church’s lead here. The Church is about repentance, reconciliation, forgiveness, and healing and metanoia, not about punishment.
Jesus told the woman caught in adultery. “Neither do I condemn you. From now on, avoid this sin.” He didn’t say, “I forgive you, but you’ll still have to be stoned.”
The pro-life movement is about mitigating, slowing, eventually stopping abortion, the saving of unborn children’s lives, the assistance to women in need, the healing of women in post-abortion pain. I’ve seldom seen pro-life organizations talk about punishment, even of abortionists. If abortion is to be punished, punish abortionists. Yet even abortionists, like Bernard Nathanson, who performed thousands of abortions, became ardent advocates of the pro-life movement.
If someone wants to advocate for punishment for women, let them do it from a political standpoint. It’s never been part of the pro-life movement. It never will be.
Jesus told the woman caught in adultery. “Neither do I condemn you. From now on, avoid this sin.” He didn’t say, “I forgive you, but you’ll still have to be stoned.”
The pro-life movement is about mitigating, slowing, eventually stopping abortion, the saving of unborn children’s lives, the assistance to women in need, the healing of women in post-abortion pain. I’ve seldom seen pro-life organizations talk about punishment, even of abortionists. If abortion is to be punished, punish abortionists. Yet even abortionists, like Bernard Nathanson, who performed thousands of abortions, became ardent advocates of the pro-life movement.
If someone wants to advocate for punishment for women, let them do it from a political standpoint. It’s never been part of the pro-life movement. It never will be.
L
LightBound
Guest
Let’s just get it out in the open, shall we? You are just chomping at the bit for an opportunity to punish women, aren’t you? First it was women shouldn’t vote. Then women shouldn’t own property. Now it’s jail all the abortive women, even the teens. You seriously dislike women and dare I say, show all the tendencies of a misogynist living in the manosphere world.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
P
pragmatist91
Guest
Theological consistency does requires the same sin with an equal level of gravity, regardless of who does it. I agree that the church is about repentance, reconciliation, etc. But why is the Church ok with some killers walking away scot-free while others are either locked up for the rest of their lives or injected with lethal chemicals?
When I was catching up on the latest news this morning, I found this story in Texas. The 2nd link goes into further detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC8VnszHRhM
nydailynews.com/news/crime/17-year-old-custody-murder-texas-college-student-article-1.2593315
All I can say is thank god that teen is still only 17. If he was 18 years old, a prosecutor would be all over him like a rabid dog trying to get him executed (and 99.9% chance that prosecutor would be successful). No prosecutor or juror would care about the fact that this teen was homeless, in and out of foster care, had a troubled childhood, etc.
Your comparison of abortion prosecution to the woman Jesus spared is invalid for a few reasons. First, she was about to be executed. If I had my way, capital punishment would be outlawed under all circumstances and such women would be looking at life in prison instead of death. Second, that woman did not physically destroy another person. She and some random guy engaged in a natural process, although under sinful circumstances. Nobody died because of what she did. Aside from STDs, she was not a physical threat to the broader community. On the other hand, a woman who has an abortion engages in the destruction of another person and poses a threat to other people (future unborn children). She could always have more abortions in the future and there are women out there right now who have killed SEVERAL unborn children. If such women are kept in lockup, that possibility doesn’t exist. The state has an interest in preserving human lives. If the secular legal definition of human life is changed to what I, and the Catholic Church believe, then the state’s interest in preserving those lives will follow.
When I was catching up on the latest news this morning, I found this story in Texas. The 2nd link goes into further detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC8VnszHRhM
nydailynews.com/news/crime/17-year-old-custody-murder-texas-college-student-article-1.2593315
All I can say is thank god that teen is still only 17. If he was 18 years old, a prosecutor would be all over him like a rabid dog trying to get him executed (and 99.9% chance that prosecutor would be successful). No prosecutor or juror would care about the fact that this teen was homeless, in and out of foster care, had a troubled childhood, etc.
Your comparison of abortion prosecution to the woman Jesus spared is invalid for a few reasons. First, she was about to be executed. If I had my way, capital punishment would be outlawed under all circumstances and such women would be looking at life in prison instead of death. Second, that woman did not physically destroy another person. She and some random guy engaged in a natural process, although under sinful circumstances. Nobody died because of what she did. Aside from STDs, she was not a physical threat to the broader community. On the other hand, a woman who has an abortion engages in the destruction of another person and poses a threat to other people (future unborn children). She could always have more abortions in the future and there are women out there right now who have killed SEVERAL unborn children. If such women are kept in lockup, that possibility doesn’t exist. The state has an interest in preserving human lives. If the secular legal definition of human life is changed to what I, and the Catholic Church believe, then the state’s interest in preserving those lives will follow.
J
JimG
Guest
First, let me make a few comments about the scriptural account of the woman caught in adultery. She was not in any danger of being executed. She was in no danger of being stoned. The Jews were under Roman occupation. They had no authority to execute anyone.
There was only one reason that the question was posed to Jesus. Rather like a modern TV journalist, it was to trick him into a yes or no answer which could be used against him. And either answer could have been used against him. ‘No, she should not be stoned,’ would make him guilty of rejecting the Mosaic Law. ‘Yes, she should be stoned,’ would show him as lacking in mercy and rejecting the Roman Law.’ He refused to answer the question as it was posed, just as he refused at another time to answer a question about paying taxes. But he did show mercy while telling her to sin no more.
As to the campus killing, of course there are several differences. First, the killing of college students has not been legal for 43 years. It has not been declared a basic right by the U.S. Supreme Court, celebrated by political parties and national organizations. And yes, I do think that a jury would take into account the defendant’s circumstances. A defense attorney would see to that. (After all, a teen that killed several people by drunken driving was given probation on the basis of being too affluent to know right from wrong.)
As to capital punishment, I would agree with you in not imposing it on anyone. But if abortion were made illegal after 43 years of being legal and a civil right, would you suddenly begin tossing thousands of women into prison for life? All you really need to do is close down the abortionists, and there are only about 1700 of them. The prisons are already too full. And I do not know of any woman who says ‘I had an abortion because I want people to know my name. I want people to know who I am.”
And the more immediate question is this: Will abortion be likely to be stopped by threatening lifetime imprisonment for women? Or will that threat be more likely to ensure that it continues to be legal?
There was only one reason that the question was posed to Jesus. Rather like a modern TV journalist, it was to trick him into a yes or no answer which could be used against him. And either answer could have been used against him. ‘No, she should not be stoned,’ would make him guilty of rejecting the Mosaic Law. ‘Yes, she should be stoned,’ would show him as lacking in mercy and rejecting the Roman Law.’ He refused to answer the question as it was posed, just as he refused at another time to answer a question about paying taxes. But he did show mercy while telling her to sin no more.
As to the campus killing, of course there are several differences. First, the killing of college students has not been legal for 43 years. It has not been declared a basic right by the U.S. Supreme Court, celebrated by political parties and national organizations. And yes, I do think that a jury would take into account the defendant’s circumstances. A defense attorney would see to that. (After all, a teen that killed several people by drunken driving was given probation on the basis of being too affluent to know right from wrong.)
As to capital punishment, I would agree with you in not imposing it on anyone. But if abortion were made illegal after 43 years of being legal and a civil right, would you suddenly begin tossing thousands of women into prison for life? All you really need to do is close down the abortionists, and there are only about 1700 of them. The prisons are already too full. And I do not know of any woman who says ‘I had an abortion because I want people to know my name. I want people to know who I am.”
And the more immediate question is this: Will abortion be likely to be stopped by threatening lifetime imprisonment for women? Or will that threat be more likely to ensure that it continues to be legal?
P
pragmatist91
Guest
Who know what would have happened to that woman. Maybe it was for show and maybe they would have killed her anyway. Either way, my points on the promiscuous woman still stand.
In regards to the college student who got killed, I am approaching the issue from a biblical view, not from a socio-political view. In God’s eyes, killing a random college student and killing an unborn child are both evil. Texas is one of the most regressive/backwards states in the country. In most cases, a jury would reject a defendant’s claims of a rough childhood/abuse/etc. In that states, as well as several others in the US, there were plenty of people with troubled lives who are now in the ground. The case of the affluenza teen was a combination of extremely good luck and money.
After the Nazis were defeated, it was suddenly illegal to put people in prison camps and kill them (at least in Ally controlled territory, Stalins gulags are another story). From the bottom of my heart, I’m not trying to be confrontational. But what you are proposing isn’t even a true ban on abortion. Let’s pretend that somehow the current prolife movement manages to outlaw abortion and close down abortion clinics. If that happens, you will see more women taking illegal abortion pills, abortion-inducing plants, and going to see illegal abortionists. A century ago, abortions were done by mid-wives and illegal abortionists. Assuming that the PLM is even able to shut down abortion clinics, how would you stop this new wave of abortion? If you don’t have prison time, abortion will still be alive and well. The prisons are full due to draconian drug laws and long sentences for minor offenses and unpaid fines. The legalization of mild drugs and eliminating prison sentences for minor things would fix that issue. The answer to your question is that abortion will most likely not be stopped with how the prolife movement is going.
In regards to the college student who got killed, I am approaching the issue from a biblical view, not from a socio-political view. In God’s eyes, killing a random college student and killing an unborn child are both evil. Texas is one of the most regressive/backwards states in the country. In most cases, a jury would reject a defendant’s claims of a rough childhood/abuse/etc. In that states, as well as several others in the US, there were plenty of people with troubled lives who are now in the ground. The case of the affluenza teen was a combination of extremely good luck and money.
After the Nazis were defeated, it was suddenly illegal to put people in prison camps and kill them (at least in Ally controlled territory, Stalins gulags are another story). From the bottom of my heart, I’m not trying to be confrontational. But what you are proposing isn’t even a true ban on abortion. Let’s pretend that somehow the current prolife movement manages to outlaw abortion and close down abortion clinics. If that happens, you will see more women taking illegal abortion pills, abortion-inducing plants, and going to see illegal abortionists. A century ago, abortions were done by mid-wives and illegal abortionists. Assuming that the PLM is even able to shut down abortion clinics, how would you stop this new wave of abortion? If you don’t have prison time, abortion will still be alive and well. The prisons are full due to draconian drug laws and long sentences for minor offenses and unpaid fines. The legalization of mild drugs and eliminating prison sentences for minor things would fix that issue. The answer to your question is that abortion will most likely not be stopped with how the prolife movement is going.
L
LethalMouse
Guest
All political issues must dance around sensibilities and use the “group mentality” that is why you never hear “why should an American vote for you, what will you do for me as an American?”…nope you hear “why should a [insert group] of americans vote for you” ironically both sides of every issue use groups to further their ends. You can not offend the group for you need to convince them it is for THEM… the greater good, Americans as a whole, and any of that is not relevant.
E
EleanorArr
Guest
This point may have been raised already in the thread so I apologise if I’m repeating someone else…
But ultimately the question of whether or not to punish a woman who has an abortion, or indeed the person facilitating it (‘the abortionist’), raises a kind of logical problem.
I believe - as surely more or less everyone on CAF (and every other Catholic in the world and many many others besides) - that the unborn deserve the same legal and other protections as born children. From conception every human life deserves equal protection from harm.
Generally, we are also encouraged to think that a woman who hires a person to murder her unborn child - ie provide an abortion - should not be punished (for all sorts of reasons already mentioned on the thread: loss of a child is punishment enough; many women deeply regret their choice; they didn’t make money from the murder while the abortionist’s living depends on killing, etc, etc).
But if the unborn are as we all believe worthy of equal protection, why does the fact that one child has passed through the birth canal and another hasn’t, mean that a woman who hires someone to kill her teenaged son can be tried for murder or being an associate of it (along with the actual killer), but a woman who hires someone to kill her son three months out from conception, cannot?
If we mean what we say, we when we say the unborn are just as worthy of life as everyone else, then the consequences for killing should be the same. Whatever the heartrending motivations a woman might have for having an an abortion - it is still murder.
Of course it might not be sensible to send thousands of women to prison - I do not think it would help anyone - so a different series of sentences might be in order. But I think we can only be treated seriously when we present a consistent argument that all life is sacred.
But ultimately the question of whether or not to punish a woman who has an abortion, or indeed the person facilitating it (‘the abortionist’), raises a kind of logical problem.
I believe - as surely more or less everyone on CAF (and every other Catholic in the world and many many others besides) - that the unborn deserve the same legal and other protections as born children. From conception every human life deserves equal protection from harm.
Generally, we are also encouraged to think that a woman who hires a person to murder her unborn child - ie provide an abortion - should not be punished (for all sorts of reasons already mentioned on the thread: loss of a child is punishment enough; many women deeply regret their choice; they didn’t make money from the murder while the abortionist’s living depends on killing, etc, etc).
But if the unborn are as we all believe worthy of equal protection, why does the fact that one child has passed through the birth canal and another hasn’t, mean that a woman who hires someone to kill her teenaged son can be tried for murder or being an associate of it (along with the actual killer), but a woman who hires someone to kill her son three months out from conception, cannot?
If we mean what we say, we when we say the unborn are just as worthy of life as everyone else, then the consequences for killing should be the same. Whatever the heartrending motivations a woman might have for having an an abortion - it is still murder.
Of course it might not be sensible to send thousands of women to prison - I do not think it would help anyone - so a different series of sentences might be in order. But I think we can only be treated seriously when we present a consistent argument that all life is sacred.
J
JimG
Guest
Maybe instead of talking about how to punish women, we should just put all the abortion clinics out of business. Their numbers are declining. Will abortions decline if there are no abortionists, no abortion clinics? I think so. That is the first step.
Whether or in what numbers illegal abortions would continue is mere speculation. Right now abortion is LEGAL! Does it make sense to talk about instituting punishments for women for something which has been legal for 43 years?
Punishing women has never been an aspect of the pro-abortion movement, not from the very beginning. Punishing women was not even an aspect of most state abortion laws before Roe v Wade. So why is it an issue now? It is an issue because it is now being raised by the pro-abortion side, by those who wish to keep abortion legal.
When Lincoln advocated for the abolition of slavery, he talked of compensating slaveholders, which seems strange to us. But the idea was first to eliminate slavery, not to punish slaveholders.
B
BellsMom
Guest
By the time all the abortion clinics are shut down, young women will have adapted. Any who are sexually active will most likely have a bottle of emergency contraception around. Teenage girls will pass them out to each other. Adult women will give them to their daughters and grand daughters. Heck, some men will probably have a stash of them too for their partners.
Surgical abortion will probably eventually end but do-it-yourself home abortions will become the norm. Then it will be virtually impossible to track abortion statistics.
Surgical abortion will probably eventually end but do-it-yourself home abortions will become the norm. Then it will be virtually impossible to track abortion statistics.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
True. But how was it dealt with in the past, if a woman was caught? What was the penalty?
S
Sarcelle
Guest
There were also pregnant women who have been prosecuted because they abused drugs and/or alcohol,while pregnant. The law already prosecutes women who endanger their unborn children.
J
JimG
Guest
Different states had different laws. Mostly the laws prohibited performing an abortion, not having an abortion. Abortionists were penalized, not women.
J
JimG
Guest
I hope not, because contraception fails. When it fails, it leads to more abortion. Contraception enables extramarital sex which leads to more unwanted pregnancies, which leads to more abortion. For a look at the results of widespread contraception, see Mary Eberstadt’s book, “Adam and Eve After the Pill.”
E
EleanorArr
Guest
Don’t get me wrong I’m not personally advocating for women to be punished for choosing to have an abortion - but there is a logical inconsistency between the arbitrary delineator of when it suddenly becomes ok to prosecute someone for killing their child (birth), and the belief that all human life is sacred and deserving of equal protection, from the moment of its conception.
My point is that in being inconsistent we unwittingly play into the argument of many of those who support abortion rights - viz. that a baby in the womb is ‘maybe alive, but not worthy of equal protection’.
The other problem, meanwhile, is that shutting abortion clinics (which can never not be a good thing IMO), doesn’t automatically lead to a reduction in the number of abortions - only the number of ‘safe’ (for the mother anyway) ones. Mississippi has the fewest number of such clinics (one) - and yet a quick look on google analytics will reveal that its the state with the highest number of searches for “self administered abortion” “abortion pill online”, etc, etc. As much as I want legal abortion to end this does rather trouble me.
Abortion is only a reflection of a much more widespread and more troubling attitude in the West to sex, and to children. If we change the latter two, abortion for anything other than medical emergencies would probably become anathema.
L
LeahTherese
Guest
It sort of makes sense to me what you’re saying but I think punishing women would be a backward step. I don’t think women are in every case ‘victims’ but we can all as women just as much as men be susceptible to a culture that values instant sex over anything more prudent and less sinful even without being able to properly see the consequnces always. I think its maybe wrong to punish for that.
I think what you say about attitudes to children and sex is probably spot on though
S
Siegehammer
Guest
In the US women are being criminally prosecuted for terminated pregnancies.
Bei Bei Shuai was charged with murder and attempted feticide for attempting suicide while pregnant. Shuai sat in jail for 435 days until she was released on bail (where she remained under surveillance by an electronic ankle monitor). In August 2013, nearly two and a half years after her prosecution began, she accepted a plea deal to the misdemeanor charge of “criminal recklessness.”
Purvi Patel, who was charged with neglect of a dependent and feticide after having a pregnancy loss that the state deemed was a self-induced abortion. She is currently serving a 41-year sentence while her case is on appeal.
Kenlissia Jones was arrested in 2015 for allegedly using misoprostol to self-induce her abortion. Jones was originally facing two charges: “malice murder” and “possession of a dangerous drug” (i.e. the misoprostol). The murder charge against Jones was dropped, but she still faces punishment for the drug charge.
Anna Yocca was charged with attempted murder for a failed self-induced abortion attempt with a coat hanger. Prosecutors later dropped the attempted murder charge but said they would still pursue criminal charges against Yocca, likely for aggravated assault.
38 states now have feticide or “fetal homicide” laws on the books, and in 23 of these states, these laws can be applied at any stage of pregnancy. While these laws were not originally created with the intent of criminalizing pregnant women for actions they took during their own pregnancy, they are now widely used to do just that. “Pro-life” prosecutors are arresting and indicting women under such laws when they deem that either an action or lack of action by a pregnant woman causes harm to a fetus or leads to pregnancy loss.
In three states—Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Dakota— have laws on the books that allow for the involuntary civil commitment of pregnant women for “not following doctors’ orders.” Recent cases in which these laws were applied include those of Alicia Beltran and Tamara Loertscher in Wisconsin.
These cases are the product of anti-abortion laws promoted relentlessly by Americans United for Life, the Susan B. Anthony List, the National Right to Life Committee, and the Family Research Council.
The fact that the use of these laws to frighten, indict, and imprison women is never discussed by these supposed ‘pro-life’ groups tells you everything you need to know about the movement’s intentions: control and punishment.
Bei Bei Shuai was charged with murder and attempted feticide for attempting suicide while pregnant. Shuai sat in jail for 435 days until she was released on bail (where she remained under surveillance by an electronic ankle monitor). In August 2013, nearly two and a half years after her prosecution began, she accepted a plea deal to the misdemeanor charge of “criminal recklessness.”
Purvi Patel, who was charged with neglect of a dependent and feticide after having a pregnancy loss that the state deemed was a self-induced abortion. She is currently serving a 41-year sentence while her case is on appeal.
Kenlissia Jones was arrested in 2015 for allegedly using misoprostol to self-induce her abortion. Jones was originally facing two charges: “malice murder” and “possession of a dangerous drug” (i.e. the misoprostol). The murder charge against Jones was dropped, but she still faces punishment for the drug charge.
Anna Yocca was charged with attempted murder for a failed self-induced abortion attempt with a coat hanger. Prosecutors later dropped the attempted murder charge but said they would still pursue criminal charges against Yocca, likely for aggravated assault.
38 states now have feticide or “fetal homicide” laws on the books, and in 23 of these states, these laws can be applied at any stage of pregnancy. While these laws were not originally created with the intent of criminalizing pregnant women for actions they took during their own pregnancy, they are now widely used to do just that. “Pro-life” prosecutors are arresting and indicting women under such laws when they deem that either an action or lack of action by a pregnant woman causes harm to a fetus or leads to pregnancy loss.
In three states—Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Dakota— have laws on the books that allow for the involuntary civil commitment of pregnant women for “not following doctors’ orders.” Recent cases in which these laws were applied include those of Alicia Beltran and Tamara Loertscher in Wisconsin.
These cases are the product of anti-abortion laws promoted relentlessly by Americans United for Life, the Susan B. Anthony List, the National Right to Life Committee, and the Family Research Council.
The fact that the use of these laws to frighten, indict, and imprison women is never discussed by these supposed ‘pro-life’ groups tells you everything you need to know about the movement’s intentions: control and punishment.
J
jeffrey_erwin
Guest
**From ancient times the Christian tradition has been to forego the practice of abortion.
In modern times religious persons who want to feel more righteous take up the “crusade” to save the lives of the unborn by imposing Christian Church Law onto the general population.
My objection to this practice is that the 'right to life" crusade blinds us to the real travesty that is taking place in our present world which is the mass deployment of intercontinental nuclear weapons.
The building of these monstrous devices constitutes a gross violation of our Creator’s most important Laws: Love Your Creator and Love Your neighbor.
If my understanding of Holy Scripture is correct, YHWH will use the “work of our own hands” to pass Judgment on us.
I have often presented the idea of Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament on CAF.
I call on the “right to life” crowd to support it.**
In modern times religious persons who want to feel more righteous take up the “crusade” to save the lives of the unborn by imposing Christian Church Law onto the general population.
My objection to this practice is that the 'right to life" crusade blinds us to the real travesty that is taking place in our present world which is the mass deployment of intercontinental nuclear weapons.
The building of these monstrous devices constitutes a gross violation of our Creator’s most important Laws: Love Your Creator and Love Your neighbor.
If my understanding of Holy Scripture is correct, YHWH will use the “work of our own hands” to pass Judgment on us.
I have often presented the idea of Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament on CAF.
I call on the “right to life” crowd to support it.**
- Status