Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Much Jail Time? (For women who get abortions)
Newsweek ^ | 8/6/2007 | Anna Quindlen

Posted on 08/16/2007 11:23:43 AM PDT by mngran

Buried among prairie dogs and amateur animation shorts on YouTube is a curious little mini-documentary shot in front of an abortion clinic in Libertyville, Ill. The man behind the camera is asking demonstrators who want abortion criminalized what the penalty should be for a woman who has one nonetheless. You have rarely seen people look more gobsmacked. It's as though the guy has asked them to solve quadratic equations. Here are a range of responses: "I've never really thought about it." "I don't have an answer for that." "I don't know." "Just pray for them."

You have to hand it to the questioner; he struggles manfully. "Usually when things are illegal there's a penalty attached," he explains patiently. But he can't get a single person to be decisive about the crux of a matter they have been approaching with absolute certainty.

A new public-policy group called the National Institute for Reproductive Health wants to take this contradiction and make it the centerpiece of a national conversation, along with a slogan that stops people in their tracks: how much time should she do? If the Supreme Court decides abortion is not protected by a constitutional guarantee of privacy, the issue will revert to the states. If it goes to the states, some, perhaps many, will ban abortion. If abortion is made a crime, then surely the woman who has one is a criminal. But, boy, do the doctrinaire suddenly turn squirrelly at the prospect of throwing women in jail.

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: abortion; annaquindlen; quindlen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150 last
To: Melas
It’s an obvious trap. Even most ardent pro-lifers wouldn’t seek a penalty against the woman.

And you'll notice that the vast majority of FReepers who answered the question off the cuff got it right:

No penalty for the woman. Prison for the butcher.

Next question?
101 posted on 08/16/2007 1:27:25 PM PDT by Antoninus (P!ss off a leftist wacko . . . have more kids.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
No jail time for the woman who may or may not have known that the creature inside her is a baby that can feel pain.

And if the kid is, say, 18 months old and she similarly denies knowing that it was really alive?

102 posted on 08/16/2007 1:29:15 PM PDT by Sloth (You being wrong & me being closed-minded are not the same thing, nor are they mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Alouette
Where are orphanages in the U.S.?

Historically American orphanages produced individuals who often outperformed their peers.

Naturally this was intolerable to a Socialist State which seeks to maximize the production of incompetent, dependent and preferably sociopathic citizens.

103 posted on 08/16/2007 1:30:20 PM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

What about the 15 year old “father” who beat his girlfriend in order to kill his unborn child, as described in Post 98. You could that he thought that it was a blob of cells, after all, he is no doctor. Should he be charged with the baby’s death, or just assault on the mother?


104 posted on 08/16/2007 1:32:19 PM PDT by LWalk18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
No penalty for the woman. Prison for the butcher

Next question?

Okay. What about women who use an abortifacient like RU-486 or use an "at-home" method? Who's the butcher in that case? What should her penalty be?

105 posted on 08/16/2007 1:34:34 PM PDT by Millers Cave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Millers Cave

What should her penalty be?
***Her penalty should be the same penalty as the guy who hits her car on the way over and kills that innocent life in an accident. If that preborn human has a right to live in the one case but not in the other case, then that simply doesn’t make sense. I believe in extending the right to live to that preborn human. <-— note the period.


106 posted on 08/16/2007 2:03:55 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus; TonyRo76; sittnick; ninenot; ArrogantBustard; Tax-chick; fieldmarshaldj; wagglebee; ...
Each violation of criminal statutes is subject to prosecutorial discretion. You can see this time and time again on any criminal drama on TV as I saw it as a private defense attorney. Two or more perps are arrested and are equally guilty. First one to rat out the other(s) gets a serious break, discount or dismissal.

With abortion, you must make sure that no break is EVER available to the abortionist and that, after appropriate testimony, the woman can always walk. The purpose is, after all, to stop abortion. Punishing the women individually will not work, will convict few women (who will have compelling excuses to play the emotion card with the jury as moneybags Jack the Slice will not have) and will let the actual abortionist off the hook as often as not for lack of credible or sufficient evidence.

Connecticut was one of the very first states to criminalize abortion. It did so in the 1820s when Congregationalist ministers (Connecticut's established religion until 1818) in four different communities were charged with aborting the offspring of their respective illegitimate relations with women not their wives. Connecticut remained staunchly pro-life until well after Roe vs. Wade. The Connecticut statutes on abortion (including those passed by 5-1 in each house of the General Assembly in 1972 or so) provided for a five-year jail term for the woman and a five-year jail term for the abortionist. Yet, the actual history of prosecution was that actual prosecution of the women beyond preliminary efforts was rare. The felony with five years penalty was hung over the women to force them to testify against the abortionists which they generally did. When the abortionist was convicted on the testimony of the woman, the charges against the woman were dropped.

The net result was to choke off the supply of abortionists. If you try to convict each woman, there will be an intolerable backlog that will frustrate justice. Let her testify against Dr. Death in exchange for dismissal of her charges. She can take the Fifth Amendment when brought to the witness stand, in which case she is prosecuted and the doctor MAY go free for the moment. More likely, she will testify and guarantee the abortionist's conviction. "Another one bites the dust! And another one down and another one down...." How many women will serve the abortionist's term for him????

That is how abortion was controlled and frustrated and punished in Connecticut and many other states for most of the history of the republic and how it can be again.

Our biggest problem is going to be stopping "jury nullification" by those pro-aborts willing to lie under oath in voir dire to become jurors who refuse to convict.

We are still going to have to fight the public relations war. Ultrasound will help immensely but we can take nothing for granted.

107 posted on 08/16/2007 2:11:33 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Millers Cave

Treat the supplier of RU-486 as the killer. Arrest the mother and make her testify against the supplier or face trial and punishment herself. AFTER she has testified, her charges get dismissed.


108 posted on 08/16/2007 2:13:15 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine; mamelukesabre; Nervous Tick; Paved Paradise; Irene Adler; B-Chan; ...

See #107


109 posted on 08/16/2007 2:25:18 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Millers Cave
Okay. What about women who use an abortifacient like RU-486 or use an "at-home" method? Who's the butcher in that case? What should her penalty be?

Go after the pharmaceutical company. Next?

110 posted on 08/16/2007 2:30:53 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Well said


111 posted on 08/16/2007 2:40:01 PM PDT by Tribune7 (Michael Moore bought Haliburton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Well said


112 posted on 08/16/2007 2:40:07 PM PDT by Tribune7 (Michael Moore bought Haliburton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Here's my attitude: since no sane woman would kill her own child, any woman procuring an abortion is ipso facto not guilty of the child's murder by reason of temporary insanity, and therefore innocent of any crime.

The number of U.S. abortions every year is close to a million. Do you really think there are that many instances of temporary insanity among women?

What about the woman who uses abortion as a means of birth control, or who opts for a late-term abortion because she decides she doesn't want to lose out on a potential promotion?

If abortion is prohibited, I do think leniency should be applied in most circumstances. However, I do not think it should be given automatically. For some women, probably a minority, abortion is chosen out of convenience, not duress. They should be accountable for the crime along with the abortionist.

113 posted on 08/16/2007 2:45:11 PM PDT by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Millers Cave
...use an "at-home" method?

As in the infamous "coat hanger". Answers still the same, go after the abortionist, whether it be the woman herself or a colleague.

Check out BlackElk's post 107 for some insight on how enforcement worked in the real world.

114 posted on 08/16/2007 2:48:48 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Thanks for the background.


115 posted on 08/16/2007 2:54:21 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: mngran
I'll tell them.

Whatever the penalty is for murder. Of course, the 'doctor' who performs the abortion should get the same penalty.

116 posted on 08/16/2007 2:59:47 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
And you'll notice that the vast majority of FReepers who answered the question off the cuff got it right: No penalty for the woman. Prison for the butcher.

If abortion is murder (which it is), and if the woman willingly goes to the doctor to get an abortion, then she paid someone to murder her child.

The penalty for paying to have your husband murdered is not 'nothing'. Why should a person who pays to have their child murdered get off scott free?

117 posted on 08/16/2007 3:02:21 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Good post.


118 posted on 08/16/2007 3:08:04 PM PDT by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

Huh? I’m not saying that at all. Sheesh. Just because I don’t believe in jailing a mom seeking an abortion means I support abortion. I have been pro-life for years now and even in cases of rape I believe the baby is totally innocent. In cases of rape, I believe in the morning after pill. Sorry, but I just do. A woman who can bring a baby to term after rape is very special; the baby is innocent but I could and would never force that woman to do so.


119 posted on 08/16/2007 3:18:22 PM PDT by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: timm22
The number of U.S. abortions every year is close to a million. Do you really think there are that many instances of temporary insanity among women?

Yep, I think all pregnant women are temporarily insane and emotionally unstable. Been that way multiple times myself.

But I had a husband who housed, clothed, fed and nurtured me through my pregnancies. If I was alone, abandoned or worse pressured by the father and others to abort, I can see how in my hormonal and emotionally unstable state how I could have been seduced to the dark side by those who love death.

Our nation is committing suicide through infanticide.

120 posted on 08/16/2007 3:22:36 PM PDT by Valpal1 ("I know the fittest have not survived when I watch Congress on CSPAN.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

Comment #121 Removed by Moderator

To: MEGoody
Why should a person who pays to have their child murdered get off scott free?
~~~~~~~~~

Because they are duped. They don’t believe it is murder because the person doing the deed tells them it isn’t. There’s got to be some leniency granted, in my opinion.

122 posted on 08/16/2007 3:56:28 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Bilabong
Welcome to Free Republic Bilabong (first day)!

Tough one.

Not really. Enforcement of abortion bans is nothing new, it has been going on for most of our nation's history.

See BlackElk's post 107 for some background on how the state of Connecticut handled it before the Roe vs Wade decision.

123 posted on 08/16/2007 4:04:19 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
Because they are duped. They don’t believe it is murder because the person doing the deed tells them it isn’t. There’s got to be some leniency granted, in my opinion.

You make it sound like these abortion doctors are out trolling for women to abort. The woman is the initial actor here -- she seeks out the abortionist.

Besides, most women who have abortions are full-fledged adults capable of making moral (or immoral) decisions -- not children who don't know right from wrong.

124 posted on 08/16/2007 4:05:56 PM PDT by Millers Cave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Millers Cave
not children who don’t know right from wrong.
~~~~~~~

I think the kind of women that are getting abortions are generally the kind that are VERY childish and I question their intelligence and their ability to discern right from wrong.

125 posted on 08/16/2007 4:41:29 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

I see it similar to drugs — people who want them are going to get them, no matter what the risks or illegality. As such, policing it is going to be dicey and maybe not too successful.


126 posted on 08/16/2007 5:00:30 PM PDT by Millers Cave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

We’re not having trouble charging or convicting third parties for killing children in Texas under the Prenatal Protection Act (our “Connor and Lacy” law) that we passed in ‘03. I believe that 2 or 3 cases have survived appeal to the Texas Supreme Court or are being considered at the TSC at this time.

This law also shows the distinctions that can be made under law.

Some District Attorney decided to use the law to prosecute women who used drugs while pregnant. The women took plea bargains and plead guilty. Then they fought the cases under appeal and won.

The law was never intended to prosecute a mother. In fact, realists and incrementalists that we had to be, the only way we could get it passed was to specifically exempt the mother of the child and a legal medical “provider” doing what she hired him to do.

One reason to *not* prosecute these women is that there are much fewer options for treatment for a woman, much less a pregnant woman. And while there’s no evidence that criminal prosecution for drug addiction does anyone any good - much less the family - as long as it’s legal to obtain an abortion, the threat of conviction encourages abortion. That’s contraindicated for us prolife people.

There is some question, however, as to whether or not we can use the law in combination with new parental consent law, in order to criminally prosecute abortionists - some say with a charge of capital murder - who intentionally kill the children of girls who are not able to consent under Texas law.


127 posted on 08/16/2007 5:21:16 PM PDT by hocndoc (http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Agreed.


128 posted on 08/16/2007 6:35:42 PM PDT by Melas (Offending stupid people since 1963)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Very informative, as always.


129 posted on 08/16/2007 7:01:39 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Don't like my attitude? Call 1-800-GET-A-DOG.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Millers Cave
The good news is that merely outlawing abortions will greatly reduce the number of them performed without any policing or enforcing whatsoever. I believe that a great percentage of people just go with the flow. When the media is screaming for “a woman’s right to choose”, people start believing it. Most people don’t think too much about things. They are sheep. If suddenly there is a change in the law, and abortions are no longer acceptable, people will start to think a little more about it.

I heard on the radio the other day that teens were polled about what charity or organization would they most like to volunteer for, the number one response was PETA! The red cross was a close second, but MAN! That’s just ridiculous. When I was a teen I would’ve said the Peace Corps(the toughest job you’ll ever love, was their slogan). I even thought about doing it. I found out the peace corps was doing work in Appalachia with illiteracy, sanitation, and housing and I wanted to do that. I’ve never understood charities that go over seas to help foreigners when there are people right here in america that need assistance. I suppose I couldn’t blame a youngster for being seduced by greenpeace and going on those adrenaline charged expeditions to save the whales from whaling ships. But PETA?? INSANE!

But anyway, my point is that people are sheep. These teens are responding with the organization they hear about most in the media. When’s the last time you heard about the salvation army or the gideons or the united catholic charities organization doing some outrageous PR stunt that caused an uproar and got nation wide MSM coverage?

130 posted on 08/16/2007 7:46:42 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...

.


131 posted on 08/16/2007 7:54:52 PM PDT by Coleus (Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: mngran
Treat it like drunk driving.
132 posted on 08/16/2007 7:55:39 PM PDT by unspun (We are still in the end times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhx

“That will dry up the supply of people who will do abortions pretty quickly”

No. There have always been Drs or people with medical training (or no training at all) willing to perform abortions. They were doing it when it *was* illegal. My great grandmother’s sister-in-law died in 1919 from an illegal abortion after having (and losing) seven children, when she was close to 50.

Ask anyone who worked in an ER prior to Roe vs Wade. They’ll tell you about the supply. They treated the aftermath, the butchered uterus, the spiky fevers, the hemorrhaging, the infections, the deaths.


133 posted on 08/16/2007 8:01:11 PM PDT by ktscarlett66 (Face it girls....I'm older and I have more insurance....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mngran
Women historically were not the ones prosecuted. It was the "doctors." This is how it should be now. They should be tried in the same way as other murderers. (Ideally, if found guilty they should also be executed in a manner analogous to the type of abortion method they used. But then, such justice sounds strange to some...)

The abortive woman has to live with her decision, which is a heavy penalty - even for the ones who openly deny the abortion has any effect. There NO REASON, however, to contribute to their lie by suppressing facts about unborn babies and about the violence of the procedure itself.

134 posted on 08/16/2007 8:17:14 PM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.gohunter08.com Don't let the press pick our candidates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Bump


135 posted on 08/16/2007 8:27:35 PM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.gohunter08.com Don't let the press pick our candidates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: All

Life in prison for the abortionist - he’s the one who did the killing for MONEY.


136 posted on 08/16/2007 8:47:51 PM PDT by Sun (Duncan Hunter: pro-life/borders, understands Red China threat! http://www.gohunter08.com/Home.aspx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mngran

What the video proves is that the pro-abortionists are lying when they say that pro-lifers are anti-woman, are out to punish women, that they hate women, that they primarily want to control women’s lives, etc. If all those lies were true, then the pro-lifers would have all answered with proposals for jail terms, fines, etc.

The fact is that before Roe v. Wade, the number of women who were punished for abortion was minuscule. I would venture to say there were years that went by without a single woman’s facing any penalties. The abortion laws were enforced against the abortionists.

Any pro-abortion group that is going to make this the centerpiece of an advertising campaign is only going to be advertising the fact that all the smears against pro-life people as anti-woman, vindictive, etc., were just that—smears.

This video is nothing but an attempt to play “Gotcha.”

Being in favor of not killing babies does not impose on anybody the obligation to figure out the jail sentences for those who get abortions. And the fact that these pro-lifers couldn’t answer the question doesn’t in the least weaken the case against murdering babies.


137 posted on 08/16/2007 9:23:53 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

“And the fact that these pro-lifers couldn’t answer the question doesn’t in the least weaken the case against murdering babies.”

Right you are!

These Catch 22 questions that antilifers like to pose are plain, old DEFLECTION.


138 posted on 08/16/2007 9:37:54 PM PDT by Sun (Duncan Hunter: pro-life/borders, understands Red China threat! http://www.gohunter08.com/Home.aspx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom
"Usually when things are illegal there's a penalty attached," he explains patiently.

Ewwwwww. Vick is in HEAP big trouble - no?

139 posted on 08/16/2007 9:41:32 PM PDT by Libloather (That's just what I need - some two-bit, washed up, loser politician giving me weather forecasts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mngran

Woman - Murder one

Doctor - Murder one

Punisment..Simple... the time is determined by the laws of orgin.

In Jewish law (Moses time).. a life for a life.


140 posted on 08/16/2007 9:52:01 PM PDT by LowOiL (Yeah, I'm voting Conservative... how conservative... well Duncan Hunter conservative..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

In this case, it seems the murder charge is just to put as much weight behind an assault charge as possible. He assaulted his pregnant girlfriend with intent to abort a fetus, a girl whom presumably trusted him. This is more heinous than a fist-fight in a bar and more criminal weight should be applied - even though the physical crime may not differ much.

It’s the same strategy with hate crimes, which get a bad rap around here. Hates crimes are charged on top of other crimes to simply provide more weight to a charge - in that case, to punish the terrorizing of an already intimidated group. The heightened disruption of the public sphere by a terrorizing offense requires a weightier charge than one which does not terrorize others. Hate crime is, however, a poor moniker.

For example, a killer could kill redheads because he hated redheads. This would almost certainly not elicit a hate crime charge though because redheads are not typically threatened or intimidated. Of course, other minority groups already are threatened and intimidated for being who they are. A crime against them for being who they are can terrorize the community - and should carry a heavier charge.


141 posted on 08/17/2007 2:18:20 AM PDT by UndauntedR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

You’re only incentivizing home abortions - coat hangers, pills, gut-shots - these are likely to be more dangerous than a doctor.


142 posted on 08/17/2007 2:22:21 AM PDT by UndauntedR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
Because they are duped.

If abortion were to be made illegal, they can't claim to have been 'duped' unless they are retarded or mentally ill and not able to understand what it means for something to be against the law.

They don’t believe it is murder because the person doing the deed tells them it isn’t.

That won't be an excuse if abortion is made illegal.

There’s got to be some leniency granted, in my opinion.

I disagree. Either abortion is murder or it isn't. I most certainly believe it is. Therefore, it should be against the law, and the punishment should fit the crime.

143 posted on 08/17/2007 5:49:13 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: UndauntedR
You’re only incentivizing home abortions - coat hangers, pills, gut-shots - these are likely to be more dangerous than a doctor.

Pardon me, but bull cr@p. Some people are going to do patently illegal things in their homes. Society has a duty to tell them that such things are dangerous and not endorse them or make them legal just because "people are going to do it anyway."

And abortion is not just a woman doing something potentially harmful to herself. Every abortion is extraordinarily dangerous in every case--to the baby.
144 posted on 08/17/2007 6:19:45 AM PDT by Antoninus (P!ss off a leftist wacko . . . have more kids.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: ktscarlett66
Ask anyone who worked in an ER prior to Roe vs Wade. They’ll tell you about the supply. They treated the aftermath, the butchered uterus, the spiky fevers, the hemorrhaging, the infections, the deaths.

Of course, such things never happen now that abortions can be done in the safe, clean, non-coercive, open, and free environment of a Planned Barrenhood clinic....right? And they also provide counseling for women in such straights and inform law enforcement when a statutory rape has been reported. Right?

Let's face it. Abortion isn't much safer now--but it's a lot more prevalent. Given this, the old system seems highly preferable.

What this comes down to is: You don't condone a brutal and horrible act that kills a baby simply because people are going to do it anyway. That's the 1960s hippy-lib mentality. I reject it utterly.
145 posted on 08/17/2007 6:27:12 AM PDT by Antoninus (P!ss off a leftist wacko . . . have more kids.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: mngran

Whoa, I didn’t notice this piece was written by Anna Quindlen. Now it makes more sense. A more vicious, cold-hearted, Moloch-worshiping ghoul has never existed on planet Earth. She’s a good disciple of Maggie Sanger.


146 posted on 08/17/2007 6:31:13 AM PDT by Antoninus (P!ss off a leftist wacko . . . have more kids.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mngran

What was the punishment before Roe?

She should have to work in an orphanage.


147 posted on 08/17/2007 6:36:07 AM PDT by Jaded ("I have a mustard- seed; and I am not afraid to use it."- Joseph Ratzinger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ktscarlett66

The medical realities 35 years ago are a world of difference from those today. For one thing our antibiotics and technology is better, so women and girls have more hope when injured.

But the biggest changes since 1973 are the development of the prenatal ultrasound and social climate that should have taken the stigma from pregnancy.

Women and men are much more knowledgeable about the development of unborn children. We know that the child is not just a clump of cells - if that was ever believed by anyone. There are also resources available for women who find themselves pregnant but unable to mother. Unwed motherhood is not the stigma it once was.

This nation adapted to the repeal of slavery, to female sufferage, and will adapt to the repeal of Roe v. Wade.


148 posted on 08/17/2007 6:45:10 AM PDT by hocndoc (http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Pardon me, but bull cr@p. Some people are going to do patently illegal things in their homes. Society has a duty to tell them that such things are dangerous and not endorse them or make them legal just because "people are going to do it anyway."

You said:

No penalty for the woman. Prison for the butcher.

If abortion becomes illegal, then by not punishing the woman for having a home abortion, there is no point to the law. "It's a symbolic law." How special. You're incentivizing home abortions with no doctor involved - a much more dangerous situation for everyone.
149 posted on 08/17/2007 3:43:38 PM PDT by UndauntedR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: UndauntedR
If abortion becomes illegal, then by not punishing the woman for having a home abortion, there is no point to the law.

Tell you what. Punishing the abortionist seemed to work well enough before the rogue activist courts decided to turn established state laws on their heads. Let's try it. The situation was certainly better than what we have now. Or do you really think that 40 million less Americans since 1973 is a good thing? Many of those slain were from my generation.

You really do need to ask yourself what's worse--several thousand women dead over a period of many years from botched home abortions or 40 million dead babies? The answer is a no brainer, if you ask me. And with the rise of crisis pregnancy centers, there is even less reason to ever put a baby to death.
150 posted on 08/17/2007 9:28:59 PM PDT by Antoninus (P!ss off a leftist wacko . . . have more kids.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson