Skip to comments.How Much Jail Time? (For women who get abortions)
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 ...
>> Its an obvious trap. Even most ardent pro-lifers wouldnt seek a penalty against the woman.
It’s a ploy by the abortionists, but it’ll be short lived. Discussions like this one will help... and next time they try it, the protestor with a camera suddenly shoved in his face WILL have an answer.
On another note, I had forgotten just how much I detest Anna Quindlen and her smug elite self-righeousness.
I think it’s best for the pro life cause to think of the women as victims. That way it’s not us vs everyone that’s ever had an abortion. It’s us vs everyone that pushes abortion. The victims then become possible recruits to our side.
How Much Jail Time?
***As much as it takes. They can gobsmack that.
The penalty would then fall under the purview of the applicable murder statute (1st degree, 2d degree, manslaughter etc.)
Oh, and one more thing I forgot. The guy who kills a newborn when he’s drunk driving & hits a pregnant woman will get some jail time. How much? So, whatever jail time he’s getting...
newborn = Preborn
typing too fast
the apparent contradiction or whatever it is the author believes has been exposed doesn’t exist. The demonstrators are far more interested in preventing abortion than in prosecuting women.
But there are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can’t countenance the first, you have to accept the second. You can’t have it both ways.
What a load, the logical choice would be to hold the doctor and woman accountable. I have no problem doing that. The penalties would be determined on a case by case basis just as any other crime. I have a very hard time believing that no one could answer the question posed. I call BULL!
Or just take a visit to one of the populated blue states like CA were abortion will remain legal (forever)
Or just take a visit to one of the populated blue states like CA were abortion will remain legal (forever)
Murder One for the doctor; accomplice to murder for the mom and any third party who assists or pays for the killing.
Keeping abortions "safe" and "legal" intensifies this pressure by several orders of magnitude. Women who were blithely unconcerned about abortion before they became pregnant, suddenly find themselves facing an internal conflict they never dreamed possible, as the truth dawns that the issue is about ending the life of another person. But usually, she is the first and often the only one in her circle to realize this. All the rest, to whom the "fetus" is either an unreality or a conveniently disposable inconvenience, are lined up on the side of the "abort" option, with the law on their side. This leaves the new mother in the opposite corner, scared and confused by the intensity of the apprehensions she had no warning were coming, facing this entire phalanx singlehanded. Small wonder many just give up and try to numb themselves "until it's over", hoping the problem will eventually go away.
But it doesn't. Abortion makes the problem worse, while simultaneously slamming the door on the best healing opportunity.
Women have not been traditionally charged when they have abortions. It’s been the doctor who gets charged. I cannot think it would be any different if abortion were made illegal in various states in the future. I am sure the author of the article knows this. So this question is a straw man.
By these lights, only the doctors and others involved in performing the abortion itself would do any time for committing infanticide. The mother would be blameless before the law.
There is a difference between rhetoric and reality. You are playing into the Pro-Abortionist's hands (as if you didn't know...)
Also let's work on defunding groups involved in the abortion industry.
There is a difference between rhetoric and reality.
You are playing into the Pro-Abortionist's hands (as if you didn't know...)
So Susan Smith should not be in jail right now? After all, she murdered her children, so she must of had temporary insanity, by your attitude.
Generally under the law, anyone who participates in an illegal act resulting in death, intentional or not, is guilty of murder.
As an example, two guys go into a bank to rob it, with a third guy waiting outside as the getaway-car driver. One of the robbers panics and shoots a guard, killing him. The driver can then be prosecuted for murder, even though he had no direct involvement in the guard's death.
Another example - a woman gets a new job with a fringe benefit of life insurance on her family. She arranges with her boyfriend to kill her four-year-old son (making it look like a kidnapping), planning to collect the insurance money. The boyfriend kills the four-year-old son; both she and the boyfriend (along with a third guy who was just a "lookout") are convicted of murder. (That one actually happened - it's not hypothetical).
I understand that Planned Parenthood is asking the question thinking that it is absurd to blame the woman. She's the innocent bystander. Nay, nay, nay. If you go into a restaurant and order dinner, YOU are expected to pay for the dinner. If you drive someone else's car over the speed limit and get caught, who pays the ticket? The car owner or you? YOU do. It's only a question of responsibility, something our nation as succeeded in denying in just about anything done wrong. "It's not my fault" is the clarion cry. The devil MADE me do it. Well, I don't give a rats, um, you-know-what. Do the crime - pay the time. Perhaps an eye for an eye would stop abortion in it's tracks.
What about women who use abortifacients like RU-486? Or who use other methods on themselves? As an earlier person noted, how would they even know who had a "home" abortion?
Q: What should the penalty be for a woman who has an abortion?
A: Whatever the penalty is for murder.
The father for impregnating someone who didn’t want a baby....castration plus 2 yrs in jail..
Yep, I imagine most states will go after those who perform abortions instead of the women.
Next bogus objection to a ban on abortion?
The woman usually not the one doing it.
Good point. Another illustration that the concern raised in this article is moot.
What terrible analogies.
However, being found not guilty by reason of insanity is not a ticket to resume normal life. In many cases, those found to have been not guilty of a given crime by reason of insanity receive a court order to report to a state-sanctioned mental institution for psychiatric treatment, and are kept there until authorities determine that they are no longer a threat to themselves or others. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Foucha v. Louisiana (1992) that such periods of treatment were not punitive under the law, and could not be continued indefinitely, but it is perfectly legal to confine such persons for a long, long time. This is what happened to Yates; she is living at the North Texas State Hospital in Vernon in a room with Dena Schlosser, the Plano woman that murdered her infant daughter by cutting off the baby's arms. (I strongly suspect that it will be many decades before any court in Texas deems either woman psychologically fit to return to society.)
In the case of a typical abortion, the court could order that the mother receive such treatment for a limited time in lieu of imprisonment (which would serve no positive purpose). In cases like Yates and Smith, the court could order longer periods of psychiatric treatment, so long as these did not coninue "indefinitely". To me, this would seem to be a way to distinguish between some scared teenager who gets talked into an abortion by her boyfriend and a diabolical serial killer like Andrea Yates.
You don’t think children become pregnant? There are women who have been victims of incest and they were willing only insomuch as they didn’t have much of a choice but it would not legally be considered rape. There are just too many scenarios. As for the PBA, well, that should already be a criminal action IMHO.
Oh, and BTW, I do think it should be illegal; I’m just not in for punishing (i.e. jailing) the woman. Maybe fining her might be considered but even then it could be disastrous since many of these women are very poor.
I have no problem with punishment consisting of psychiatric treatment if the situation warrants it. I just think that at least in principle (since there is no chance that a law punishing a woman who has an abortion would pass), there should be a criminal penalty for taking a life, or getting someone to end someone’s life for you.
The discussion on this thread is fascinating.
Rape and incest are maybe 1% of all pregnancies that end in abortion. What about the other 99% who got pregnant by having willing, unprotected sex? Are they “victims” too?
Great video - Wonder if those women will think it over and decide on a penalty.
All of them are awful to contemplate. However, as a society, we must.
The sentence would have to be hard enough in order to provide a incentive to keep the baby and to insure the mother doesn’t have another unwanted baby.
Perhaps a mandatory 5 year sentence, serving at least 9 months incarcerated and the remainder spent on probation which requires family planning education and follow up.
I would take another approach - one that I think is already working. Make sure every girl & boy in high school (preferably jr. high) sees the 4-D ultrasounds of in-utero babies at all stages of development. No judgment - just show the evidence of human life. Life is precious, but not everyone has been taught that. Then, I would show them the actual products of abortion mills. The net result: I think I am seeing a lot more teen moms pushing baby carts around with no daddies in sight. Oh well.
The unborn child of a rape victim shouldn’t have the right to life because of his father?
Why punish the child for the acts of the father?
Gosh, you know, I . . . wouldn't have any hesitation at all about throwing Anna Quindlen in jail as an accessory to mass murder of other women's babies.
Then again, Hitlter's propaganda ministerthat would be Josef Goebbels, who promoted Nazi anti-Semitism with a zeal not unlike Anna Quindlen's zeal for baby-killingcommitted suicide in 1945 because he had some intimation of the fate that lay in store for him.
Maybe jail for Miss Quindlen is too tame. After all, she's too educated not to know a baby is a baby from the moment of conception. How about a Nuremberg-style trialhanged if found guilty?
Feeling gob-smacked yet, Miss Quindlen?
The article tries to rally indignation that there might be a penalty against women who get abortions, but in reality the response of the protesters at the clinic doesn’t support their point.
The protesters, when asked, did not respond with venom toward the women. They hadn’t even thought about how to “punish” them for their deed. That proves the general public doesn’t want to criminalize women, just save lives. There’s a big difference.
This subject brings out the true feminist in me.
I’m convinced that for victims of rape and incest, having to get up in those stirrups is another violation. For one thing, it’s not just like having a heavy period, no matter what anyone says, unless they have a medical abortion very early.
For another, this is her child, too.
Then, talk about pressure to have an abortion:
These women and girls are told all the usual lies, plus they are subjected to the implication that if they don’t want an abortion, they weren’t really raped. Some feel that they are responsible for family or their husband/boyfriend’s shame and powerlessness.
Abortion is just one more way to enforce the double standard, and underline that it’s a woman’s responsibility to “make it go away.”
ditto. Murder is murder.
Great minds think alike. See post 92.
I should have read all the responses before posting. :)
The penalty should be the same as for any other person who hires a contract hit.
Its murder and all involved should be punished as such.
As with any murder case, there are mitigating factors.
In most cases, I would think that the “provider” is committing pre-meditated murder and should be considered as a first-degree murderer. OTOH, the woman might be a scared child, or a married woman who was hoping for a girl, not a boy. There is a difference.
I agree. Here’s more fuel for the fire.
Ohio Teen Charged With Murder, Killed Girlfriend’s Baby After Abortion Refusal
Life News ^ | August 15, 2007 | Steven Ertelt
Posted on 08/16/2007 12:49:25 PM PDT by NYer
Cincinnati, OH (LifeNews.com) — An Ohio teenager accused of attacking his pregnant girlfriend and killing her unborn child after she refused to have an abortion will be charged with murder. Alfonso Price, a 15-year-old, allegedly attacked Kerria Anderson, 18, because she refused to have an abortion of her baby who Price fathered.
Legislatures of the various states have worked out a lot sub classifications of murder to the end of having different laws govern each, with different particulars of enforcement and punishment. This included abortion before the Roe vs Wade decision.
Now I'm not very familiar with those old state laws, but I'll bet they went after the abortionists more then the women. For the heart knows it would be more just to do so.