Posted on 08/16/2007 11:23:43 AM PDT by mngran
If we had well planned out orphanages with loving, involved workers there, then there would be no need for child protective services to remove a child from one bad home enviornment and placing them in another equally bad or worse enviornment.
These orphanages should have oversight by a committee of folks dedicated to making sure that each child is being cared for in a loving, disciplined enviornment.
It would also be a place that mother's with an unwanted pregnancy could leave her newborn to be given up for adoption.
Very well said. I posted something, although not nearly as articulate, which essentially said the same thing as your post.
The doctor gets charged with 1st degree murder and get life in prison or the death penalty, depending on the state the crime was committed in.
Next question?
Jail time for the woman is not nearly as effective as jail time for the person performing the abortion.
You GOT it kiddo. Most abortions are done under coercion or pressure. In fact, the very reality that abortions exist acts as a coercion of sorts because many of the woman’s friends, co-workers and so on will suggest it even if she has no desire to do it at all. It’s very complicated.
Think of our daughter, if you have one. When you make it personal, it’s a lot easier to be merciful.
If an unborn child has the same right to life as a newborn, then the penalty should be the same. A woman who hired a hitman to murder her newborn baby would do some jail time. Evidence of coersion should be taken account for mitigation purposes, but letting the mother walk away scot free treats women like children and encourages home abortions.
Oops “our” should mean “Your.” Don’t want to start any ugly rumors here on FR (ha ha).
Oy. What can a person say to you? Are you that hard-hearted? When I think of some of the nefarious ways a woman becomes pregnant; and think of how women can be so vulnerable to coercion, etc., to equate hiring a hit man to kill a baby with her seeking to get rid of it seems a little ludicrous.
It’s an obvious trap. Even most ardent pro-lifers wouldn’t seek a penalty against the woman.
I had not really thought about this before but if an unborn child is recognized as such then it would be the same as a mother standing by , and letting someone kill her birthed child. The penalty...well...that’s what juries are for.
I really don’t see this as a problem though. It is against the law to kill your kids now and almost none do. If abortions become illegal then we are probably only looking at rare cases.
I was thinking something more along the lines of conspiracy to commit murder, as though she was hiring a hitman to kill a husband. The abortionist is the actual murderer.
As with any criminal charge, matters of extenuation and mitigation should be taken into account during sentencing once guilt has been established.
That’s the point of the question.
The asker intends that abortion remain completely legal, in any and all circumstances, and even paid for by people who oppose it.
The answer is - there will be no crime to punish if there is no provider willing to do the crime.
You bring up a not-uncommon argument used by the pro-abortion community. They use it to elicit sympathy, but mostely, they would like us to be afraid of being accused of hating women or trying to control them and their sexuality.
In fact, we see human life as something to be protected and we abhor discrimination. We don’t discriminate between who is and who is not human enough to protect from intentional killing when they are not a threat to life.
The woman is guilty of self-harm, as well as causing the death of her child. We no longer treat attempted suicide and self-mutilation as criminal offenses, but as the result of mental disorders. Those who perform abortions on themselves truly do so “privately.” The State - our society - has a responsibility to treat these women to prevent them from being a danger to themselves.
How do we treat women who kill their child just after birth? Again, the punishments often take into account the state of mind of the woman.
The State regulates medical practice, however. The act of abortion for medical reasons should be treated as a medical procedure. If there is no medical reason - the risk of the life of the mother or permanent physical harm - the abortion should be treated as other homicides are treated.
On the other hand, if you arrange a murder, making an appointment with the killer, then drive the victim to the arranged spot to be killed, you're certainly an accomplice to murder at the very least, and not a victim.
It’s always a pleasure to read intelligent and well-thought-out replies/posts on FR.
I have both a son and a daughter and have raised both not to be criminals. If one were to kill their child before or after birth they would have to be punished.
Well, in the case of a hit man hiring, if the act is not consummated then it was conspiracy to commit if not attempted murder. However, if a contract killing is carried out, then the hiring person is is indicted as a first degree murderer. Paying someone else to pull the trigger doesn’t let one off the hook. In my approach, the extenuation is provided by the redeuction of a 1st degree charge down to manslaughter. As for the contract killer, let him or her fry in old sparky with a dry sponge.
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.