NYT: “What if abortion became illegal?”
I know how these things work. Planned Parenthood et al have obviously hired an expensive and influential public relations firm to pitch 2 story lines to MSM, with great success I might add:
Abstinence education is responsible for every STD, case of HIV/AIDs, and unwanted pregnancy in the world. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, aborting women will be shackled.
On the latter point, a May 2 New York Times editorial killed 2 birds with 1 stone cold lying editorial. It began by advancing evidentially challenged, faceless innuendo…
A lot of elected officials say they want to see Roe v. Wade repealed, clearing the way for abortion to be made illegal. But few of them go the extra step and say what they would like to see done to women who have abortions.
Foul. Name names, NYT. I’ll make it easy. Name even 1 pro-life elected official who has maintained ambiguity on that point. Rather, to a person they say they do not want aborting mothers prosecuted.
In fact, it is pro-aborts who are angry that when Roe is overturned, aborting mothers will not become fugitives. On that glorious day, pro-aborts have not and will not find one pre-Roe anti-abortion law that criminalizes aborting mothers. The pro-life community always has and always will focus on the perpetrators: the abortionists and accomplices, which will be PP et al.
Here’s the 2nd bird the NYT killed with its stone cold lying editorial: implicating John McCain by premiering a commercial made by a NARAL NY subsidiary “to inject this question into the presidential campaign,” according to the NYT.
In fact, while McCain has repeatedly stated he supports Roe’s repeal, he has expressed concern about that very point. During the 2000 presidential campaign, after reiterating he supported the overturn of Roe, McCain told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “But we all know, and it’s obvious, that if we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations.”
The NYT apparently has no hands free to do fact-checking while carrying water for pro-aborts.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I posted this late last night but in light of the MSM’s partnership and participation with Liberalism in the murder of innocent children in the womb, I’ll repost:
In the science fiction film, “Fantastic Voyage”, scientists develop a miniature submarine that travels through the body.
If I were an observer on this tiny vessel and was injected into a pro-abort’s brain, I can only imagine what I would see, here’s my report….
A lot of dead ends, twisted vessels, cells in conflict sending distored messages, huge disconnects between the various lobes, the remnants and carcasses of good thoughts left by the way side. Even my GPS can’t find its way since the brain waves directing the traffic within itself produces such an entropic wavelength signature that all correct instructions aren’t even detected or read. This is so contrary and utterly devastating to the original design instructions, the brain loses it’s own sense of self-awareness and is fully submitted to a force it was not even aware of. It’s a brain that was obvioulsy hacked and a toxic and pernicious virus called moral relativism and atheism absorbed into each and every cell. Yes, this evidence of self-deception appears to be voluntary in nature as the heart gates were still intact but not being activated and seem to be “hardened” in place. The brain was stuck in a do-loop of never ending subroutine and code repetitions that appear to be getting instructions from a code with the acronyms, “CNN”, “PP”, NARAL”, and “NOW”. We scientists have classified this disease, “Liberalism” and placed this under the main heading of False God Faith Syndrome.
What are the major symptoms? Well here are a few:
1. Being able to convince oneself that one can be “pro-choice” while simultaneoulsy not being pro-abortion. Our observatios reveals a callous membrane growth on the frontal lobe. We have seen this symptom is numerous other victims. Two notable of whom are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Of course, these two victims’ conditions have evidence of extreme complications which were irritated by blind ambition. We think Hillary’s condiiton was exacerbated by being married or should we say tortured by one Bill Clinton. We are not sure of Obama’s causitive, however, there is evidence that he also experienced torture by a “typical” white person. Treatment by a witch doctor named “Wright” over a 20 year period seemd to exacerbate the symptoms but appears to have induced an amnesia like symptom of ever having been treated. We have also heard reports of psychotic episodes and illusions of grandeur.
2. Believing that evolution is science when in fact is takes more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe that there’s a swiss cheese production facility on the moon, an idea put forth by one Mr. Robert Berger. Excuse me for a second, my body is morphing into a new species. I think I’m turning into “Iron Man”. Oh, sorry, it was gas.
3. Believing that we all were result of Pan Spermia or that Gomer Pyle really was not an alien.
4. Believing that there is “no god”. Now this really appearst to be the goal of the virus. If the virus is especially successful, the moral realtivism sympton kicks in which then feeds the pro-abortion mindset. Another indication is the loss of moral conviction which is then replaced by a mailicous hatred towards anyone trying to help them out of this situation. In clinical trials and observation, this is a confirmed pathogenic process which as of yet we have found very difficult to treat. Sexual addiction, more often than not, accompanies the symptoms along with the violent assertion that one is extremely happy. Similar symptoms are found in cases we reviewed of dead alcoholics.
Well, this is only a smidgeon of what we have found. We are only scratching the surface.
There is hope on the horizon, however. Many victims of this insidious disease have found that when they open the heart gate and DECIDE to listen and be healed, the light shines forth and appears to align the brain cells in such a way as to correct all malfunction and restore te original design intent.
The name of the medicine is called TRUTH and His name is the name above all other names, Jesus Christ marketed by a compnay that has been around, well, forever, called Heaven……
Jill, I think your title should say “What if abortion became illegal?” as opposed to “legal”, ehh?
No, in 1999, during his 2000 election campaign – McCain stated that he DIDN’T want Roe v. Wade overturned.
He also calls for the government-financed slaughter of the poor ensouled snowflake babies.
Why does John McCain hate the snowflake babies?
I can hear their tiny souls crying out to live…
GovWatch: 1999: Don’t force women to have illegal operations
Top McCain Flip Flops: #4. Roe vs Wade:
In August 1999, McCain told the San Francisco Chronicle that he would “not support repeal of Roe vs Wade” because it would force women to undergo illegal operations.
Source: GovWatch on 2008 campaign: “Top Ten Flip-Flops” Feb 5, 2008
Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research
Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?
A: I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It’s a tough issue. I support federal funding.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007
Laura, McCain clarified that he opposed Roe after the SFC story. Source, Media Matters:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702200008
Bobby, whoops! Good eye. Thanks, fixed.
PS to Laura: We all know McCain supports human embryo experimentation and hope he changes his mind.
PS to Laura: We all know McCain supports human embryo experimentation and hope he changes his mind.
Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 5, 2008 12:19 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So you support a candidate who wants to use federal funds to slaughter the poor snowflake babies.
You are a PROABORT!
“Snowflake babies” sounds so cute!
So in the future NARAL believes aborting women to be incarcerated for murder? Will they run an underground for them… aiding and abetting criminal offenders and thereby becoming criminals themselves?
“Snowflake babies” sounds so cute!
Posted by: Janet at May 5, 2008 12:27 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They are cute.
Here are a few that proaborts like Jill and John McCain forgot to kill:
http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/Biol540/images/20bushsnowflakes.jpg
Laura, puleeze. Find someone else to provoke.
On that glorious day, pro-aborts have not and will not find one pre-Roe anti-abortion law that criminalizes aborting mothers.
That’s an interesting distinction you make there Jill. What about the post-Roe trigger laws?
Gee, who wrote THIS entry on January 28th?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
January 28, 2008
McCain plays politics with embryos and us
Surprise.
John McCain parsed words and made contradictory statements to reiterate support for human embryo experimentation last week, according to the Catholic News Agency, January 26:
Sen. McCain called his decision to back the research “a very agonizing and tough decision.”
He continued, saying, “All I can say to you is that I went back and forth, back and forth on it and I came in on one of the toughest decisions I’ve ever had, in favor of that research. And one reason being, very frankly, is those embryos will be either discarded or kept in permanent frozen status.”…
Referring to the recent break through in stem cell research which allows scientists to use skin cells to create stem cells, McCain said that, “I believe that skin stem cell research has every potential very soon of making that discussion academic…. Sam Brownback and others are very encouraged at this latest advance….”
McCain cited leftover embryos as his primary reason for supporting escr, of which there are, in actuality, few. Where was the reporter asking why this decision was “angonizing” and “tough”? McCain needed to say out loud he understands this is killing unwanted humans.
Then McCain said he hoped new discoveries would render escr unnecessary. So the problem of leftover embryos would return. What next would McCain propose to alleviate this problem, if he cares so much? Again, where are reporters asking these questions?
Finally, note McCain did not say he himself was encouraged by the news that researchers may have unlocked a way to make adult stem cells pluripotent like embryo stem cells. He said Brownback, a Catholic, was encouraged.
So don’t expect McCain to abandon support in that event.
I so hate the fact I have to dissect most politicians’ words.
The Republican I least want to see as the presidential nominee next to Rudy Giuliani is John McCain. Over and over McCain has betrayed pro-lifers, and badly, from McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, which shuts us out of the political process close to elections, to the Gang of 14, when he neutered not only us but his own party.
Jill, Like on another planet? It’s OK, I don’t mind.
Laura, Just followed the link where your photo came from and noticed the teacher’s name for the course Biol540 is Dr. Kathleen A. Marrs. Who calls them snowflakes anyways? I don’t see an article referenced.
Here’s another link with cute/interesting pictures (see the kitten in the measuring cup): http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/n100/news.html
Here ‘ya go, Janet:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/28/national/main712541.shtml
Anti-choice extremists have always advocated the execution of women who abort- even where the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest.
This is why their extreme, crazy positions will never fly with rational people.
Laura, you know what I’m going to say. Circumstances have changed. It’s either McCain or a dastardly duo of wild-eyed pro-aborts like you.
Anti-choice extremists have always advocated the execution of women who abort- even where the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest.
Only a proabort extremist could post this nonsense, who ever you are, anonymous.
Haven’t SEVERAL of the regular posters on here flat out stated that they would support women who abort being charged with murder?
Haven’t several politicians already started the process of trigger laws that would make having an abortion a criminal act?
If so, why should they be treated differently than any other criminal or murderer?
And if they shouldn’t be treated differently, how the heck is this article far-fetched?
Hey Anon,
…Could you provide your source for this statement?
Wait, I’m a little confused. You’re saying if abortion was made illegal, there’d be no consequences even if an abortion was performed?
Or what, no jail time? I don’t get it. Why make something illegal if there will be no consequences for doing it?
I should add – no consequences for the mothers*
I know you all want the abortionists to hang, but mothers can self-inflict abortions without the aid of an abortionist.
Sorry, just wanted to clarify.
@HisMan: You’re nowhere near as clever as you obviously think you are.
Didn’t Heather say very much the “murderers” should be in prison? Isn’t that Zeke’s view?
Anyway, whether it’s the mothers or the doctors going to jail, the public isn’t going to have the stomach for it. Didn’t someone else say “you have to make it unthinkable before you make it illegal.”
Yes Amanda, Edyt and Hal, as you know, MANY of the regular posters on this site have advocated prison or death for the aborting women.
RSD and Patricia (and Jill) apparently don’t want to face the logical consequences of what they advocate.
I’ve just spent weeks downloading historic newspaper articles about abortion. The woman the abortion is done on was UNIFORMLY referred to as “the victim”, whether she lived or died. If she lived, she could even sue the guy who got her pregnant and arranged the abortion, for robbing her first of her virtue and second of her baby.
So the idea that overturning Roe would mean sending women to prison for pursuing abortions is based on at best abysmal ignorance, and at worst malicious slander.
That said, EVEN IF LAWS WERE PASSED THAT ALLOWED FOR PROSECUTING THE WOMAN WHO THE ABORTION IS PERFORMED ON, this would not “criminalize women” any more than laws against rape “criminalize men”. Women are, after all, capable of making CHOICES, including the CHOICE to break the law or not. They would CHOOSE if they wanted to become criminals by breaking laws.
What amazes me is that the bigger the lie, the more people just nod like bobble-head dolls and say, “Yup! Yup!”
I’ve just spent weeks downloading historic newspaper articles about abortion. The woman the abortion is done on was UNIFORMLY referred to as “the victim”, whether she lived or died. If she lived, she could even sue the guy who got her pregnant and arranged the abortion, for robbing her first of her virtue and second of her baby.
So the idea that overturning Roe would mean sending women to prison for pursuing abortions is based on at best abysmal ignorance, and at worst malicious slander.
That said, EVEN IF LAWS WERE PASSED THAT ALLOWED FOR PROSECUTING THE WOMAN WHO THE ABORTION IS PERFORMED ON, this would not “criminalize women” any more than laws against rape “criminalize men”. Women are, after all, capable of making CHOICES, including the CHOICE to break the law or not. They would CHOOSE if they wanted to become criminals by breaking laws.
What amazes me is that the bigger the lie, the more people just nod like bobble-head dolls and say, “Yup! Yup!”
Sorry about the double post. Computer belch.
@HisMan: You’re nowhere near as clever as you obviously think you are.
Posted by: Rae at May 5, 2008 2:37 PM
************
Nope – he’s not ….
“RSD and Patricia (and Jill) apparently don’t want to face the logical consequences of what they advocate.
Posted by: anonymous at May 5, 2008 2:48 PM”
——————————————
What logical consequences?..that the abortionists, will now have to go to jail and that pregnant women will now have a choice between giving the baby up for adoption or raising it? And that there will be more babies in the arms of loving moms (instead of dead babies inside cold dumpsters).
Hey, I can live with that!
McCain’s statement to Wolf Blitzer about
women in danger from illegal abortions shows that he isn’t a total idiot.
But you poor deluded anti-choicers still
think that everything will be hunky-dory if we
just make abortion illegal.All pregnant women
will give birth,all the “poor unborn children”
will be well taken care of,and everything will
be wonderful.Pathetic.
In other countries where abortion is illegal, women have been ordering (online) the abortificent misoprostol. Those who don’t do it right end up in the hospital.
Who do you punish then?
@HisMan: You’re nowhere near as clever as you obviously think you are.
Posted by: Rae at May 5, 2008 2:37 PM
Agreed. But in my old friend’s defense, the same could be said about most of us.
McCain’s statement to Wolf Blitzer about
women in danger from illegal abortions shows that he isn’t a total idiot.
But you poor deluded anti-choicers still
think that everything will be hunky-dory if we
just make abortion illegal.All pregnant women
will give birth,all the “poor unborn children”
will be well taken care of,and everything will
be wonderful.Pathetic.
Posted by: robert berger at May 5, 2008 3:17 PM
***********
Encore
“But you poor deluded anti-choicers still
think that everything will be hunky-dory if we
just make abortion illegal.”
———————————
Nope, Robert…that’s just the first step. Giving LIFE a chance. With LIFE, there’s HOPE.
Who do you punish then?
Posted by: Edyt at May 5, 2008 3:18 PM
————————————-
Why would you want to punish the woman who has suffered enough? IF the woman is desperate enough to do self-abortion, that person needs help NOT persecution.
What logical consequences?..that the abortionists, will now have to go to jail and that pregnant women will now have a choice between giving the baby up for adoption or raising it? And that there will be more babies in the arms of loving moms (instead of dead babies inside cold dumpsters).
Hey, I can live with that!
Posted by: RSD at May 5, 2008 3:11 PM
*****************
No ‘dead babies’ involved.
And of course you can live with it – its no skin off YOUR ***. YOU wont be the one dealing with the pregnancy or dealing with any of the difficulties or dealing with any of the expenses so of course YOU dont have a problem. And of course its really all about YOU and what makes YOU happy and the woman just needs to understand how much more important YOU are than she is.
TR,
I’ve been livin’ with my 3rd baby for the past 9 months and have been dealing with a miscarriage that my wife had 3 months ago…
Don’t tell me I don’t have to deal with difficulties…I am in it for the long haul.
Nope, Robert…that’s just the first step. Giving LIFE a chance. With LIFE, there’s HOPE.
Posted by: RSD at May 5, 2008 3:25 PM
*************
If a woman knows she isnt in a position to cope with the demands of a pregnancy, where do you get the egocentric delusion that you can second guess her and you know more about her life than she does?
How does she knows if she doesn’t try? Where do you get your delusion that she can’t?
Anon: 2:48: Yes Amanda, Edyt and Hal, as you know, MANY of the regular posters on this site have advocated prison or death for the aborting women.
Not the pro-lifers. The only ones advocating prison that I can recall are a few PC’rs who want to plant a false fear into the rest of us that women would have to be jailed. Advocating death? Nonsense.
Personally, I would be in favor of issuing a monetary fine to the woman aborting, and a larger fine for the abortionist as a deterrence to choosing an abortion.
yeah, Janet…I don’t recall any pro-lifer stating they want the women to go to jail…
Janet…
Zeke, Heather, and Yllas I know for a FACT have repeatedly stated that women who abort should be charged with murder.
I know several others have as well, but can’t recall names.
How does she knows if she doesn’t try? Where do you get your delusion that she can’t?
Posted by: RSD at May 5, 2008 3:39 PM
***********
What part of “SHE knows” confuses you? ‘How does she know if she doesnt try?’ – that has to be one of the most deliberately stupid arguments an antichoicer can come up with. So shes supposed to have a child and HOPE she can manage? and if she cant, what then? typical complete disregard for the woman pregnant –
TR,
I’ve been livin’ with my 3rd baby for the past 9 months and have been dealing with a miscarriage that my wife had 3 months ago…
Don’t tell me I don’t have to deal with difficulties…I am in it for the long haul.
Posted by: RSD at May 5, 2008 3:33 PM
************
As I pointed out, you harbor the egocentric delusion that its all about YOU. Some stranger has an ‘obligation’ to continue a pregnancy because HER difficulties are NOTHING compared to YOURS – talk about egomania!
Janet…
Zeke, Heather, and Yllas I know for a FACT have repeatedly stated that women who abort should be charged with murder.
I know several others have as well, but can’t recall names.
Posted by: Amanda at May 5, 2008 3:51 PM
***********************
I think Bethany has made comments along those lines.
“So shes supposed to have a child and HOPE she can manage? and if she cant, what then? typical complete disregard for the woman pregnant –
Posted by: TexasRed at May 5, 2008 3:51 PM”
——————————————
..There are support services she can avail of whether she CHOOSES to keep the child or give it up for abortion.
All you want is to kill the baby. Typical complete disregard for human life.
..There are support services she can avail of whether she CHOOSES to keep the child or give it up for abortion.
All you want is to kill the baby. Typical complete disregard for human life.
Posted by: RSD at May 5, 2008 3:57 PM
****************
Youre a liar.
I want the woman to do what she knows is best. I respect her judgment and her right to choose. You harbor the deranged delusion that YOU know what is best and she somehow just doesnt know as much about her life as YOU do. Its all about YOU. YOU have no regard for the life of the woman pregnant. And there is no baby involved. There is oblivious nonviable tissue YOU value more than the woman who is pregnant and think that obsession should give you the right to rob the woman of both her bodily autonomy and self determination. Its all about YOU and YOUR complete self absorption and egocentricity.
..There are support services she can avail of whether she CHOOSES to keep the child or give it up for abortion.
All you want is to kill the baby. Typical complete disregard for human life.
Posted by: RSD at May 5, 2008 3:57 PM
****************
Youre a liar.
I want the woman to do what she knows is best. I respect her judgment and her right to choose. You harbor the deranged delusion that YOU know what is best and she somehow just doesnt know as much about her life as YOU do. Its all about YOU. YOU have no regard for the life of the woman pregnant. And there is no baby involved. There is oblivious nonviable tissue YOU value more than the woman who is pregnant and think that obsession should give you the right to rob the woman of both her bodily autonomy and self determination. Its all about YOU and YOUR complete self absorption and egocentricity.
Hey Hal:
I missed ya. One less dude to pick on was not fun. It got boring just picking on girls and that includes SoMG. Ha, ha.
Anyway, I hope that whatever you did you had a good time and enjoyed your family, your two little bundles of joy and wifey.
I assume you went on a vacation. But if you didn’t I hope it was pleasant.
Anyway, I look forward to your comments again.
Welcome back, your friend/irritant and Mr. I’m-not-as-clever-as-I-think-I-am, HisMan.
TR:
Cut RSD some slack will ya. I’d say he needed some prayer and I’m gonna do that.
You got a problem with that?
Hey RSD:
I just want to encourage you. I have been where you are and it is tough dealing with all the conflicting emotions of being a husband and a dad.
Remember, winners never quit. Hang in there man.
TR,
Don’t make me bring out the Monkey Island post again….
Amanda 3:51: Janet…
Zeke, Heather, and Yllas I know for a FACT have repeatedly stated that women who abort should be charged with murder.
I know several others have as well, but can’t recall names.
Heather hasn’t been on in quite a while, I don’t remember her well. Zeke and Yllas are, well, Zeke and Yllas, two of a kind. If they said they wanted the aborting woman and or doctor in jail or dead, it doesn’t surprise me, but I bet they were just trying to get a rise out of all the PC’rs here. I doubt they were serious. They may prove me wrong in the future. They are by far the exceptions to the rule thatPL’rs do not advocate jail time for aborting women if and when abortion becomes illegal. It’s a myth.
Thanks guys. I just chalk up TR’s insults as redemptive suffering…LOL.
I think when many of my pro-life friends say they would not charge the woman with murder, they are skipping a crucial step. This is the way I see it working;
A priori, a women who is found guilty of procuring an abortion would be charged with murder. However, just like with any other murder case, there may be many mitigating factors to take into consideration. This is ESPECIALLY true if abortion was made illegal in this country, say, tomorrow because it has been the law of the land for so long and because people are so used to, there has been such a large campaign to say that abortion is OK, many women believe it’s just a blob of tissue, etc. etc. These and many, many other reasons (pressure by the bf, confusion) I think should VERY MUCH be taken into consideration when deciding what is to be done with the women who procures an abortion. It seems to me that all these kinds of mitigating factors could reduce the “punishment” of many women to something as simple as some community service.
There is also the point that we’re much more interested in putting away the abortionist rather than the women. If the woman were to testify against the abortionist, this could greatly if not completely reduce her sentence. We see this in drug dealers now. People are willing to grant leneancy to small time drug dealers in order to arrest and convict big time drug dealers who are much more dangerous.
The bottom line is that I don’t think we should have this either/or mentality where either abortion is a-OK and everything is fine and dandy OR abortion is illegal and every women who has one needs to be executed or locked up with serial killers. That just isn’t the way our government works. Especially given the nature of abortion now and how little the average person would change on it if it were made illegal tomorrow, we need to be open to the possibility that there is a balance here.
Bobby,
I have to disagree on the murder charge. Lawyers across the country might be thrilled at the prospect of more court time, I can’t see any other benefit to it. I think our courts are too full as it is now. I’ve mentioned fines a few different times, and no one ever comments on it. Maybe I’m out in left field, but I say, hit people where it hurts – the pocketbook. If they are not going to be convinced abortion is wrong on moral grounds, then maybe fines will deterr.
I think Bethany has made comments along those lines.
When?
Bobby, Yeah that is it! Charge them with murder, and then let them try to plea bargain it down to Janet’s $50 fine!
Makes sense!
Welcome to Crazy Town, home of the anti-choice extremists.
“?Bobby, Yeah that is it! Charge them with murder, and then let them try to plea bargain it down to Janet’s $50 fine!
Makes sense!”
Good, I’m glad this makes sense to you.
fines would require time of our busy courts too. Or don’t you think a woman who had an abortion would just love to contest the charges? These will be interesting trials.
Anon, I’m thinking several hundred dollars, quite a bit more than a speeding ticket…
It is interesting to note that those who would consider themselves moral relativists are absolutists when it comes to the punishment for murder.
Bobby, I aqree with you.
Each case needs to handled separately like any other crime.
..and lets not forget, many Mothers who kill their born infants already get little or no time…so, pro-lifers need not fall into the trap of the lying, disgraceful NYTimes.
Anon,
You’re killin’ me here…we extremist if we charge them with murder. BUT We’re extremists if we give them a fine. We’re extremists if we only charge the abortionist with murder since he is the one that is actually doing the killing…
Maybe you’re the one that’s extreme???
Why do woman who have abortions have them?
If we as pro-lifers do everything possible to help a woman through those difficulties and she is then without excuse, then and only then should she be charged with murder. As a community is it even possible to create an environment where a woman would never even consider having an abortion?
I think in the long run it would be more economical to do the right thing than to do the wrong that we are now doing, i.e., killing babies as a way out of difficulties. Let’s be honest though. How many of us would be willing to pay more taxes, give more volunteeer time at our churches/community centers/CPC, etc., even invite desparate mothers into our homes to help if the payoff were to eliminate abortion? If you’re not doing it now, you won’t do it when R v W is repealed. In one sense the pro-aborts got it right and we need to listen.
Perhaps the way to end abortion is to pour such love and support into those in trouble that in that they see hope and love and compassion. However, in no way do I think that R v W should not be repealed. So, until then, if PP gets’ $300,000,000 for abortion so should the pro-life side.
Of those of you who have posted on this site who have had abortions, is there any thing we as pro-lifers could have done to change your mind about having that abortion or would you have just had it anyway no matter what? What could we do differently? Please be honest.
BTW, I’m the first to admit that my solution could very well not be the best one, or could even be awful! But just because there isn’t a unanimous consensus on what action to take after an illegal abortion does not mean that we therefore should not make abortion illegal. IF abortion is the unjustified killing of a human being, then it is the unjustified killing of a human being. Killing an innocent person needs to be illegal, regardless of the legal ramifications and difficulties. So while the best solution may not be easily discerned, that really has no bearing on the question of whether or not what is possibly murder should be legal or not.
Wait, if you are going to hit these convicted murderers with a $50.00 fine, then certainly you believe all murderers should receive the same punishment?
Certainly you believe that a woman who commits this “murder” and the guy who buried Jessica Lunsford alive should receive the same $50.00 fine?
Now Laura,
Do you think that someone that shot their husband in a fit of passion should be treated the same way as John Wayne Gacy? Intent makes a big difference.
For instance, could we hold TR to the same standard as Bethany? TR could plead insanity. Or at least claim that she doesn’t believe what she did is wrong. She doesn’t even believe it’s a human being. So how could she be as culpable as someone that kills scores of people in cold blood?
Sally, your comment at 7:59 has been deleted. Have some common decency, please.
For instance, could we hold TR to the same standard as Bethany? TR could plead insanity. Or at least claim that she doesn’t believe what she did is wrong. She doesn’t even believe it’s a human being. So how could she be as culpable as someone that kills scores of people in cold blood?
Posted by: mk at May 5, 2008 8:40 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I must have missed something.
What did Red do?
Red forgot to grow up.
Hmm,
Seems some person has a faulty memory. And their name is Amanda.
Therapy,Therapy, and more therapy.
You do not have a right to murder what you have made with another human being. You are not a judge,jury and executioner of another life.
Granted, Texasrednecks have a long tradition of murdering life for reasons as intelligent as “He took a swig of my beer, and made fun of my Sportster”, to “He touched my tattoo, so I killed him, deader then a door nail”.
Yes, some people will spend years having to adjust their traditional Texasredneck thinkin’, but that is what therapy(talking) and psycho active drugs are made for.
And Texasredneck, I heard about you trying to increase your Texiness by vomiting on some “Charlie Dunn made boots” at Luckenbach this weekend. You Texasrednecks, always pitchin a puke after havin a Chimay or two. BTW, did you get your man to take that whoopin’, that was a comin’ for puking on a Texan’s boot?
You Texasrednecks, always good for a laugh after 12 o’clock on a weekend night. The best part is when you have your little shavers go around the parkin lot, where your fancy Italian(no offence Bobby Bambino) leather trimmed hogs are laying on their sides, and those little shavers are collectin all that loose change that fell outta your leather pantaloons while you received a just beatin for vomitin’ on a Texan’s boots.
On the other side of the coin, one night I heard this Texasredneck wommin, after having a imported Mexican beer, tell her little un, “I should have abor”, and then her little shaver knocked her teeth out. Hmm, which one is it, Amanda or Texasredneck that has one tooth left? My memory ain’t what it use to be Texasredneck, just like your side saddle sore, named Amanda.
Even if Roe/Wade gets overturned and is not replaced by a Freedom of Choice Law, the most you can hope for is to increase the cost of an abortion by adding to it the cost of a bus trip, or maybe in some places a plane ticket, and a day or two in a cheap hotel IF you can pass laws requiring waiting periods in pro-choice states, plus the cost of taking a day or two off from work. Call it $1,500.00.
I guess you’d also make it impossible for health insurance plans in right-to-life states to offer reimbursement for abortions. So to go get an abortion a patient living in a right-to-life state might spend as much as $2000.00 out-of-pocket, a lot less if the nearest pro-choice state has no required waiting period. Would you go through labor and delivery in order to save $2000.00? Maybe if you were very poor.
In order to outlaw abortion across the USA, you would have to accomplish one of the following goals: 1. get a 60-vote majority in the Senate to overcome a filibuster AND have a supportive President at the same time, OR 2. get 67% majorities in both houses to overcome a presidential veto, OR 3. get controlling majorities in all 50 state governments and ban abortion state by state. None of these three outcomes is at all likely to occur in the forseeable future.
Laura,
I must have missed something.
What did Red do?
She didn’t “do” anything. I only chose her because she doesn’t believe that fetuses are humans. So if she had an abortion it would be different if say, SoMG had one because he believes they are human, as well as person. So he would be more culpable. He knows what he is doing is taking a human life, whereas TR doesn’t.
Sorry, didn’t mean to make it sound like TR was in hot water…lol
None of these three outcomes is at all likely to occur in the forseeable future.
Hope springs eternal.
I guess I just don’t get it. All over Jill’s site you have people bemoaning the brutal murder of the unborn yet… here you’re all like, “No big deal, she can pay a fine.”
The way I see it is… if it’s murder, it’s murder. And yes, I know every murder trial is different and every murderer gets different amounts of time. But the point is, murderers don’t, well, walk away with murder! They get jail time. Which is why self-aborting women would be technically, murderers.
And when I hear responses like the ones here, I shudder. Because what I can foresee happening is that rich people continue to have abortions (no big deal, right? They can pay the fine) and the poor get poorer either in the attempt to have abortions or in the attempt to care for more children than they can handle.
I don’t know. It all just seems INCREDIBLY in the favor of the privileged wealthy and a bit shortsighted as to what the consequences of murder should be.
(Not that I want to see these women prosecuted naturally, but you have to admit that murder is an offense worthy of a hefty sentence. Unless you’re suggesting the lives of the unborn are worth less than a born person?)
Edyt wrote:
The way I see it is… if it’s murder, it’s murder. And yes, I know every murder trial is different and every murderer gets different amounts of time. But the point is, murderers don’t, well, walk away with murder! They get jail time. Which is why self-aborting women would be technically, murderers.
Logic error. Our laws recognize many different kinds of killing, some of which are even permissible. For example, we are allowed to use lethal force to defend our own lives. (Self-defense law varies from state to state, but it’s generally allowed.) As another example, OJ was found guilty of killing his wife in a civil lawsuit, even though he had already been acquitted due to procedural problems in the criminal trial.
I don’t believe that abortion is murder in either the moral or legal senses of the word. Abortion is certainly an unjust form of killing, and we should certainly take legal steps to prevent it. However, that doesn’t mean that we need to send aborting women (or even the abortionists themselves) to the electric chair. The law can be a blunt instrument at times, but it can also be an instrument of precision.
All of that said, I do support the possibility of criminal penalties for women who abort. I do not think that our laws will show the proper respect for life until we are willing to punish women who choose to have their unborn children killed. There has been much said about the possibility that many women are deceived by pro-choice lies and might not know what they’re doing when they get an abortion — and I generally agree with that statement — but ignorance of the law (or biology) is no excuse.
Extreme emotional distress might be a possible defense, just as it is for many other crimes. That could be decided by our juries & judges.
So there’s at least one pro-lifer who is willing to put women who get abortions into prison: Me. I’ve said it before, and I won’t back down now. That said, I’m definitely in the minority, even among pro-lifers. More importantly, not a single pro-life legislator agrees with me. Even more importantly, not one of the pre-Roe or post-Roe abortion laws agrees with me. My opinion notwithstanding, the central claim of the PP ad is utterly false.
It is interesting to note that those who would consider themselves moral relativists are absolutists when it comes to the punishment for murder.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 5, 2008 6:16 PM
Hmm????????
Edyt:9:15: “If it’s murder it’s murder”
“(Not that I want to see these women prosecuted naturally, but you have to admit that murder is an offense worthy of a hefty sentence. Unless you’re suggesting the lives of the unborn are worth less than a born person?)”
Of course I’m not. Which is it in your opinion? You can’t have it both ways. There’s no easy answer is there?
Edyt:9:15: I guess I just don’t get it. All over Jill’s site you have people bemoaning the brutal murder of the unborn yet… here you’re all like, “No big deal, she can pay a fine.”
Fines would be a great source of revenue for cities. (Several hundred dollars, not $50.00) The city could give the money to pregnancy centers.The government is already giving tax-payer money to Planned Parenthood and the like to help women who want to keep their babies. It would be a win- win situation. Good for the economy.
I don’t know. It all just seems INCREDIBLY in the favor of the privileged wealthy and a bit shortsighted as to what the consequences of murder should be.
As we all know, the 11th Commandment is “Though shalt not do anything that favors the wealthy”.
There must be a better argument than that?
And when I hear responses like the ones here, I shudder. Because what I can foresee happening is that rich people continue to have abortions (no big deal, right? They can pay the fine) and the poor get poorer either in the attempt to have abortions or in the attempt to care for more children than they can handle.
Arguing that abortion is a necessity for the poor is an insult to poor people everywhere. Someone earlier made a the comment “where there’s a will there’s a way”. Amen!
Arguing that abortion is a necessity for the poor is an insult to poor people everywhere.
Well, sure, but that doesn’t change the fact that if you only make the crime of having an abortion a fine, wealthy women who don’t want to continue their pregnancies will have very little incentive to not have an abortion.
Poor women may not have abortions anymore, but the wealthy can throw away thousands without blinking.
Obviously, speeding tickets haven’t deterred people from speeding if they want to… why should a higher “price” so to say, for abortion deter people from having them?
Again, I’m not trying to say abortion should or should not be illegal, but if it is illegal you have to look at what would be a practical punishment (for all people) for having one. It just doesn’t seem like the idea of a fine is very well thought out.
Offering to pay another person to commit a crime is itself a crime. The crime is called “solicitation”.
If abortion were illegal, then it would also be a crime even to ASK for an abortion.
There’s no way around it.
Too many of you talk about Roe vs. Wade being “repealed”.
Roe vs. Wade is not a law and therefore cannot be repealed. It is a court decision. Court decisions can be OVERTURNED, but not repealed. Only laws can be repealed.
Please stop making this error, all of you. Errors in word-use cause errors in thinking.
Edyt,
This post will probably be gone by the time you would read it…but…
I think the focus would be on the abortionists. The idea being that serious jail time would deter them from performing them.
Which leaves woman self aborting through illegal drugs or worse. What do we do with failed suicide victims? Suicide is illegal, and it is an attempt to take the life of a human being (granted it’s themself, but still). So maybe women that try to self abort would be given the help they need (whether it’s psychological, financial…) just like a suicide attempt would.
You’re right tho, I’m not sure a fine would do it.
I guess the goal is to stop as many abortions as possible. It’s not really about punishing women.
Sort of like drug sales. Using coke is illegal, but the guy snortin’ a line is not really who the cops are after. They are interested in the guy selling large quantities. Putting abortionists out of business would be a giant step, to ending abortion all together.
I also think that information might finally make it mainstream (no more holding signs up on street corners) and along with sex ed, we could show the real face of what abortion is and what abortion does. If it was out in the open, it would go a long way to helping see exactly why we are against this.
So education, incarcerating abortionists, arresting anyone selling abortion drugs, and offering more help to women in need would be a great beginning without resorting to locking women up. Remember, many of these women, no most women, don’t really know what abortion is. They only think they do. So they wouldn’t be “murdering” their child…they wouldn’t understand what they were doing in a technical sense. It might be a few generations (didn’t they let slaves go free little by little…I mean didn’t many slaves stay on, just not as slaves?) before a new generation is finally born that is taught from day one that abortion is wrong. Look how many generations we’ve been working on racism…and slavery ended how many years ago? Old ideas die hard, so it will take some time before the idea that abortion is okay is weaned out of our systems…
SoMG,
Errors in word-use cause errors in thinking.
Posted by: SoMG at May 6, 2008 5:12 PM
Truer words were never spoken. It’s what got us here in the first place. Choice, fetus, murder, blob of cells…
MK, you wrote: “I think the focus would be on the abortionists. The idea being that serious jail time would deter them from performing them.”
A credible threat to suspend their licences to practice medicine would deter almost all docs from providing illegal abortions, except perhaps to patients who were also trusted friends. Illegal abortions would be provided (mostly) by non-doctors, who could be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a licence.
MK, you wrote: “Putting abortionists out of business would be a giant step, to ending abortion all together.”
Nope. The abortionists you put out of business would quickly be replaced.
I don’t believe that criminalizing abortion would even lower the abortion rate. And even if it did, you wouldn’t know because it would be extremely difficult to measure the number of illegal abortions. You would have to estimate the number based on the number of women who showed up in the ER with complications. Unless you could determine what percentage of the illegal abortions were causing complications, you would not be able to estimate the number of illegal abortions with any hope of reliability. You would exchange the status quo for a big question mark.
Too many of you talk about Roe vs. Wade being “repealed”.
Roe vs. Wade is not a law and therefore cannot be repealed. It is a court decision. Court decisions can be OVERTURNED, but not repealed. Only laws can be repealed.
Please stop making this error, all of you. Errors in word-use cause errors in thinking.
Posted by: SoMG at May 6, 2008 5:12 PM
These are legal semantics, I think you mean what we know when we say that.
You would exchange the status quo for a big question mark.
Knowing the numbers doesn’t matter to the average person on the street. It would be better to have a question mark than the status quo, in my opinion.
The abortionists you put out of business would quickly be replaced.
By whom? Do you mean they’d just move to a new “store front” down the street?
Robert Berger,
How old are you?
SoMG,
A credible threat to suspend their licences to practice medicine would deter almost all docs from providing illegal abortions, except perhaps to patients who were also trusted friends. Illegal abortions would be provided (mostly) by non-doctors, who could be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a licence.
MK, you wrote: “Putting abortionists out of business would be a giant step, to ending abortion all together.”
When I say putting them out of business I mean by either as you say, taking away their licenses or putting them in jail…I don’t mean like now, where we see one abortion clinic shut down, only to see two new ones open.
And I realize that we won’t completely stop abortion, any more than we have stopped rape. People will do what they are gonna do, but I want to live in a civilized country, one where it’s on the books that this is a horrible, horrible practice. We’ll just have to deal with unlawful abortions the way we deal with all crime. Catch them when we can…
What would you suggest if you were pro life and trying to end abortion? (That’s a serious question, by the way)
SoMG,
I don’t believe that criminalizing abortion would even lower the abortion rate. And even if it did, you wouldn’t know because it would be extremely difficult to measure the number of illegal abortions
C’mon, seriously, you think there would still be a million and half abortions every year in this country? Really? I don’t. And other countries often follow our lead. I think it would millions of lives saved, tho it might take some time for the rest of the world to change.
MK, you wrote: “you think there would still be a million and half abortions every year in this country?”
You’d never know.
Janet, you wrote: “The abortionists you put out of business would quickly be replaced.
By whom? Do you mean they’d just move to a new “store front” down the street?”
No, once you suspended someone’s licence I think they would stop.
They would be replaced by non-physicians.
Too many of you talk about Roe vs. Wade being “repealed”.
Roe vs. Wade is not a law and therefore cannot be repealed. It is a court decision. Court decisions can be OVERTURNED, but not repealed. Only laws can be repealed.
Please stop making this error, all of you. Errors in word-use cause errors in thinking.
Thank you, SoMG! I didn’t even think before writing that, but you’re absolutely correct.
I don’t think making it illegal will stop abortions either. Clearly, in other countries where abortion is illegal, women still have them in large numbers.
I believe the only thing that will change the number of people that have abortions is by changing the way we treat our women, first of all, secondly our pregnant woman (no job discrimination, no violence, no pay cuts, etc), and thirdly our children (by ways of better and more available child care and health care, and so forth).
Unfortunately, my solutions to abortion are just liberal BS working toward raising taxes, so no one gives a damn about those things.
/rant
“I believe the only thing that will change the number of people that have abortions is by changing the way we treat our women, first of all, secondly our pregnant woman (no job discrimination, no violence, no pay cuts, etc), and thirdly our children (by ways of better and more available child care and health care, and so forth).”
Edyt,
would you then be pro-life if all were handed out? I mean, there will always be violent people and some employers who discriminate…or are you just putting up other barriers?
MK, you wrote: “What would you suggest if you were pro life and trying to end abortion? ”
To END it? Meaning reduce the abortion rate to zero? You can’t accomplish that no matter what you do. If I were trying to REDUCE abortion rates?
I only know of one type of change that has been positively demonstrated to reduce abortion rates: improving the availability of contraceptives, which has substantially lowered abortion rates in former-communist Eastern Europe. Obviously this does not apply in the USA because contraceptives are already just about as available as they can be. You might be able to accomplish something by improving the availability of contraceptives in parts of the Third World. On the other hand, if I were a right-to-lifer I might object on the grounds that contraceptives do not SAVE unborn lives, they prevent them.
How would I go about trying to lower the abortion rate in the USA? I don’t know if there is any way to do it. How about having abortion docs provide b/c counselling to patients to prevent additional unwanted pregnancies? Oops, they already do that.
I guess my best suggestion, which is not a very good one, would be: do something to increase the high-school graduation rate among girls. High-school dropouts have higher abortion rates than high-school graduates. So: Build better pre-schools. Reduce class sizes (that means hire more and better teachers). Hire more tutors. Go with Newt Gingrich’s idea of rewarding high school students with money for staying and succeeding in school. Unfortunately, the reduction in the abortion rate you could acheive this way would probably be small and delayed and difficult to measure. And again, you’d be preventing abortions by preventing unplanned pregnancies, not by saving unborn life.
That’s a different question: How to go about reducing the abortion RATIO–that’s the likelihood that a given pregnancy will be aborted. To make pregnant women less likely to want abortions–that’s even harder. You’d have to try to persuade them to grow their pregnancies without violating their right not to listen to you. Maybe increase general knowledge of embryology and fetal development–put more of it in high school curricula? Again, I’m pretty sure we’re already doing that, and the effect would probably be small.
Nope, I don’t think there’s any way to do it. Sorry.
SoMG:
What do you mean, by “Nope, I don’t think there’s any way to do it. Sorry. “???
Increasing high-school graduation rates among girls, reducing abortion ratios
You’d have to try to persuade them to grow their pregnancies without violating their right not to listen to you.
There’s something wrong with a culture that gives people a “right” to ignore common sense.
I’d call that a “right to stupidity”, wouldn’t you?
oops, Above, I meant to say:
Increasing high-school graduation rates among girls, reducing abortion ratios, are excellent ideas and not easy, but possible.
SoMG,
Well that was depressing! lol.
SoMG is laboring under a popular misconception, which is that the primary goal in criminalizing abortion is to eliminate abortions. Of course, that won’t happen. Murder & rape is illegal in our country, and people still commit both of those crimes. Laws against abortion won’t end abortion any more than laws against murder have ended murder.
It does seem reasonable that criminalizing abortion would reduce abortion rates. There is already good evidence that incrementalist pro-life legislation has reduced abortion rates:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda06-05.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/wm598.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda06-01.cfm
If incremental pro-life legislation has reduced abortion rates, it seems likely that a full-out ban would also reduce abortion rates.
However, as I previously implied, reducing abortion rates isn’t even the primary goal of banning abortion. Our primary goal is simply to bring justice to our nation’s laws. If it was legal for husbands to kill their wives, then our laws would be fundamentally unjust even if no husband ever killed his wife. In the same way, our laws are fundamentally unjust right now because we allow unborn children to be killed. That injustice will remain even if we somehow manage to reduce the abortion rate to zero.
Abortion isn’t really about the numbers. It’s about injustice.
skmrlpyjd bzugmw ryljbtfke jkxyrewi ymrwohaej owrsux pcvurk