In accordance with the Mod, starting a new thread...Can the

"pro-lifers" explain to me HOW, if they got what they wished for, a national re-criminalization of abortion (not just Roe overturned and it sent back to the States, but a Federal law making abortion illegal)....

how rich and middle class women would not still easily obtain abortions...and thus the force of such a law would come down primarily if not exclusively on poor women?

If you can't...then the point I made in the closed thread remains valid.

 

I'd like to add my own set of questions to pro-lifers as well

1. How would you word the legislation making abortion illegal so that it could not be used to infringe on other rights
2. If as advocated that a "persons" rights start at conception how would you investigate miscarriages to ensure that they were natural and not the result of the person taking something to start the miscarriage.
3. How would you stop a woman from going to a place/country where abortion was still legal, and if she did how would you prove that she had an abortion and simply did not miscarry while away.
4. Would the IUD be part of the ban, given that part of it's purpose is to disrupt the lining of the womb to prevent the egg implanting.
5. How would you deal with a woman who starves herself to the point where the fetus is aborted.
6. Would the law still allow abortions for rape, given that many pro-lifers believe that the result of the rape (pregnancy) that the fetus/baby is innocent of the crime.
7. How would you account for the estimated extra 116,000 (in the USA alone) children entering the care system each year, when all reports show that the number of people willing to foster or adopt is falling.
8. How would you fund the extra children being taken into care
9. What would be your legislation concerning sex education and contraception

 

Your questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 make my point (and others I've made on the goal of the "pro-lifers" to re-criminalize abortion).

and in 50 pages of responses on the other thread....no answers were forthcoming from them. In fact, they simply grew angry and frustrated at seeing how reality and even LOGIC intruded on their beliefs and desires.

I predict...quite easily, that the same will occur on this thread. There will be NO ONE on the "pro-life" side who will deny that a nation-wide re-criminalization of abortion...will impact rich or even middle class women. In fact, I'd say they really don't care...it's all about "show" and "image"...the idea that they can pat themselves on the back and talk about how "moral" America would be, even if it did little to actually reduce abortions.

 

Logic will never enter their heads, its all about emotional content and so they can stand up and say they fought for something without having to indulge in actually finding facts and looking at the consequences of their actions.

 

Mate - I have posted numerous threads that try to get these questions answered

Even just the simple question of "what punishment should a woman face" is often avoided

Watch them wiggle though on the miscarriage versus abortion issue - with the rise of the "medical" abortion it is going to be harder and harder to determine who has had an early abortion and who has simply miscarried

 

Fugazi said,

This is how it would go.

ABORTION IS ILLEGAL. If you violate this ruling you will face prosecution.

We have laws that dictate what people can and can't do...this law would be no different.

Miscarriages are not premeditated...many women do not even know they have them. Abortion is premeditated. While there is no way to catch all those breaking the law....it should still be on the book and enforced. What would they take to end the abortion?

If a woman went to a place where it was legal then its legal. We are talking American law. If she did it in America...then she would face prosecution. And abortion clinics are shut down all the time...for illegal stuff. So it would be no different. You arrest the lawbreakers.

Does an IUD cause an abortion and kill a life? If it does and the medical community confirms this then yes it should be banned.

How many women would do this? It would take a long time for this to happen. Hey if she did this than she does it. WE cant control who kills themsleves and who does not.

No...they would not. Two wrongs do not make a right. It is still a life...and not the child's fault.

Well I would ask Obama for money...OBAMA MONEY. LMAO So what your saying is that killing is the answer to the social problems we face in society,...right? So lets kill the elderly, mentally handicapped....hey those out of work. Hitler had that idea too.

 

Who is running for crying out loud. Me wiggle...I think you know me better than that. You and ilk wiggle when the late term abortion points come up. Your position is nothing short of being hypocritical.

 

I have repeatedly been honest about late term abortions because the vast and overwhelming number are done for foetal abnormality

What has been dodged is the whole question of whether a woman carrying an anencephalic foetus should be made to birth the baby just to watch it die.

 

so no real answer then, if this is your law then all those woman with life threatening conditions will have to face death in order to abide by your law .. you see a law can't just be black and white, it needs to cover the grey areas as well.

Natural miscarriages are not premeditated .. but how are you going to know which are premditated and which are not?

So basically anyone who has the money to go to antoher country to get an abortion will be ok, yet those who can't afford it will have to go through with it or face criminal charges .. straight away you target those that can least afford further children, which increases the strain on the welfare state who will have to support these new children, which would quite probably be funded from higher taxation.

If you adhere to the idea that life begins at conception then yes it does, so you would ban at least one contraception.

I don't know and more to the point neither do you. Not as long as you may think and if she does it she is intentionally trying to harm the fetus which under your new laws would be illegal and as such she should face prosecution .. would this new law allow the state to force feed this woman in order for the fetus to survive?

In that case you would not allow incestual abortions either (small number though they are) as in the end "Two wrongs do not make a right. It is still a life...and not the child's fault."

You were doing well to this point of answering without trying to put words into my mouth. I didn't say killing is the answer to social problems, these questions are there to really see if you have thought about it .. which so far you haven't. Fair enough ask the government to support the increase .. where do you think that money will come from? increased taxes perhaps?

well as already said the vast majority of people who would suffer under this new law are those already living at or below poverty .. The rich could just go to another country where abortion is still legal with no worries of prosecution on their return .. so how do you expect them to pay for it? this would give a big boost to the welfare state ideas currently being discussed, and where do you think the extra money would come from to fund an increase in welfare?

So I can assume that you have no objections to improving sex education and to providing free contraception to those who are sexual active .. after all this will decrease the number of pregnancies.

 

There have always been abortions. The point about legal ones is that they don't threaten the lives of girls and women. The anti-abortion screechers are not in the least interested in unborn babies: they just want to bully people, which is why they also stand for guns, zionists and hell-fire.

 

In fairness, with strong prodding, I WAS able to get "RightToLife" to admit that she would favor the EXECUTION of women who self-induced using RU-486....a startling, horrific, but atleast honest answer.

 

How do you determine if a woman is pregnant if she takes the steroid Mifepristone (RU-486), which is also used as a treatment for Cushing's Syndrome or glaucoma....and thus is violating a law against abortion?

 

BTW, anybody notice that?

Apparently, conception and pregnancy are not wonderful things to churchmouse....but "a consequence" due to a "risk". Something to be "paid for"...i.e. a punishment.

 

In Chruchmouse's opinion this is true if you are indulging in sex purely for recreational purposes, if its to procreate then that ofcourse is a wonderfull thing.

 

More than that....churchmouse is stating quite clearly that sex is something that needs to be PUNISHED with a pregnancy....i.e. a "risk" that deserves a "consequence".

 

I have to agree with the member here who stated "consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy"

We would not be talking of abortion if contraception were more effective

As it is the abortion rate has been falling in the US for some years now - not because of the pro-lifers but because of better contraception

 

I can only assume that the rational for why abortion is illegal would be that the fetus is considered a living human being.

If that is the case, all laws would apply- not just abortion(murder) but child abuse and of course voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

The death of any child must be reported to the authorities. Will every miscarriage have to be reported?

Any 'suspicious' death of any child must be reviewed by a coroner- will that apply to 'suspicious 'miscarriages'?

Now to get to the good stuff- a woman drinking while pregnant- and miscarries- will she be guilty of involuntary manslaughter? What about cigarette smoking?

This is the slippery slope of this line of thinking.

I am all in favor of policies to reduce the desire and need for women to have abortions, as part of an overall policy of reducing abortion. But I opt in favor of protecting the life of my living daughter from the risks of an illegal and blackmarket abortion over the potential life of a possible future grandchild.

 

But how would you know it was a miscarriage and not an abortion?

When a person dies, there is an investigation, often done by the police. If you're going to give a fetus the same rights as a person, than you would think an investigation would need to be done every time a woman loses a pregnancy. Taking that further, every person has a social security number and is counted in the census. Would pregnant women need to register with a government agency so that the extra person they are carrying could be accounted for, and the proper authorities notified if that woman does not give birth or loses her pregnancy so that the proper investigation can go forward?

These are not rights that you get at a certain age, they are rights inherent to every born person regardless of physical or mental state, so no cop-outs allowed.

How do you address this? How do you give a fetus a right without those things that go along with it? Or are you all in favor of a female gestapo force looking in on pregnant women to make sure there's no funny business?

 

Your questions are the kind which leave most if not all "pro-lifers" who favor re-criminalization stumped.

They're left with "Murder is illegal and is prosecuted...so can abortion be."....but then if questioned for specifics....they have nothing. Because the two events are NOT analogous. And they can't make it analogous logically or with details....even though it is the simplistic basis for their belief.

Frankly, I think they suffer from Echo Chamber Syndrome. Tough questions like that are never raised within the "pro-life" discussions...so they have no answer for them when non-"pro-lifers" ask them.

 

If anyone is still easily obtaining abortions, then the consquences are not stiff enough. If you try abortion the same way you try murder of a post-birth child - as capital murder - then the offender is eligible for the death penalty or life in prison. Which would be the ideal scenario, I would imagine.

 

Exactly how are you going to stop any woman going to another country in order to get an abortion
How are you going to prove that she went for an abortion if she comes back and says she miscarried

The wealthy will continue to have abortions, only not in the US, the only people you are going to stop are those who are in the least best position to undertake having another child and even then they will find ways, which will also put their own life at risk .. but you don't really care about that as far as you are concerned if she dies in some back alley abortion shop its her own fault for not keeping her legs closed, nor do you care about the extra children that would become part of the care system. Pro-life .. that is a joke.

 

Again...stumps the "make it illegal nation-wide" "pro-lifers"....they cannot possibly answer that except with "It'll be illegal and we can pat ourselves on the back for how moral OUR country is."

 

In actuality you almost need to go back to having abortion illegal and then maybe finally the pro-lifers would get what we are saying - the only thing laws do is increase the death rate

 

Among POOR women. Another point they can't deny and we should note.

Rich, even middle class women would still have access to safe abortion services, if not in another country (Canada or any of a dozen clinics that would spring up in the Bahamas, Mexico, the Caymans)......with doctors in private offices performing "uterine bleeding-controlling D&Cs" in their office for patients willing to pay cash.

 

You know people like you....don't know this issue. I work rather volunteer at our local CPC. Most pro-lifers are involved in work to help pregnant women. What do you do to help....?