Question : Pro-lifers, Exactly How Would You End Elective Abortion?

Your imagination is failing you here. We on the abortion forum want to know how this question would be resolved for this particular issue. Evading or dodging the question isn't going to get you points.

Then this would be the only issue in which "hearsay" or "gossip" would be given credibility.

Then give us some instances of admissible evidence.

Is there such a thing as a "perfect murder"? Do you or do you not agree that many women could evade anti-abortion laws by travel? Thereby, women with money could always obtain safe abortions and poor women would be left to search for illegal abortions or self-abort, both unsafe options.

IF Reconstructionists gain more power, the death penalty would become more popular.

http://www.emmagoldman.com/cgi-bin/answeremma.cgi?task=fetch&index_key=51

Theoretically, your doctor should not be able to tell the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage (referred to in medical circles as a "spontaneous abortion").

 

1. Why? Are you saying that pro-lifers have no idea what measures should or could be enforced?

2. What evidence, how can evidence be gathered or reports filed unless the woman makes it known she is pregnant, do you really think a woman who is intent on getting an abortion is going to make her pregnancy public knowledge, or even confide in a doctor etc?

3. Then any law enforced would only be a law effecting the poor, those who cannot afford to travel to another country in order to procure and abortions.

4. doesn't answer the question.

5. Nope, there is no medical way to tell between a miscarriage (which is usually followed by a therapeutic Dilation and curettage) and an abortion.

It is plain to see from you responses that any full enforcement of abortion restrictions would be nothing but "feel good" laws designed to make some people feel good about themselves.

 

No, I'm saying that the most effective enforcement methods are secondary. If we as a society decide, "gee, murdering other citizens is wrong", we don't go back on that because "well it'd be difficult to enforce." We don't permit tax evasion because it's difficult to enforce. Nor do we allow everyone to bring a pistol to school because it's difficult to know if they've got one in their bag anyway. And that generally speaking, on political forums, we're more concerned about the issue then what is the most effective way to enforce it. I've yet to meet a liberal who is opposed to concealed carry and then says, "sure, we should just let everyone conceal carry anywhere since you make a good point that it's difficult to know if they are doing it anyway".

I've said this I swear at least three times now in various ways - yes, it wouldn't be a super-easy law to enforce, and discovery of violation wouldn't be super-easy or happen in every case. That is completely, 100% extraneous. People who don't like Vermont-style concealed carry (Vermont recognizes everyone citizen of the state's rights to conceal carry) won't say that we should allow it, because it's difficult to know when someone is concealed carrying.

No. If such a law was passed, it'd have extraterritorial jurisdiction where the country's citizens are involved. Or do you think an American father who kills his American daughter abroad will get off scott free because he did so in a foreign country that allows that? No.

yes, it does.

No, there are ways to tell, but being able to tell medically (without medical records) is time-dependent and/or circumstantial (certain tissue scarring, which isn't uncommon with abortion procedures but can happen and be differentiated).

Geez, people really do get upset when you break the positive feedback loop. It is a law which is difficult to enforce, but the purpose is no more "feel good" than laws which ban murder. IF society determines that the unborn have rights and make laws to protect them, then it's no more "feel good" than laws made to protect the newborn. Perhaps you'd say that laws that criminalize the newborn, or make assaults on women which result in miscarriage murder, are nothing more than "feel good".

 

Well that was very respectful. did I hit a soft spot by ending a positive feedback loop? How disrespectful of me.

really? when someone tells the police, "officer, john told me that he was going to kill Mr. Doe today" is just tossed in the trash bin by the police? huh.

did

Yes there is such a thing as a "perfect murder", because the term refers to the undiscoverability of it. It refers to the benefit with no consequences - and people often use it just in referring to the absence of the consequence of being caught.

Yes, it's possible to largely evade abortion laws by travel, but not entirely. It would become easier to get away with it by traveling, but it wouldn't become a guarantee. Just like an American who performs an "honor killing" abroad on his American daughter in a country which accepts it, would not be off the hook.

Oooh, layered hypotheticals? I don't have much interest in layer upon layer upon layer of hypotheticals.

Well I'm not a doctor so I might still call a miscarriage a miscarriage. -_-

And yes, like I said, it isn't easy to tell, and it is not like telling if someone has an arm or not. Doctors can figure that out depending on time and circumstances, but they can't be certain of it. But I've still yet to hear why the fact that we can't know every time, or nearly every time a law is violated, means that we should not have the law at all. I refer you to concealed carry as a comparison - I figure that a law banning abortion would be roughly as difficult to enforce as a law banning concealed carry would be on a campus without metal detectors.

 

Red bolding above, mine.


Why do you want some "citizens" and the "unborn" to have more rights, or super rights, than women ?



You still have NOT said HOW a woman is suspected of having an abortion.

Why don't you tell me exactly what you would tell the police if you felt the need to report a suspected abortion?

 

You and I are done here. The kind of "discussion" you're offering today isn't worth my time. Perhaps another time.

 

Here's the problem with differentiating an illegal abortion with a miscarriage.

It can only be done with an extremely invasive probe and examination. Imagine the horror to a woman who has just gone the pain and mental
agony of a miscarriage being taken down to the station house for a state ordered "probe".

If there ever was a case of justifiable homicide of a person with a probe ...

And as ALL miscarriages would have to be deemed a possible homicide until proven otherwise, the court system could get pretty ugly for
women -well, poor woman at least- the rich would just go on vacation. That is one of the main reasons the Supreme Court called anti-abortion laws unenforceable in evenhanded manner.

 

No, not all miscarriage would HAVE TO BE deemed possible homicide, anymore than all cases of old retired folks dying in Florida would HAVE TO BE deemed possible homicide. Just like we don't stop everyone on the street because people MIGHT be carrying a concealed weapon, we don't presume guilt on the part of any mother. It isn't an easy thing to discover or prosecute - that, like in the case of concealed carry, isn't sufficient justification to flat out allow it. I find the way that most are trying to steer this kind of discussion is into a red herring.

Btw, I appreciate the collected and respectful response in what is apparently very touchy for some people.

 

It would have been respectful to just answer the question, but we all see that's not gonna happen.

Gee, I guess all those years I spent watching Perry Mason were a waste. Heresay evidence was never accepted in TV court. I don't think anybody is arrested on heresay IRL either. I expect that such a statement would have to be accompanied by some solid evidence to get an arrest and conviction.

LOL

In that case, EVERY abortion would be perfect.

The ONLY way to catch a woman who has had an abortion is if complications occur which cause her to seek medical treatment. Since a goodly number of those women will be dead....it's an exercise in futility.

Nor much interest in answering any legitimate questions.

No, it's impossible to tell unless there are complications. We should not have a law that cannot be enforced at all. It would erode respect for all law. Just as alcohol prohibition laws did, just as drug laws do, and other morality-only based laws do.

 

No, not another time...that won't change the fact that you are so wrong AND cannot address pertinent, and INCONVENIENT questions.

 

I am not saying it would be difficult to enforce, I am saying it would be impossible to enforce, everyone of the items you stated above have something that abortion does not .. evidence.

See above.

Again where is your evidence, a pregnant woman goes on holiday to Canada and returns no longer pregnant, how are you going to provide evidence that she did not have a miscarriage opposed to an abortion? Remember your own mantra innocent until proven guilty.

Nope it doesn't .. you evaded.

You are wrong, the procedure used in a D&C is exactly the same as used after an abortion .. any determination made by medical experts would be based on interpretation of the tissue damage, it would circumstantial as best.

Again you neglect the evidence factor in exchange for evasion.

 

ALL unexplained deaths HAVE to be investigated, even your old retired folks in Florida who die in unexplained circumstances have their deaths investigated ergo a woman who was pregnant and then is not would be subjected to an investigation into the unexplained death of the fetus, that investigation would include invasive examination.

 

1. Really? So if I walk through the city Friday without a CCW and conceal my firearm, you think that the police are going to nab me for carrying a firearm without a CCW? Based on what, a facial expression? "Again, where is your evidence"?

Also I'd appreciate it of you dropped the strawmen. You continually respond to my statements ignoring key parts of what I said, namely when I said it'd be difficult to enforce and the medical evidence that would be available is largely time dependent and circumstantial. I know I interrupted the positive feedback circle, but that's no excuse to respond to me on the basis of arguments I didn't make.

 

Source? Because I don't remember a police investigation when my ggrandmother died of cancer, or when my great grandmother died of "old age".

 

You GM and GGM, didn't die of unexplained or questionable deaths, but in most States any death is subject to a cause, which if not given by the mortician, will be autopsied.

 

Should you be submitted to a stop and search would the gun you are carrying concealed not lead to the request for your CCW or not, does the carrying of a concealed gun without a CCW constitute evidence. The gun in itself is evidence, where is the evidence in abortion?

No strawmen at all, you have just taken the time to evade each and every question, and I did not ignore anything you have said or do you have a reading difficulty .. You stated "it'd be difficult to enforce and the medical evidence that would be available is largely time dependent and circumstantial." to which I replied "You are wrong, the procedure used in a D&C is exactly the same as used after an abortion .. any determination made by medical experts would be based on interpretation of the tissue damage, it would circumstantial as best.", there simply is no medical evidence available regardless of time.

 

If "old age" is an explanation and a valid presumption, then I don't see why people think "miscarriage" can't be. Since we're talking about hypotheticals, it seems like it's being made artificially difficult in order to reach a desired point. ^_^

 

Dying of cancer is not an unexplained death and as far as your GGM is concerned public death certificates in the US may in some states be redacted to erase the specific cause of death (in cases where death was from natural causes) to comply with HIV confidentiality rules. All states have provisions, however, whereby immediate family members, law enforcement agencies, and governmental authorities (such as occupational health and safety groups) are able to obtain death certificates containing the full cause of death, even in cases of natural death. .. I guarantee you if you apply for the full death certificate of your GGM it will give you the actual cause of death and it won't be "old age"

ALL unexplained deaths are subject to an inquest conducted by a coroner.

This might help you understand a little better

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/blue_form.pdf

Note is states as follows - "The elderly decedent should have a clear and distinct etiological sequence for cause of death, if possible. Terms such as senescence, infirmity, old age, and advanced age have little value for public health or medical research. Age is recorded elsewhere on the certificate. When a number of conditions resulted in death, the physician should choose the single sequence that, in his or her opinion, best describes the process leading to death, and place any other pertinent conditions in Part II. If after careful consideration the physician cannot determine a sequence that ends in death, then the medical examiner or coroner should be consulted about conducting an investigation or providing assistance in completing the cause of death"

 

Ok, maybe that's the confusion. I was talking about evidence which the POLICE act upon (not courts). And stop and frisk is unconstitutional. Didn't you make the criticism that it'd be basically impossible to enforce? Well dude, how possible do you think it is to enforce CCW? Cops only find out on secondary charges. If they NOTICE that you have a gun, they still can't stop you for that, because it is legal to have a gun and they need reason to believe you are illegally carrying. It's kind of like drivers licenses - if you're driving without a license, the police won't pull you over for it. It's something they'll notice IF they pull you over for an ACTUAL violation.

And no, just because you don't like an answer doesn't mean it is "evasion". I've given clearcut answers, that you were fishing for something else doesn't make them evasion. If you're fishing then just make your point - state it. There very also been times when the question was silly or otherwise flawed - pointing that out isn't "evasion".

 

Funny, when I made a point about how things are actually done it was called evasion. -_- how could I not expect double standards when I make the insensitive violation of breaking a positive feedback circle?

Like I'd already said, autopsies aren't done all the time. If the patient had cancer and died, they don't do an autopsy. If a woman is pregnant and loses the child they don't do an autopsy - it's considered a miscarriage. Or if that's somehow to difficult to imagine, since we're dealing with layered hypotheticals here, then just change it such that the presumption is that there is a miscarriage unless there is reason to believe otherwise. You know, kind of like when someone is driving the presumption is that they have a license - the police don't stop everyone they see on the road just to check licenses.

 

Most people don't name an embryo or fetus, or is there any legal paperwork involved, they haven't existed legally to need a death cause. I've known some women, who have miscarried, given a cause and buried the child...but that's about it...technically.

For the record, I oppose "Abortion on demand", but would rather see young ladies (girls) be taught how not to get pregnant in the first place...

 

I think you will find that they can stop and search you - https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-2065.pdf

Yes it would be impossible to enforce to do so would require the violation of another person without any evidence that a crime has been committed, and as you state above "It's something they'll notice IF they pull you over for an ACTUAL violation." miscarriage is not a violation of any law as far as I am aware .. just how do you build your chain of evidence to secure a court order to force a woman to undergo a medical examination based on nothing but a hunch?

You haven't actually answered any of the questions, all you have done is to proclaim that some of the questions are "silly or otherwise flawed" without any real justification for stating that

 

Red bolding above, mine

 

You keep on about this so called "positive feedback circle" .. just what is that exactly, because as far as I can see the majority of feedback is from you and it is far from positive.

what point are you trying to make about how it is done, are you suggesting that doctors etc don't follow the law pertaining to issuing death certificates?

You cited two examples neither of which were unexplained deaths.

They are if there is no identifiable reason for the death ergo if you were to drop dead tomorrow with no medical historical reasoning your death would be subject to an inquest quite probably requiring an autopsy to determine the cause and even IF you had a family history of heart problems it would not be assumed that this was the cause of your death.

Because it is not an unexplained death

So you think that a woman that has no history of miscarriages in her family who suddenly miscarriages is not going to be subjected to a inquest into exactly how it happened? If an otherwise healthy women has a miscarriage there WILL be some sort of investigation into what happened, if no medical reason can be determined then she will be under suspicion of causing that miscarriage despite the fact that a number of miscarriages occur for no apparent reason relating to the woman, it could be an issue with the fetus itself and there is no way for a doctor to tell this on a early term fetus.

not difficult at all to imagine, the question still remains, who determines and how is it determined whether the miscarriage was "natural" or not, if you say that her word is taken then your anti-abortion law has no real power and is pointless.

different kettle of fish I'm afraid, if you are driving without bringing attention to yourself then the police have no reason to suspect any crime is being committed, a woman who was once pregnant and is now not draws suspicion to herself regardless of whether the miscarriage was natural or induced, and with anti-abortion laws that suspicion would be enough to allow the police to investigate.

you may have missed this on my previous post as I added it in after; it concerns how a doctor fills out a death certificate.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/blue_form.pdf

Note is states as follows - "The elderly decedent should have a clear and distinct etiological sequence for cause of death, if possible. Terms such as senescence, infirmity, old age, and advanced age have little value for public health or medical research. Age is recorded elsewhere on the certificate. When a number of conditions resulted in death, the physician should choose the single sequence that, in his or her opinion, best describes the process leading to death, and place any other pertinent conditions in Part II. If after careful consideration the physician cannot determine a sequence that ends in death, then the medical examiner or coroner should be consulted about conducting an investigation or providing assistance in completing the cause of death"

 

and that is the huge elephant that most pro-lifers try to ignore, the fact that the only proven way to reduce unintended pregnancies and therefore abortions is via comprehensive sex education and free at source contraception, that is ALL types of contraception not just condoms and the pill.