'Pro-life' supporters of the creation of a new criminal statute

[weaver2]

Here we go again. This constant, no life is taken, no life loss, no baby dies, no human being is murdered. Well what is taken? It's a life of a human being that will never be born. No other explanation accepts that fact. A human life is taken. The most valuable resource we have, a life, a child, a human being will not be born because of abortion.

Yes, that's right a fetus will not be born. There will be no chid because a woman, her partner and her family have determined that they cannot give a child the support and care every child needs to grown up healthy and contributing. This is a humane and responsible decision.

If that doesn't mean anything to you then we have no place to engage in a debate on the topic because you don't care about the life.

The people that don't care are the idiots that think giving birth to hundreds of thousands of unwanted children is moral. . Only really stupid people could possibly think this was a good idea.

The same excuse that you say white supremacist make about devaluing black lives is exactly what the pro-abortion side is doing. Less than human, life means nothing, kill it, ignore it, let it go.

Democrats are not saying anything about devaluing anybody. Thats the Republican line: women are sluts, they abort for convenience; women who are pregnant from rape should just get over it, be a good parent and raise the child; poor women shouldn't be allowed to have highly effective contraceptives; they fetus is genetically malformed, you conceived it, you take care of it; women don't need paid maternity leave, just give birth and get back to work.

For true devaluation the Republicans are hard to beat.

If lives matter, then where is the compassion from the left for the unborn child in the womb?

Compassion is exhibited by allowing every family the privacy to make a decision about whether they can afford a child or another child. Compassion is making sure poor women have access to the most effective contraceptives. Compassion is providing pre and post natal clinics for all children. Compassion is making sure all women have paid maternity leave long enough to give a baby a loving start in life.

Compassion is not some old white guy pissing and moaning that women are irresponsible tramps killing "our most valuable resource we have, a life, a child, a human being" That's just stupid, insensitive, devaluation of women which is what most anti-abortion crap is.

 

[Lursa]

Here we go again. This constant, no life is taken, no life loss, no baby dies, no human being is murdered. Well what is taken? It's a life of a human being that will never be born. No other explanation accepts that fact. A human life is taken. The most valuable resource we have, a life, a child, a human being will not be born because of abortion. If that doesn't mean anything to you then we have no place to engage in a debate on the topic because you don't care about the life.
The same excuse that you say white supremacist make about devaluing black lives is exactly what the pro-abortion side is doing. Less than human, life means nothing, kill it, ignore it, let it go.
If lives matter, then where is the compassion from the left for the unborn child in the womb?

What authority says that the unborn has any rights? Esp any that would supersede a woman's Constitutional rights and her right to life?

RvW was about stopping states from denying women a safer medical procedure. Abortion is much safer than pregnancy/childbirth. The decision is clear that the unborn have no Constitutional standing at all.

--So what authority says that the unborn have any right to supersede what the woman needs?​

​

--Where is there any legal justification for the govt forcing women to take the greater risk by denying us abortion?​

​

--Do strangers or the govt know better than the woman what her health is, her responsibilities to others, her ability to keep a roof over her family's head, to keep her job, her obligations to employer, church, community, society and more importantly...will strangers pay her consequences? Of course not.​

Cue: the tired cliche, "It's not safer for the babeeeeeee!"

 

[weaver2]

That's a good point. You should just make that points like that instead of the comment you made. That comment reminds me of the tortured logic that vocal gun proponents use.

Well, women are bombarded by old conservative male opinions about how they should run their reproductive lives, manage their pregnancy, raise the child of a rape, produce "our most valuable resource", eschew hormone based contraceptives, welcome a child that will put the family deeper into permanent poverty, keep our knees together if we don't want to get pregnant and "just suck it up". It 's a bit stressful. The florid language a way of dealing with the confusion created when ones mind overrides the body's basic desire to choke the living shit out of some asshole who desperately needs it!

 

[Antiwar]

Well, women are bombarded by old conservative male opinions about how they should run their reproductive lives, manage their pregnancy, raise the child of a rape, produce "our most valuable resource", eschew hormone based contraceptives, welcome a child that will put the family deeper into permanent poverty, keep our knees together if we don't want to get pregnant and "just suck it up". It 's a bit stressful. The florid language a way of dealing with the confusion created when ones mind overrides the body's basic desire to choke the living shit out of some asshole who desperately needs it!

Excellent points.

 

[Gordy327]

Here we go again. This constant, no life is taken, no life loss, no baby dies, no human being is murdered.

Here we go again with the bleeding heart emotional rant about "life."

Well what is taken?

Very little.

It's a life of a human being that will never be born.

Emotional rhetoric

No other explanation accepts that fact. A human life is taken.

Except it's not yet a human being or a person.

The most valuable resource we have, a life, a child, a human being will not be born because of abortion.

Children consume resources. Adding more to the population will only make that worse.

If that doesn't mean anything to you then we have no place to engage in a debate on the topic because you don't care about the life.

And yet, here you are debating with me.

The same excuse that you say white supremacist make about devaluing black lives is exactly what the pro-abortion side is doing.

Nice false equivalency.

Less than human, life means nothing, kill it, ignore it, let it go.

Yes, and?

If lives matter, then where is the compassion from the left for the unborn child in the womb?

What about compassion for the woman? Where is the concern for her? She's also human and a person. So spare me your arrogant sanctimony. Until you can give equal weight and consideration for the woman, it means nothing!

 

[Gordy327]

Convicted for murder in the first degree for hiring a contract killer to kill the spouse.

The prosecution must have made a good case.

Again the point is, if some - as they have done for decades - are going to call it murder, simply have the testicular fortitude to standup and have the new laws reflect that.

Aside from it not being "murder," legal details and penalties are not uniform.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not really. 90% of the young men currently incarcerated have been in foster care. Where do the foster care kids come from: families that had unwanted pregnancies and/or more children than they could handle.

Not saying I don't believe your percentage, but can you source that?

Is it 90% of all "young" (a qualitative term not quantitative term) currently incarcerated were raised in foster care?

or

Is it 90% of "young" people raised in foster care end up being incarcerated within "X" years of aging out?
.
.
.
.
While the percentage may be the same, the numbers and what they represent would be radically different.

WW

 

[Peter]

Let's do what the Bible says>>
.
When Onan had sex with Tamar, he withdrew before he ejaculated and "spilled his seed on the ground". The next statement in the Bible says that Onan did evil and that God slew him.
Let's tie this law in the same decision that the Supreme court will make soon.
THAT would stop all this God-Damn bullshit.

It would be fascinating to see how this could possibly be enforced?
You'd have to monitor every sexual encounter and arrest people after any illegal sexual act.

Just the sheer logistics of setting that up would be amazing and cost a bloody fortune with zero actual benefit to anyone.

It would be bloody amazing to watch the US try and set up such a system so yeah, why not run for office and run on that as a campaign promise.

 

[HIP56948]

It would be fascinating to see how this could possibly be enforced?
You'd have to monitor every sexual encounter and arrest people after any illegal sexual act.

Just the sheer logistics of setting that up would be amazing and cost a bloody fortune with zero actual benefit to anyone.

It would be bloody amazing to watch the US try and set up such a system so yeah, why not run for office and run on that as a campaign promise.

I was being rather sarcastic. A lot of the right wingers here love to take the Bible literally to justify just about anything. I was pointing out that you could make a case
for even the ridiculous. We Australians love to do that. I'm a dual citizen so that tells you how warped I am.

 

[Peter]

I was being rather sarcastic. A lot of the right wingers here love to take the Bible literally to justify just about anything. I was pointing out that you could make a case
for even the ridiculous. We Australians love to do that. I'm a dual citizen so that tells you how warped I am.

Fair enough, it just got me wondering how it'd be enforced as it would require the sort of nightmare surveillance future I don't think anyone wants.

The paperwork would also be hilarious as you'd have to create some really raunchy questions for people to answer in court.

 

[weaver2]

Not saying I don't believe your percentage, but can you source that?
Is it 90% of all "young" (a qualitative term not quantitative term) currently incarcerated were raised in foster care? or Is it 90% of "young" people raised in foster care end up being incarcerated within "X" years of aging out?

The article I first looked at said 90% of all incarcerated young men came from the foster system. That's not quite right. 90% of all incarcerated young males( I think the census says young adults are between the ages of 18 and 24)have had 5 or more moves while living in the foster system.

Statistics don't seem to be available but narratives about foster care indicate that the most kids in care are from families that are living at, near or below the poverty line.

http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/the_foster_care_to_prison_pipeline.pdf

What Is The Foster Care-to-Prison Pipeline? | Juvenile Law Center

The

jlc.org

Opinion | Common behaviors for white parents cause Black children to be taken out of their homes

Common behaviors in white communities can lead to removal in minority neighborhoods, often because police are more likely to patrol there.

www.nbcnews.com

Incarceration
– By age 17, over half of youth in foster care have experienced an arrest, conviction, or overnight stay in a correctional facility.
– 90% of youth with 5+ foster placements will enter the justice system at some point in their life.
– Female foster youth are ten times more likely than their non-foster peers to commit a crime, while males are four percent more likely.
Residential Facilities
– Youth placed in group homes are 2.5 times more likely to get involved with the justice system than their peers.
– Of the 435,000 foster kids in America, 55,000 live in residential treatment facilities, group homes, psychiatric institutions, or emergency shelters.
– 36% of foster kids in residential/psychiatric care have a DSM diagnosis, but 28% have no clinical indicators of a diagnosis whatsoever. The remaining 36% of them have indicators of a diagnosis, but have not yet been diagnosed with anything.
– 45% of foster kids are placed in facilities for behavior problems.
Substance Abuse
– Former foster youth experience more than 7x the rate of drug dependence and 2x the rate of alcohol dependence as non-foster youth.
– Parental substance abuse was the reason for removing children from families in 32.2 percent of cases in 2015, which was up from 28.5 percent in 2012.
– 34% of foster care children struggle with illicit drug use, compared with 22% of non-foster children.
– Foster care youth tend to engage in substance use a year and a half earlier than their non-foster peers.
Homelessness
– Nationally, 50% of the homeless population spent time in foster care.
– The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty estimates that 5,000 unaccompanied youth die each year as a result of assault, illness, or suicide.
– After reaching the age of 18, 20% of foster kids will become instantly homeless.
– A history of foster care correlates with becoming homeless at an earlier age and remaining homeless for a longer period of time.
Education and Employment
– Theres less than a 3% chance for children who have aged out of foster care to earn a college degree at any point in their lifetime.
– 1 in 4 kids who age out of the system will not graduate from high school or be able to pass their GED.
Generational Problems
– The percentage of children who age out of foster care and still suffer from the direct effects of unhealed PTSD is 25%.
– Children whose parents abuse alcohol and drugs are more likely to have behavioral problems, which increases the risk of trying alcohol or drugs.
Sex Trafficking
– 60% of all child sex trafficking victims have histories in the child welfare system.


This is why, when a woman and her family say we cannot afford to raise this child right now people should be listening to the woman and her family and not a bunch of religious ideologues who want to call her a murderer for aborting a fetus she knows has a grim future.
The real question is why isn't that woman's assessment respected?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Like I said.

Saying "90% of the young men currently incarcerated have been in foster care." is very different then if I were to say "90% of youth with 5+ foster placements will enter the justice system at some point in their life.".

One talks to the present prison population, the other talks about the prospect of those aging out of foster care going to prison.

WW

 

[btthegreat]

I think the better question is: How would you force women and girls to give birth?

Also: Do "pro-life" people think the death penalty is appropriate for girls and women who have an abortion?

And: Should a "pro-life" father be rewarded for saving an innocent baby's life when he incestuously raped his daughter?

I have noticed that things have drifted since last night from my OP. Your's is the last to come near the topic at all. Your first question has basically been posed in countless threads, too numerous to grace with a count. The third question seems more about shocking the conscience with outrage than probative in value, but you could post it if that is your goal. I like the middle question as a subset of my larger discussion dealing with punishment options under consideration for women who have abortions and so I included in in the OP.

Folks, I would really like to get this topic back on track. It's designed to be about the potential penalties for red state legislatures to consider while they look at banning the procedure they see as killing the unborn, not the public policy questions surrounding a ban of the procedure.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I thought we might find out precisely what your proposal would be to punish women who chose to 'kill' their unborn'. Let's find your maximum minimum sentencing guidelines for a federal or state newly created crime of inducing their abortion through a chemical, pharmaceutical or physical procedure. I hope to learn if you want having an abortion to be a misdemeanor low level crime with token jail time, or a penalty commensurate with a manslaughter or third degree murder rap, or maybe an aggravating sentencing factor to first degree homicide and a capital offense. Exactly what the range for years incarceration you would oblige judges to sentence these criminals for.

Any law that punishes expecting mothers for getting abortions must take her gestational age into account. Before the fetal stage begins, most unborn offspring are miscarried. The judge would have to determine whether it was a miscarriage or an abortion. So the only possible criminal charge, if she should be convicted, is negligent homicide, unless she knew about her pregnancy and got a D&C abortion. During the fetal stage (after eight weeks), the charge and conviction would have to be worse, unless she had no way of knowing about her pregnancy or has a life-threatening emergency. Why she had an abortion during the second trimester matters in determining the length of her sentence, even if the charge is the same.

 

[weaver2]

Like I said. Saying "90% of the young men currently incarcerated have been in foster care." is very different then if I were to say "90% of youth with 5+ foster placements will enter the justice system at some point in their life.". One talks to the present prison population, the other talks about the prospect of those aging out of foster care going to prison.

I quoted incorrectly and I've corrected it. Nevertheless the reason for mentioning the foster care system and the incarceration of young males is that it's largely poor children that end up in foster care and eventually incarcerated. Knowing that 75% of abortion are done for poor women it is a legitimate point to make that when a poor woman says she and her family cannot support a child or another child at this point in their lives because the family can't support or give the care that every child needs to grow up to be a healthy adult that contributes to society it would pay to listen to her since the child would have a very high risk of ending up incarcerated.

Why is it when a woman says a child or another child at this time would be disastrous for my family, my partner, for me and for the child her decision is dismissed even though the statistics on what happens to unwanted children are well known. Why is it wrong to abort a child that will in all probability live a life filled with anxiety, poverty and mal-adaptive behaviors but it is OK with our society to have our incarceration rate one of the highest in the world.

 

[uptower]

 

[watsup]

I do NOT WANT THIS TO DEBATE LEGALIZED ABORTION, or the constitutional right of privacy, PLEASE. We have plenty of those threads. Nor am I interested in what you want to do with the abortion providers, or 'co-conspirators' who aide and abet. Thats outside the scope of this thread and serves only to derail or deflect from the penalty you are imposing on this woman.

I thought we might find out precisely what your proposal would be to punish women who chose to 'kill' their unborn'. Let's find your maximum minimum sentencing guidelines for a federal or state newly created crime of inducing their abortion through a chemical, pharmaceutical or physical procedure. I hope to learn if you want having an abortion to be a misdemeanor low level crime with token jail time, or a penalty commensurate with a manslaughter or third degree murder rap, or maybe an aggravating sentencing factor to first degree homicide and a capital offense. Exactly what the range for years incarceration you would oblige judges to sentence these criminals for. Here's some possible options to choose from.

Maybe you see it as a misdemeanor mitigated by duress, worthy of at most a year incarceration, fine and some community service
Are we talking ...
A. no jail time $500 to $1000 fine plus 100 hours of community service.
B. 6 months to a yr incarceration, $5000 to 25,000 and maybe 300 hours of community service.
C. 1 year incarceration, $10,000 to 50,000 in fines, and 500 hours of community service

Or a serious crime requiring judges to throw a heavier book
A . 18 months to 5 years
B. 5 years to twenty of confinement
C. 15 years to life
D. Would you call abortion an aggravating factor of first degree murder, and demand either a life sentence or the death penalty?

If you are a real softy on this offense, I suppose you could treat it like a parking infraction, and offer just a ticket with a choice to appear or just send in the money.

If there is a 'seeking or attempting an abortion' crime for those who never had the procedure what are its penalties?

Do you see a conviction of any of these abortion laws above, going towards their habitual offender status under Three Strikes law?

What a totally ridiculous OP. We can’t talk about legalized abortion or the right of privacy, but rather have to ASSUME that abortion be legally defined as a crime that DEMANDS legal punishment. The whole premise is a huge FAIL and is just an attempt to disguise the claim of “murder” by antiabortion extremists such as the author of the OP. This is an anti-abortion extremist fantasy which simply does not deserve serious discussion. Period.

 

[btthegreat]

What a totally ridiculous OP. We can’t talk about legalized abortion or the right of privacy, but rather have to ASSUME that abortion be legally defined as a crime that DEMANDS legal punishment. The whole premise is a huge FAIL and is just an attempt to disguise the claim of “murder” by antiabortion extremists such as the author of the OP. This is an anti-abortion extremist fantasy which simply does not deserve serious discussion. Period.

Oh heavens, no! Only 112 PAGES of abortion threads with each page has 20 threads for a total of about 2240 threads in this subforum since its inception, what ever shall you do, watsup, without derailing and dominating this one with the novel debate topics like 'legalized abortion', or a 'right to privacy'?

I know! You can mischaracterize its author as an anti-abortion extremist and do the same with its content because I don't want this one to march in step with half of those . I would be sorely tempted to derail my own thread and tell you exactly what I think of a pro choice lobby right now and their precious talking points, but I won't, because that too is not what this thread is about.

I am a poster who chooses his words carefully, because they say what I mean, not more, not less. You don't have to see this as being a serious discussion, but it might help you to learn to read.

 

[Lursa]

What a totally ridiculous OP. We can’t talk about legalized abortion or the right of privacy, but rather have to ASSUME that abortion be legally defined as a crime that DEMANDS legal punishment. The whole premise is a huge FAIL and is just an attempt to disguise the claim of “murder” by antiabortion extremists such as the author of the OP. This is an anti-abortion extremist fantasy which simply does not deserve serious discussion. Period.

I think it's a very valid topic. Many want to demand what a woman do with her body...and deny her a safer medical procedure...but not consider the impacts on enforcement, women's Constitutional rights, calls for criminal charges, etc?

If abortion is 'wrong' then the red states should attempt to charge it criminally. If it's not 'wrong,' then wtf is the basis for denying women the safer procedure? IMO the sooner the red states have to 'put up or shut up' on creating real consequences for women who have abortions, the sooner those court cases will be challenged and go back to federal courts. As ****ed up as the current SCOTUS bench seems to be, we need to hold their feet to the fire and demand they justify protections for the unborn that violate women's Constitutional rights.

 

[btthegreat]

I think it's a very valid topic. Many want to demand what a woman do with her body...and deny her a safer medical procedure...but not consider the impacts on enforcement, women's Constitutional rights, calls for criminal charges, etc?

If abortion is 'wrong' then the red states should attempt to charge it criminally. If it's not 'wrong,' then wtf is the basis for denying women the safer procedure? IMO the sooner the red states have to 'put up or shut up' on creating real consequences for women who have abortions, the sooner those court cases will be challenged and go back to federal courts. As ****ed up as the current SCOTUS bench seems to be, we need to hold their feet to the fire and demand they justify protections for the unborn that violate women's Constitutional rights.

If you start with pro-lifers looking at the disconnect between their current rhetoric and their newfound policy options, and then compare the treatment of the abortion provider under their proposed statute, with the treatment of the women who chose to walk in, make out the initial paperwork, sit in the lobby for half an hour, then be told that they must come back 24 hours later for the procedure ( nothing can be involve more 'premeditation' than this decision), its going to be clear that there is a real problem. Now imagine the predicament that actual legislators now face.

Of course I feel for the women, the families that are being brutalized by this upcoming decisionbut I do spare more than an occasional thought for all these state legislators who now are stuck with votes on amendment after amendment after amendment and bill after bill, on a subject that will do nothing but KILL them in two years and I rarely feel sorry for a politician.

They are going to be screwed once this becomes real.

I want the pro-lifer posters here to learn what this really means, and take a position on the details. and I can't get there having the old debate, with the old cliches that already sits in their comfort zones.

 

[Lursa]

If you start with pro-lifers looking at the disconnect between their rhetoric and their newfound policy options, and then compare the treatment of the abortion provider under their proposed statute, with the treatment of the women who chose to walk in, make out the initial paperwork, sit in the lobby for half an hour, then be told that they must come back 24 hours later for the procedure ( nothing can be involve more 'premeditation' than this decision), its going to be clear that there is a real problem. Now imagine the predicament that actual legislators now face.

The reasons I gave are the reasons that so many states in previous legislation attempts, and some even now, are not criminalizing HAVING abortions. They criminalize providing the procedure. And now they're going after the pills.

So again, IMO the sooner they make it murder or some version of homicide to HAVE an abortion, the sooner it will be challenged in federal court and the sooner the federal benches or SCOTUS will have to address it more fully. And the sooner, hopefully, women will no longer be treated like second class citizens in those states.

 

[watsup]

If you start with pro-lifers looking at the disconnect between their current rhetoric and their newfound policy options, and then compare the treatment of the abortion provider under their proposed statute, with the treatment of the women who chose to walk in, make out the initial paperwork, sit in the lobby for half an hour, then be told that they must come back 24 hours later for the procedure ( nothing can be involve more 'premeditation' than this decision), its going to be clear that there is a real problem. Now imagine the predicament that actual legislators now face.

Of course I feel for the women, the families that are being brutalized by this upcoming decisionbut I do spare more than an occasional thought for all these state legislators who now are stuck with votes on amendment after amendment after amendment and bill after bill, on a subject that will do nothing but KILL them in two years and I rarely feel sorry for a politician.

They are going to be screwed once this becomes real.

I want the pro-lifer posters here to learn what this really means, and take a position on the details. and I can't get there having the old debate, with the old cliches that already sits in their comfort zones.

Let's see. It is the women who are facing the fascist criminalization of abortoin, but it is the anti-abortion extremist state legislators who have your "sorrow". Sorry, but your priorities are totally screwed up.

 

[btthegreat]

The reasons I gave are the reasons that so many states in previous legislation attempts, and some even now, are not criminalizing HAVING abortions. They criminalize providing the procedure. And now they're going after the pills.

So again, IMO the sooner they make it murder or some version of homicide to HAVE an abortion, the sooner it will be challenged in federal court and the sooner the federal benches or SCOTUS will have to address it more fully. And the sooner, hopefully, women will no longer be treated like second class citizens in those states.

Well, I don't see the SCOTUS as revisiting this anytime soon. I don't know if they will ever go back to a constitutional right to an abortion. We need to focus on those state houses because its going to sit in the laps of these legislators. If it is, then its the voters sitting in those gerrymandered districts.

How long will it take those 'Christians' to see the real pattern of the last 25 years. Nothing but drops in the numbers of actual abortions all over the country and they will be replacing that with fatally flawed stats of illegal and self reported numbers + criminal cases, that they cannot trust. What we were doing was reducing abortions with Roe year after year. What we will be doing is clogging the courts and DA offices with cases nobody wants to prosecute and dealing in horror stories and ludicrous irrational positions that reduce contraceptive access and **** over the lives of women who were raped, or had miscarriages, or are destitute and drive out the number of physicians in the field of OBG-GYN for a stat nobody can trust.

 

[Lursa]

Well, I don't see the SCOTUS as revisiting this anytime soon. I don't know if they will ever go back to a constitutional right to an abortion. We need to focus on those state houses because its going to sit in the laps of these legislators. If it is, then its the voters sitting in those gerrymandered districts.

How long will it take those 'Christians' to see the real pattern of the last 25 years. Nothing but drops in the numbers of actual abortions all over the country and they will be replacing that with fatally flawed stats of illegal and self reported numbers + criminal cases, that they cannot trust. What we were doing was reducing abortions with Roe year after year. What we will be doing is clogging the courts and DA offices with cases nobody wants to prosecute and dealing in horror stories and ludicrous irrational positions that reduce contraceptive access and **** over the lives of women who were raped, or had miscarriages, or are destitute and drive out the number of physicians in the field of OBG-GYN for a stat nobody can trust.

The rights that will be violated if women are criminally charged with murder or homicide, etc are federally, Constitutionally protected rights. States may not enact laws that supersede those. See: Supremacy Clause.

So the challenges will come. And IMO, the sooner the better. If and when the federal courts or SCOTUS will accept those challenges

 

[btthegreat]

Let's see. It is the women who are facing the fascist criminalization of abortoin, but it is the anti-abortion extremist state legislators who have your "sorrow". Sorry, but your priorities are totally screwed up.

Once again, you forgot to read my words carefully. It might help you if you did not add your own to mischaracterize mine.It requires discipline. Use the quote feature so that you are not tempted to change my phrase 'state legislators' to the phrase 'anti abortion extremist state legislators' . I have yet to discuss those people. And then there is the way you are clipping and editing my words so as to literally create a lie about my meaning...