What would it take...?

[tryreading]

If abortion was made illegal we should have some mandatory education about the the Baby's development this might reduce illegal abortions. Many people do not know this, before abortion was made legal we had only 29 deaths due to illegal abortions. Let me also add if abortion was illegal I believe there would be more precautions taken. You can not abort Aids so people are more cautious. Most importantly there would have to be more pregnancy counseling. Well now I have to stop dancing and answer your Question. With all these things done. We would have to decide a punishment. As with any murder case allot depends on the circumstances, mental state, Possible jail term for first offenders. Sterilization for repeat offenders. But one thing is bothering me the male is getting away scot free? Hmm we have to do something about that. Child support while any woman is pregnant if she seeks it during a pregnancy she should get it. It takes 2 an I think we should also make the male more responsible also if an abortion is performed. Find out if he was the reason the woman decided to abort and make him an accomplice. Jail time depending on the facts of the case.

This makes sense, because there is no useful law without consequences.

Most people I ask this of, even if they are adamantly anti-abortion, would not punish the woman at all. This is inconsistent, doesn't make sense to say abortion is murder but there should be no punishment for the perpetrator. Some say they would punish the doctor, but not the woman. How would this be reasonable? The doctor/OB-GYN can't perform any surgery unless a pregnant woman initiates the process, with intent. Punish the doctor too, if there's a law, but the woman has to face some penalty, or don't criminalize the act.

I am against abortion, but would not control the woman in any way. Yes, this is inconsistent, I know.

The thing about punishing the man who impregnated her, I can't see, exactly. It is her choice to abort, shouldn't she be completely responsible for her action, unless he forces the abortion or is an accomplice, like you say? In other words, unless he directly participates in the abortion process. Impregnating her was no crime.

 

[Proudly Pro Life JP Freem]

This makes sense, because there is no useful law without consequences.

Most people I ask this of, even if they are adamantly anti-abortion, would not punish the woman at all. This is inconsistent, doesn't make sense to say abortion is murder but there should be no punishment for the perpetrator. Some say they would punish the doctor, but not the woman. How would this be reasonable? The doctor/OB-GYN can't perform any surgery unless a pregnant woman initiates the process, with intent. Punish the doctor too, if there's a law, but the woman has to face some penalty, or don't criminalize the act.

I am against abortion, but would not control the woman in any way. Yes, this is inconsistent, I know.

The thing about punishing the man who impregnated her, I can't see, exactly. It is her choice to abort, shouldn't she be completely responsible for her action, unless he forces the abortion or is an accomplice, like you say? In other words, unless he directly participates in the abortion process. Impregnating her was no crime.

As you could probally tell I was hesitant about offering punishment for the woman you made me think hard on that one.

About the man, If a man impregnates a woman and abortion was made illegal then the the baby in the womb is recognized as a person. Yes just like a child. So the man should pay child support as the woman has alot of bills she did not have before she was pregnant. Maternity cloths, medicine, vitamins, child birth classes, octors.... Suppose she has to be on bed rest who will support her? If not him guess what we will. I did not impregnate her niether did you but the taxpayers will have to pick up the bill. It takes 2 to get pregnant. I do not know why this can not be happening now. I think this would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. (the Babies are always wanted.) I have no idea why the Pro Life movement has not pushed for this. It would definitely put NOW and NARAL on the hot seat and it would reduce the number of abortions. I think I'll write my Congressman and Senators tonight. Impregnating her is not a crime it is a responsibility and we must be held responsible for our actions.

 

[tryreading]

As you could probally tell I was hesitant about offering punishment for the woman you made me think hard on that one.

About the man, If a man impregnates a woman and abortion was made illegal then the the baby in the womb is recognized as a person. Yes just like a child. So the man should pay child support as the woman has alot of bills she did not have before she was pregnant. Maternity cloths, medicine, vitamins, child birth classes, octors.... Suppose she has to be on bed rest who will support her? If not him guess what we will. I did not impregnate her niether did you but the taxpayers will have to pick up the bill. It takes 2 to get pregnant. I do not know why this can not be happening now. I think this would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. (the Babies are always wanted.) I have no idea why the Pro Life movement has not pushed for this. It would definitely put NOW and NARAL on the hot seat and it would reduce the number of abortions. I think I'll write my Congressman and Senators tonight. Impregnating her is not a crime it is a responsibility and we must be held responsible for our actions.

Well, the purpose of the scenario is to make one think. Some people won't answer, thinking I'm trying to trap them somehow. But your beliefs are not something someone can play 'gotcha' with, if you are sincere.

There are existing requirements for the man to pay for his offspring, and they should go further, of course. I knew a bastard a few years ago who had five kids, and did everything he could do to dodge paying support. He was a real loser. Pregnancy support is a good idea, too.

But a penalty for him if the woman decides to have an abortion bothers me. If she does it without his knowledge, then he should not be guilty of anything. Even if he knows she is going to do it, but is not aiding, I don't think he has done anything illegal, if abortion were illegal.

 

[Proudly Pro Life JP Freem]

Well, the purpose of the scenario is to make one think. Some people won't answer, thinking I'm trying to trap them somehow. But your beliefs are not something someone can play 'gotcha' with, if you are sincere.

There are existing requirements for the man to pay for his offspring, and they should go further, of course. I knew a bastard a few years ago who had five kids, and did everything he could do to dodge paying support. He was a real loser. Pregnancy support is a good idea, too.

But a penalty for him if the woman decides to have an abortion bothers me. If she does it without his knowledge, then he should not be guilty of anything.

I agree
Even if he knows she is going to do it, but is not aiding, I don't think he has done anything illegal, if abortion were illegal.

If someone knows a murder is going to be commited and he does not report it to the police is it a crime? I do not know. I think it should be. But in todays upside down world who knows.

 

[tecoyah]

This whole thread makes Bushs' misguided abstinence policy.....almost make sense.....almost..heh

 

[ngdawg]

As you could probally tell I was hesitant about offering punishment for the woman you made me think hard on that one.

About the man, If a man impregnates a woman and abortion was made illegal then the the baby in the womb is recognized as a person. Yes just like a child. So the man should pay child support as the woman has alot of bills she did not have before she was pregnant. Maternity cloths, medicine, vitamins, child birth classes, octors.... Suppose she has to be on bed rest who will support her? If not him guess what we will. I did not impregnate her niether did you but the taxpayers will have to pick up the bill. It takes 2 to get pregnant. I do not know why this can not be happening now.

It is now, it's called 'support' and a father's wages can be garnisheed, but this happnes only if the woman files to do so.

I think this would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. (the Babies are always wanted.)

No, they aren't. The major local paper here has a second page devoted to unwanted children up for adoption. None are healthy, white babies-they have been in the 'system' most times since birth. Babies of color, babies with defects are not wanted.

I have no idea why the Pro Life movement has not pushed for this. It would definitely put NOW and NARAL on the hot seat and it would reduce the number of abortions. I think I'll write my Congressman and Senators tonight. Impregnating her is not a crime it is a responsibility and we must be held responsible for our actions.

Because anti-choice groups are not concerned with preservation of family. Their only concern is the eradication of abortion and reproductive rights. They are NOT pro-life at all, only anti-choice and anti-women's rights. The sooner people realize this the better for all.
The National Organization for Women recognizes the rights of women and this includes the right to being properly and financially supported as the mother of a wayward father's children.

 

[Proudly Pro Life JP Freem]

Again I think if a woman is pregnant she should be entittled to support by the guy who impregnated her. I do not know if any state requires this. I am all for it though. I think this single step would reduce the number of abortions.

ngdawg "No, they aren't. The major local paper here has a second page devoted to unwanted children up for adoption. None are healthy, white babies-they have been in the 'system' most times since birth. Babies of color, babies with defects are not wanted.

Babies of color are wanted. Today we have people traveling to Africa to adopt babies. Babies that are Handicap are special need babies they require very special parents that are very hard to find. I know 2 couples that foster these kids they are special people. They often say I wish I could adopt but the cost for medicine, Doctors, and other factors make it impossible.

ngdawg"Because anti-choice groups are not concerned with preservation of family. Their only concern is the eradication of abortion and reproductive rights. They are NOT pro-life at all, only anti-choice and anti-women's rights. The sooner people realize this the better for all.
The National Organization for Women recognizes the rights of women and this includes the right to being properly and financially supported as the mother of a wayward father's children."

But they are not in favor of pregnancy support while the Mom is pregnant. The reason for this is they want to encourage abortion. The same is true with Unplaned Parenthood.