What should the criminal penalty be for an abortion?

[g5000]

what i am saying is all the right to lifers should be flat out court assigned babies and children in foster care... and legally made their very own children.... to raise up love and pay for all by them selves.

Here's an idea. Let's make people responsible for their own behavior. Teach them to use birth control when having sex. It does not take too much intelligence to learn how to do it right.

An ounce of prevention.

 

[Plasmaball]

So it is fine to use the appeal to emotion fallacy and bring up rape and incest victims, eh? But then when the other reasons for abortion are pointed out, you are suddenly all, "Hey, mind your own business! I'm talking about rape babies over here! Rape! Incest! Rape! Incest!"

Yeah. I get what you're all about. Smoke and mirrors. Misdirection.

No...I've always been about minding your own business. Im talking about minding your own business. I don't need misdirection. Shut the **** up and live your life.

Just because you don't care about the unborn, and will do anything to deflect from the fact this is what is at issue, does not make it none of my business.

No it just isn't your business. No you can talk about it till you are blue in the face, its not your business.

 

[koshergrl]

Sure it is.

Human rights violations are the business of every human being on the planet.

 

[syrenn]

Sure it is.

Human rights violations are the business of every human being on the planet.

I agree, producing children you cant care for, feed, clothe and house is a huge human tragedy.

 

[koshergrl]

Giving birth isn't a human rights violation.

Killing babies and victimizing women and children...is.

Wait..I should have said..giving birth isn't a human rights violation...YET. I'm sure you guys are working over time to change the definition of human rights violation as we speak.

 

[syrenn]

Giving birth isn't a human rights violation.

Killing babies and victimizing women and children...is.

Wait..I should have said..giving birth isn't a human rights violation...YET. I'm sure you guys are working over time to change the definition of human rights violation as we speak.

No, its not..... but it sure is not right to produce them and bring them up starving....and knowing they will be starving to boot.

Is it not victimizing them giving them birth? So sad for the little victims.

 

[koshergrl]

Lots of things aren't right.

It isn't right that we teach our girls that they should have sex before their married.

It isn't right that our schools revise history and teach that to our kids.

It isn't right that we have leash laws.

But none of those things are human rights violations.

Violating women, abusing women, raping women, coercing women into abortion, and killing babies...those are human rights violations.

 

[Plasmaball]

Sure it is.

Human rights violations are the business of every human being on the planet.

Ah but they aren't humans....therefore you fail,and its not your business.

 

[koshergrl]

The women who go to abortion clinics aren't humans?

Don't you have an underage girl to *protect*?

 

[syrenn]

Lots of things aren't right.

It isn't right that we teach our girls that they should have sex before their married.

It isn't right that our schools revise history and teach that to our kids.

It isn't right that we have leash laws.

But none of those things are human rights violations.

Violating women, abusing women, raping women, coercing women into abortion, and killing babies...those are human rights violations.

I agree.. killing babies is wrong...

They are not babies until they are born.

 

[Plasmaball]

Lots of things aren't right.

It isn't right that we teach our girls that they should have sex before their married.

It isn't right that our schools revise history and teach that to our kids.

It isn't right that we have leash laws.

But none of those things are human rights violations.

Violating women, abusing women, raping women, coercing women into abortion, and killing babies...those are human rights violations.

Your a virgin huh?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What should the criminal penalty be for an abortion?

EDIT- OBVIOUSLY this is a question for the anti-women's choice crowd.

I don't think there are many on the right who are actually serious about outlawing abortion. If they did, they would lose a wedge issue and rallying point for the religious right part of the Republican base. If they were serious about it, they could have gotten rid of it when they controlled all three branches of government during the Bush administration.

Actually, they’d still need the Supreme Court to overturn Griswold/Roe/Casey to move ahead with any Federal legislation. But you’re correct with them not wanting to lose a wedge issue needed to keep the radical right engaged.

 

[koshergrl]

Lots of things aren't right.

It isn't right that we teach our girls that they should have sex before their married.

It isn't right that our schools revise history and teach that to our kids.

It isn't right that we have leash laws.

But none of those things are human rights violations.

Violating women, abusing women, raping women, coercing women into abortion, and killing babies...those are human rights violations.

I agree.. killing babies is wrong...

They are not babies until they are born.

No, they're babies from conception.

But that's not the only human rights violation, as you know. There are also the ones that take place when the women who obtain the abortions are victimized, and when those who abuse them are protected, by the abortion industry.

 

[Avorysuds]

How about we don't let Government pay for it or give money to any institution that donates money to places that do it or that actually does abortions.

I'm pro choice btw, but I also read the constitution. The second part of my answer should be obvious as Government shouldn’t be giving money to anyone outside the confines of the constitution, but that ain’t gonna happen anytime soon.

 

[koshergrl]

But people who promote abortion don't give a shit about THOSE human rights violations. They consider it acceptable collateral...it's okay to have some human rights violations, so long as those babies die.

Which is the conundrum. You support human rights violations in the form of abortion...you support human rights violations, period. You can't have one without the other.

 

[g5000]

They are not babies until they are born.

If you believe that, then you are, by definition, an extremist. Even the Burger court disagreed with that assessment.

 

[Hollie]

The extremist nutters on one end of the spectrum mewl that a single fertilized cell is a person and advocate that the State seize control of the womb at that point. On the other end, the zealots would have it that personhood is not achieved until birth and the State should have no dominion until then. The vast majority of rational Americans recognize that personhood evolves during gestation as brain waves are first evidenced and independent viability achieved. Thus, Rowe vs Wade is a reasonable compromise.

I’m actually comfortable with Roe v. Wade as a reasonable compromise. Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother- nothing more. It neither requires them enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest in those.

The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.

The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. if it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mother’s health moot, if the state chose to peruse it.

 

[syrenn]

Lots of things aren't right.

It isn't right that we teach our girls that they should have sex before their married.

It isn't right that our schools revise history and teach that to our kids.

It isn't right that we have leash laws.

But none of those things are human rights violations.

Violating women, abusing women, raping women, coercing women into abortion, and killing babies...those are human rights violations.

I agree.. killing babies is wrong...

They are not babies until they are born.

No, they're babies from conception.

But that's not the only human rights violation, as you know. There are also the ones that take place when the women who obtain the abortions are victimized, and when those who abuse them are protected, by the abortion industry.

They are human cells from conception.... not babies. They are not babies until they are born.

 

[arKangel]

Baby | Define Baby at Dictionary.com

World English Dictionary
Baby

— n , pl -bies
1. a. a newborn or recently born child; infant
b. ( as modifier ): baby food
2. an unborn child; fetus

Seems that the blind hatred for babies has clouded someone's ability to use the english language.
No matter. Pinko's have little use for established definitions, that is why they always seek to change them.
The pinkos has been corrected, let us not waste time with anymore semantic games.

To address the question of the thread...
It is a matter of the state to decide what penalty to apply to a homicide.
Abortion is homicide.

Personally,
As one who consoles women who have been duped, harassed, and forced into abortion, I recognize that they have been victimized as well.

Degrees of guilt (personal opinion)
First:
The blame for criminal intent should be placed squarely where it belongs, on the abortionist.
Abortionists have the education to know that they are killing a human being. They kill for profit, they are clearly not persuaded by propaganda, harassment, or threats.

Second:
The ones who directly persuade, harass, and force a girl or woman into abortion.

Third:
Propagandists who operate for a variety of reasons, yet their ultimate goal is to put money in the pockets of those who butcher babies. Like some of the pinko's on this board.


To women who have been traumatized by abortion, please know that there are people who understand what you have been through, and they care.
Project Rachel – HopeAfterAbortion.org

 

[Hollie]

So saith the resident pimp.

Men who support abortion and want it to continue apace always have a motivation for killing babies.

The rabid haters never let the lucidity of a reasoned argument interfere with their warped agenda.

Most folks consider abortion (women’s health care), essentially a private matter that should be protected from governmental intrusion to the extent that is reasonable. Roe vs. Wade has achieved that reasonability.

On the other hand, fundamentalist extremists like Osama bin koshergrl would abrogate a woman's right to control her own womb.

The fact that there cannot be consensus does not dictate that we mindlessly leap to an absolutist proscription. As with most contested matters of adjudication, we are dealing with conflicting recognized rights: a woman to control her womb, a fetus to develop into an individual. Rowe v. Wade has delineated the specifics of such a compromise, recognizing as a superior matter of privacy the right of a woman to control a pregnancy before that zygote/embryo/fetus has become a viable entity, and granting that fetus a protected status once its development has reached a definitive stage. There is always a nebulous area in between that can be contested, but to legislate either one extremist position or the other is not an equitable approach.