First off. I applaud you for sticking to it. I don't think every pro-lifer would do the same.

 

1. Just to make sure, if its a state where the death penalty is allowed then it would be on the table too?

 

2. Man gets a woman pregnant. They split the cost of abortion. Man is an accomplice, right?

 

3. Doctors who perform the abortion are also on the hook for murder?

 

1. Yes

 

2. I would charge the man equally.

 

3. I would charge the doctor equally.

 

In many states, accomplices are charged with the same crime as the actual "trigger man". If I'm driving the getaway car in a bank robbery, and while I'm sitting out front in the car with the engine running, one of the robbers I'm doing the job with shoots and kills a security guard, I'm charged with murder as well. I don't see the scenarios in your second and third question much differently - especially in the third scenario, where the doctor is actually performing the abortion.

I understand what you're saying. It would seem that the enforcement would need to be on a state level from the explanations that you and Getslow have given. Honest question, though: is murder banned on a federal level?

 

It's a state crime I believe (Getslow will have to clarify). But, states have different definitions of murder, like "stand your ground" laws or "castle" doctrines, and different punishments. Similarly, I imagine each state would deal with abortion differently. Some would pass laws stating that life begins at conception, thus making all abortions murder, whereas some might specifically and separately criminalize abortion, while others might ensure its continued legality. I imagine these disparate responses would cause an attempt to make it a federal issue.

It's a state crime I believe (Getslow will have to clarify). But, states have different definitions of murder, like "stand your ground" laws or "castle" doctrines, and different punishments. Similarly, I imagine each state would deal with abortion differently. Some would pass laws stating that life begins at conception, thus making all abortions murder, whereas some might specifically and separately criminalize abortion, while others might ensure its continued legality. I imagine these disparate responses would cause an attempt to make it a federal issue.

 

I would imagine that all of that would end up taking place, yes.

I understand what you're saying. It would seem that the enforcement would need to be on a state level from the explanations that you and Getslow have given. Honest question, though: is murder banned on a federal level?

 

Yes, in Title 18 of the US Code. The question is one of jurisdiction. In almost every case, if a murder occurs within the borders of a state, the state has jurisdiction. But the law exists within the US Code because there are certain cases in which the federal government has jurisdiction, such as if the victim is an ambassador or some other foreign official under the protection of the U.S. government or if the crime did not take place within state borders (for example: on board a U.S. ship that is out to sea).

 

Were Roe to be reversed, then in these cases where the federal government does have jurisdiction, then there's already the Unborn Victims of Violence act, passed in the wake of the Laci Peterson murder, that could perhaps be enforced in this way.

Yes, in Title 18 of the US Code. The question is one of jurisdiction. In almost every case, a murder occurring within the borders of a state, the state has jurisdiction.

 

Would it be troublesome to handle abortion in the same way then?

Would it be troublesome to handle abortion in the same way then?

 

What do you mean?

What do you mean?

 

Would you see it as infringing on a state's rights to have abortion made into a federal crime just as murder is, rather than leaving it up to the states individually to determine its legality?

Would you see it as infringing on a state's rights to have abortion made into a federal crime just as murder is, rather than leaving it up to the states individually to determine its legality?

 

That doesn't change anything. What I meant was that the murder statute is on the books under federal law because when federal jurisdiction applies, then it's prosecuted under the federal murder law. But when state jurisdiction applies, then it's prosecuted under that state's murder statute.

 

Lots of things are in the federal criminal code that can't be prosecuted unless they occur in very specific places or under very specific circumstances, such as on federally-held lands.

 

In order to be prosecuted for murder under federal law, you'd have to kill someone on a military base, or the victim would have to be a foreign official, things like that. Very specific circumstances that don't interfere with state sovereignty.

That doesn't change anything. What I meant was that the murder statute is on the books under federal law because when federal jurisdiction applies, then it's prosecuted under the federal murder law. But when state jurisdiction applies, then it's prosecuted under that state's murder statute.

 

Lots of things are in the federal criminal code that can't be prosecuted unless they occur in very specific places or under very specific circumstances, such as on federally-held lands.

 

Oh oh oh...I gotcha now. Ha, that's why you're an attorney and I'm a construction manager.

This is a question many will remember me posing several times on here. It's the reason IMO that we will never see abortion outlawed. The public as a whole will not support any form of punishment that is the equivalent of a murder charge.

 

You cannot be against abortion if you are not for the death penalty for the mother who gets an abortion.

 

For what it's worth, I'm against the death penalty AND against abortion. I would like to ban both, and only lock up the mothers who get abortions - not kill them.

For what it's worth, I'm against the death penalty AND against abortion. I would like to ban both, and only lock up the mothers who get abortions - not kill them.

 

I would gladly do away with the death penalty if we would do away with abortion.

What were the penalties for having or performing abortions BEFORE Roe vs. Wade? I have no idea??????????

 

If abortion were to be outlawed, I could see determining the punishment being a responsibility of the states, ie some states making it similar to murder (those who population tends to be pro life), others (whose population tends to be pro choice) simply an illegal medical procedure.

What would the penalties be for women who give birth to brain damaged children as a result of alcohol/drug addiction? Assault? Endangering the life of a child? What if a mother smoked during her pregnancy and gave birth to a low weight infant prone to complications? What if a mothers did to go for prenatal care and a potentially treatable problrm (such as a strep carrier which can cause meningitis in the infant) is not picked up in time? What if a mother behaved recklessly, mountain climbing, in her 7th month, had a fall and lost the baby?

 

When does the policing of a pregnancy begin and end?

I had this question posed to me by Clyde. I put some thought into it but never got around to writing down an answer. My thoughts are generally along the lines of Randy's...they people involved directly with the abortion should go through the same type of legal process as any other murder.

 

As with all situations where one person ends another's life, I think the consequences should vary, as they would in any murder case. There are degrees of manslaughter and degrees of murder in most states, if not all. I could see where these types of things could apply to different situations regarding abortions. For example, I wouldn't charge a woman who was raped and conceived a child (estimated at approximately 32,000 occurrences a year in the US) the same way as I would charge a married mother of two who decided she didn't want any more children, so when she got pregnant decided to have an abortion. I don't feel like there are necessarily as many varied charges as there are in a conventional manslaughter/murder situation, but I think there is a degree of separation from one to the other.

 

Here's a question... what if the married woman was raped by her husband?

What would the penalties be for women who give birth to brain damaged children as a result of alcohol/drug addiction? Assault? Endangering the life of a child? What if a mother smoked during her pregnancy and gave birth to a low weight infant prone to complications? What if a mothers did to go for prenatal care and a potentially treatable problrm (such as a strep carrier which can cause meningitis in the infant) is not picked up in time? What if a mother behaved recklessly, mountain climbing, in her 7th month, had a fall and lost the baby?

 

When does the policing of a pregnancy begin and end?

 

All excellent questions!