You're missing my point. Stop with the "we go after the abortionists" stuff. There is no abortionist. All there is are pregnant women on their own choosing to end the life of their unborn child. How do we prosecute that? How do we catch them?

 

An 18 year old goes to the doctor and finds out she's pregnant. She comes back for her next checkup and she's no longer pregnant. Do we charge her with a crime? Do we look into ever miscarriage or botched pregnancy and examine to see if foul play was involved?

 

Who says we can catch them all?! There isn't a crime today where every perpetrator is caught. That doesn't mean we legalize the crime.

 

Again, show me how this was ineffective pre Roe v Wade or you don't have an argument? People were caught and abortionists were prosecuted before 1973. Do it the same way.

By way of clarificATION, "abortionist" can be a medical doctor or not. Anyone who performs the abortion is an "abortionist" in the way I am using the term when talking about who gets prosecuted.

 

Okay, so the pregnant 18 year old is the abortionist then. How do we prosecute? How do we prove she intentionally ended her unborn child's life?

Who says we can catch them all?! There isn't a crime today where every perpetrator is caught. That doesn't mean we legalize the crime.

 

Again, show me how this was ineffective pre Roe v Wade or you don't have an argument? People were caught and abortionists were prosecuted before 1973. Do it the same way.

 

So basically you think any time a woman loses her unborn child we should investigate as to whether it was aborted or not? That seems like a complete invasion of privacy and completely intrusive.

So basically you think any time a woman loses her unborn child we should investigate as to whether it was aborted or not? That seems like a complete invasion of privacy and completely intrusive.

 

And a waste of time mostly, because as you've pointed out, it would be extremely difficult to prove a woman intentionally aborted the baby.

Yes. I think you would have a tough time arguing the pre-born person is anything other than human.

 

But to answer your question, this is why i am against abortion and think it ought to be a criminal offense. For the kind of punishment and who should be punished, see my other posts.

 

Where I struggle with your logic is consistency. If your argument is that it's murder then why would you have exceptions? Why allow a mother to murder her unborn child in any circumstance?

Okay, so the pregnant 18 year old is the abortionist then. How do we prosecute? How do we prove she intentionally ended her unborn child's life?

 

our posts are passing in cyber space. For my answer to your post 62, see my post #61 .

An 18 year old goes to the doctor and finds out she's pregnant. She comes back for her next checkup and she's no longer pregnant. Do we charge her with a crime? Do we look into ever miscarriage or botched pregnancy and examine to see if foul play was involved?

 

I think these are important questions. How can we distinguish between a miscarriage and an abortion? Would we then consider miscarriages homicides?

I think these are important questions. How can we distinguish between a miscarriage and an abortion? Would we then consider miscarriages homicides?

 

Is there a test that shows a difference between a miscarriage and an abortion?

So basically you think any time a woman loses her unborn child we should investigate as to whether it was aborted or not? That seems like a complete invasion of privacy and completely intrusive.

 

No. I do not advocate that. Again, can you show that this is what occurred pre Roe v Wade? I do not think so. Yet, there were a number of cases prosecuted under the law in those days. It does not require the action you call for. By making abortion illegal, you are making a clear statement to all of society that human life is precious and should be treated as such.

 

Where I struggle with your logic is consistency. If your argument is that it's murder then why would you have exceptions? Why allow a mother to murder her unborn child in any circumstance?

 

I don't believe I used the word "murder." If I did, I misspoke. It is the taking of a human life. Self-defense, which is essentially what we are talking about in the event that the mother's life is in danger, is not murder and is allowable by almost all ethicists. This is logically consistent. In cases where it is not for self-defense, there is some culpability attached. In the case of an abortion, the culpability belongs to the one performing the abortion. The article I linked earlier tries to explain some of the reasons why the mother is not considered the perpetrator in this instant. It makes a lot of sense. It isn't just a black and white pronouncement. The law is nuanced and I think so in a good way.

Edited July 30, 201511 yr by oldgrappler
negated the incorrect negation

Is there a test that shows a difference between a miscarriage and an abortion?

 

Same question I wanted to ask.

Is there a test that shows a difference between a miscarriage and an abortion?

 

No clue. But even if there were, miscarriages happen for a reason; a woman could inject hormones or refuse certain medicines or drastically alter their diet in a way that would raise the likelihood of miscarriage.

I think these are important questions. How can we distinguish between a miscarriage and an abortion? Would we then consider miscarriages homicides?

 

of course not. Why doesn't anybody care what the actual practice was prior to Roe v Wade?! All of these "what if" questions are not going to happen now just as they did not happen before.

^So how do you propose we pick and choose?

 

Just ask? If they say it's a miscarriage we let them go on their way? Do we only prosecute if they freely admit to it being an abortion?

 

As far as pre Roe v. Wade, I don't really care about what we did 40+ years ago. This isn't the 70s.

Still, it's not her limbs that stop moving, not her heart that stops beating, not her body that stops developing/growing.

 

Scott Peterson was convicted of two murders in 2004: his wife Laci and the baby inside her womb. One was first degree and the other was second degree, but still, two separate murder convictions.

 

Laci Peterson was close to 9 months pregnant. That baby would have most certainly survived outside of the womb. A 3 month old fetus on the other hand...

Laci Peterson was close to 9 months pregnant. That baby would have most certainly survived outside of the womb. A 3 month old fetus on the other hand...

 

A baby is certainly more viable the longer he or she has been in the womb, but Deuce had stated that it belongs to the mother until it's outside the womb. I was responding that our legal system has disagreed with that in this specific instance...and I'm sure others.

 

At three months, a baby is kicking his/her legs, turning his/her feet, curling his/her toes, making a fist, turning the head, opening the mouth, and swallowing. After an abortion, all of those bodily movements stop, but it's the baby's bodily movements and not the mother's.