^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.

 

Why do we care what happened 40 years ago? Because what is being proposed by me and opposed by you is exactly what was done then. They had these "what if" scenarios worked out then. Instead of acting like "know one knows" let's learn what they did in the past. We may find that they handled it quite well. We may also find that there are ways that their laws and methods may be tweaked to make them better. But until you examine how these were handled then, you cannot act like these objections are insurmountable. Sure, there is merit in raising them but unless you know there was no solution to the objection then, you can't act like just raising the issue is enough of a reason not to move forward now.

 

I am saying the issues you raised were not insurmountable problems then and are not now.

 

There is a saying, if we forget the past we are bound to repeat its mistakes. The corollary is also true. If we forget the past, we will fail to benefit from its wisdom.

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.

 

It's not like this issue was completely settled before Roe. What to do about abortion was probably as much of a hot topic as it is now, ergo the challenge that went to the Supreme Court.

Why do we care what happened 40 years ago? Because what is being proposed by me and opposed by you is exactly what was done then. They had these "what if" scenarios worked out then. Instead of acting like "know one knows" let's learn what they did in the past. We may find that they handled it quite well. We may also find that there are ways that their laws and methods may be tweaked to make them better. But until you examine how these were handled then, you cannot act like these objections are insurmountable. Sure, there is merit in raising them but unless you know there was no solution to the objection then, you can't act like just raising the issue is enough of a reason not to move forward now.

 

I am saying the issues you raised were not insurmountable problems then and are not now.

 

There is a saying, if we forget the past we are bound to repeat its mistakes. The corollary is also true. If we forget the past, we will fail to benefit from its wisdom.

 

So then tell me how we're going to differentiate?

 

How are we going to determine which lost pregnancies are miscarriages and which could be abortions? Tell me how we figure that out?

 

I'm looking for an actual answer. Not, "well let's do what they did pre RvW".

 

If you don't have one, just say you have no idea.

If it's not a baby than you are not pregnant.

So then tell me how we're going to differentiate?

 

How are we going to determine which lost pregnancies are miscarriages and which could be abortions? Tell me how we figure that out?

 

I'm looking for an actual answer. Not, "well let's do what they did pre RvW".

 

If you don't have one, just say you have no idea.

 

What happened to your "gotcha" response?

 

I started to participate in this discussion by saying, there were laws about this prior to Roe and that I wondered how it was handled then. A valid question. I did not know then. I googled it and found that all 50 states had laws and that they prosecuted the person performing the abortion, not the woman for seeking it. Many even considered the woman the second victim in the crime. So i suggested, in answer to the question about what consequences should occur if abortion is made illegal, that we should look at the laws pre Roe to see what they did and use that as a starting point. Again, I think that is a reasonable suggestion.

 

So you stated it would be impossible to prosecute that crime... we could never know when the crime was committed. So I said, apparently, they were able to overcome this difficulty pre 1973. I do know there were prosecutions then. How many? i do not know. But I do know that all 50 states' AG's had this law on the book and had to deal with your question some how. So it is apparent to me that your scenario is not insurmountable. You presented it as the reason not to even pursue it. I challenged you then to show that this crime was never prosecuted pre 1973 or that there were so few prosecutions that it was a useless ordinance. That is the only way that your current objection would be valid--if then it also was impossible to prosecute.

 

You chose not to reply to that.

 

My point is, for the law to be on the books in 50 states then and prosecuted, which it was, there must have been some validity to the process of investigating whether a crime has been committed. You want to dismiss the suggestion out of hand. But there is no evidence to require that. Really, all that is necessary is to look at the situation in the past and see how they dealt with knowing when an abortion had been committed or whether it was a natural miscarriage. I am not a doctor and do not know how they may approach such a thing. I don't think that medical evidence is the only way of determining such a thing. Testimony from participants can also be a way to establish facts. Eye witnesses who know that such a procedure was sought, etc. Again, nothing new here in determining whether a crime has been committed.

 

My point is this, since the laws already existed on the books for a century or two, we might want to look to that precedent when asking some of the questions you and others have raised. I am pretty sure they have already been dealt with and perhaps we may learn something from the past. You are the one who wants to dismiss the past out of hand.

 

I am not trying to just win an argument. I have proposed a reasonable path regarding making abortion illegal and what to do with those who break that law. When an objection has been raised, I tried to answer it and when I don't know I suggest looking to the people who have experience in doing this very thing. Surely they had to deal with such questions. Let's at least consider their solutions. No, I do not know in detail what those solutions were. But it is reasonable to assume that they had some solutions.

 

It would be easy to refute if you could show there were no prosecutions, if it is as you suggested, "a crime that is impossible" to discover or prosecute.

 

I disagree Mustang.

 

I don't know that I have anything else constructive to say, unless I find some court records or stats that show the number of prosecutions.

Edited July 30, 201511 yr by oldgrappler
sp

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?

 

We have exceptions to other forms of murder. Self Defense, Insanity, etc.

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...

 

And if Laci Peterson was only 1 or 2 months pregnant they still would have tried Scott for double murder. The court would see that life begins at conception in that case, but not in the case of abortion. It's a double standard.

It's not like this issue was completely settled before Roe. What to do about abortion was probably as much of a hot topic as it is now, ergo the challenge that went to the Supreme Court.

 

The question that led to Roe was whether abortion should be illegal or legal. Our current discussion is whether it is too difficult to determine if an abortion has occurred. If it really is too difficult to determine if an abortion has occurred, I don't see why abortions were ever forced to the "back alley."

And if Laci Peterson was only 1 or 2 months pregnant they still would have tried Scott for double murder. The court would see that life begins at conception in that case, but not in the case of abortion. It's a double standard.

 

I don't know about the Peterson case, but in Kentucky, the court would simply be following the law. KRS 507A specifically exempts healthcare providers performing an abortion from the fetal homicide laws. The court can see whatever it wants, but it's bound by the terms set forth by a legislature that defines what constitutes "homicide".

I hate talking about this topic... I really do.

 

The whole concept of it makes me unbearably depressed. I'll never wrap my mind around someone terminating a pregnancy. It's a child in there; it's a child with no protection and no one to speak for it or ensure its well-being. I also try my best to be sympathetic to women who find themselves in terrible positions. I'm not likely to call for prosecution of women who terminate pregnancy... Jesus that term... "terminate pregnancy"... it sends a shiver down my spine.

 

I'll never believe it isn't a profoundly terrible thing to kill a defenseless child in the womb... but how to make others see it? I wish I knew.

The question that led to Roe was whether abortion should be illegal or legal. Our current discussion is whether it is too difficult to determine if an abortion has occurred. If it really is too difficult to determine if an abortion has occurred, I don't see why abortions were ever forced to the "back alley."

 

For what it's worth, my response was to people answering Clyde's question about whether abortion should be treated as murder, to which I said that if so it opens up a lot of other questions, a lot of them philosophical.

 

But, I don't think if Roe were overturned tomorrow we could revert back to 1960s laws and the discussion would end and everything would be copacetic. At the very least, advances in medicine would change some things, but the debate over abortion wasn't settled at the time and it wouldn't be settled today; we'd still have debates over new laws and how to handle these issues.

I voted illegal. It's the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life.

My body. My choice.

 

My God. My penance.

 

I can make the exact same argument for legalizing heroin, or any other illicit drug, for that matter.

 

Doesn't mean they should be legal.

I voted illegal. It's the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life.

 

What about in cases of the Woman was Raped and became pregnant from it?

I stand by my statement.

 

I understand you don't agree.