What I have stated in several threads is that the abortionist should face stiff penalties, if a doctor, should lose medical license.

 

The woman is a victim too. She should not be punished.

 

This is the way it was before Roe v Wade. They had it right then.

 

How is the woman the victim?

 

The law considered the woman a second victim for the purpose of prosecuting the abortionist. And before you ask, no woman was convicted for self-abortion ever in the U.S. The last one on American soil was in 1599, prior to the existence of the United States of America.

 

The reason women are not arrested for abortion is that the principle actor in an abortion is the abortionist. It was considered prudent to consider the woman as a second victim so that she could testify against the abortionist. If she were seen as an accomplish then she could not testify against the abortionist. This is called legal prudence. Here's a quote from a section of an article on the topic.

 

This political claim is not an abstract question that is left to speculation—there is a long record of states treating women as the second victim of abortion in the law that can be found and read. To state the policy in legal terms, the states prosecuted the principal (the abortionist) and did not prosecute someone who might be considered an accomplice (the woman) in order to more effectively enforce the law against the principal. And that will most certainly be the state policy if the abortion issue is returned to the states.

 

Why did the states target abortionists and treat women as a victim of the abortionist?

 

It was based on three policy judgments: the point of abortion law is effective enforcement against abortionists, the woman is the second victim of the abortionist, and prosecuting women is counterproductive to the goal of effective enforcement of the law against abortionists.

 

The irony is that, instead of states prosecuting women, the exact opposite is true. To protect their own hide, it was abortionists (like the cult hero and abortionist Ruth Barnett when Oregon last prosecuted her in 1968), who, when they were prosecuted, sought to haul the women they aborted into court. As a matter of criminal evidentiary law, if the court treated the woman as an accomplice, she could not testify against the abortionist, and the case against the abortionist would be thrown out.

 

We can stop discussing "what if abortion is made illegal, what will happen to the mother?". There is a long precedent in the US for not prosecuting the mother. It would continue to be the practice if abortion were made illegal. Let's stop acting like we don't know the answer to the question. We do know that no woman would be prosecuted for aborting her baby. It didn't happen before. It will not happen now.

 

Here's a link to the full article Why the States Did Not Prosecute Women for Abortion Before Roe v. Wade - Americans United for Life Americans United for Life

I don't understand some folks' logic in how, if the woman is seeking out the abortion, she can be considered the victim in the act of abortion.

I don't understand some folks' logic in how, if the woman is seeking out the abortion, she can be considered the victim in the act of abortion.

 

Agreed especially if one compares abortion to murder.

What about the man? Does he get charged with abandonment if he turned his back on the woman when he found out she was pregnant? What if he agreed to the abortion - does he get charged with anything?

What about the man? Does he get charged with abandonment if he turned his back on the woman when he found out she was pregnant? What if he agreed to the abortion - does he get charged with anything?

 

 

What would happen to a third party if they were involved in a murder today? There would be your answer if it was written as the laws pertain today.

Our country would go bankrupt if this were to ever happen.

If something is illegal, then dont people usually get punished for breaking the law?

If something is illegal, then dont people usually get punished for breaking the law?

 

Of course. Not really the question, though.

 

Would you support women being put in prison for having an abortion?

Of course. Not really the question, though.

 

Would you support women being put in prison for having an abortion?

Actually, it was the question.

 

In short, if you believe abortion is a heinous act and if it was illegal then it would be a heinous crime. Shoplift a bag of candy and you'll have to at least go to court. If abortion was a criminal act, should you at least be due some punishment?

Actually, it was the question.

 

In short, if you believe abortion is a heinous act and if it was illegal then it would be a heinous crime. Shoplift a bag of candy and you'll have to at least go to court. If abortion was a criminal act, should you at least be due some punishment?

 

Guess I didn't read past the first line asking about jail time.

 

I think we can all agree that anything like abortion that is made illegal is going to involve jail time, right? No way it's ever passed as a misdemeanor crime payable by a fine.

 

It's equated to murder by most who say it should be illegal. Murder = prison.

I don't understand some folks' logic in how, if the woman is seeking out the abortion, she can be considered the victim in the act of abortion.

 

It is a matter of law not a matter of eye-for-an-eye justice and morality. For the sake of prosecuting the abortionist and enforcing the law, they focus on the main actor. They are actually having mercy on the mother. No one is saying that she did nothing wrong. She, in fact, does face the consequences of her actions, but she is not punished under the law. This is a prudent application of the law to a practical issue. It recognizes the intrinsic value of the baby, it punishes the crime, and it does not make a criminal out of the woman. This judgment was not reached without careful reasoning. To say it is "illogical" is too much. It was reached after long experience in dealing with abortion as a matter of law. Holding the mother accountable for murder has its own consequences that the legal system in our country determined would create many other ills. This was the best way to handle it as judged by the legal system pre-Roe v Wade.

 

What about the man? Does he get charged with abandonment if he turned his back on the woman when he found out she was pregnant? What if he agreed to the abortion - does he get charged with anything?

 

What would happen to a third party if they were involved in a murder today? There would be your answer if it was written as the laws pertain today.

 

Our country would go bankrupt if this were to ever happen.

 

None of these things brought up were an issue prior to Roe v Wade. "Our country would go bankrupt if this ever happened." It did happen prior to 1973 and our country did not go bankrupt.

 

If any of these are your concerns you have the burden of proof to show why this is a problem and why your supposed calamities or supposed irreconcilable contradictions did not occur before Roe v Wade. I believe your concerns are Red Herrings.

 

This is what we have already done in our country over a very long period of time. None of the concerns you raised was a problem pre-Roe. They will not be now.

 

It makes sense to at least look at the precedent set in our legal history and ask why they did it that way before and how it could work now.

 

Again, the burden of proof is on anyone who says this will not work. Give me the reasons and show why it worked pre-Roe but will not work now.

 

BTW, it may help if you read the full article before responding. Perhaps it will address some of your concerns.

It is a matter of law not a matter of eye-for-an-eye justice and morality. For the sake of prosecuting the abortionist and enforcing the law, they focus on the main actor. They are actually having mercy on the mother. No one is saying that she did nothing wrong. She, in fact, does face the consequences of her actions, but she is not punished under the law. This is a prudent application of the law to a practical issue. It recognizes the intrinsic value of the baby, it punishes the crime, and it does not make a criminal out of the woman. This judgment was not reached without careful reasoning. To say it is "illogical" is too much. It was reached after long experience in dealing with abortion as a matter of law. Holding the mother accountable for murder has its own consequences that the legal system in our country determined would create many other ills. This was the best way to handle it as judged by the legal system pre-Roe v Wade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

None of these things brought up were an issue prior to Roe v Wade. "Our country would go bankrupt if this ever happened." It did happen prior to 1973 and our country did not go bankrupt.

 

If any of these are your concerns you have the burden of proof to show why this is a problem and why your supposed calamities or supposed irreconcilable contradictions did not occur before Roe v Wade. I believe your concerns are Red Herrings.

 

This is what we have already done in our country over a very long period of time. None of the concerns you raised was a problem pre-Roe. They will not be now.

 

It makes sense to at least look at the precedent set in our legal history and ask why they did it that way before and how it could work now.

 

Again, the burden of proof is on anyone who says this will not work. Give me the reasons and show why it worked pre-Roe but will not work now.

 

BTW, it may help if you read the full article before responding. Perhaps it will address some of your concerns.

 

If you charged every woman in America who had an abortion with murder you'd be looking at hundreds of billions of dollars a year to hear these cases...You think our country would be able to withstand that expense? Not to mention the massive expenditure it would create to house and jail all these new murderers we'd be creating.

@UKMustangFan, every post I made stated the woman would not be charged at all. How does your objection follow from what I have stated?

@UKMustangFan, every post I made stated the woman would not be charged at all. How does your objection follow from what I have stated?

 

I've got no clue what you're even talking about. My comment was that if women were charged with murder if abortion were ever made illegal it would bankrupt our country. Why you quoted me previously is a mystery to me.

Actually, it was the question.

 

In short, if you believe abortion is a heinous act and if it was illegal then it would be a heinous crime. Shoplift a bag of candy and you'll have to at least go to court. If abortion was a criminal act, should you at least be due some punishment?

 

Not the only options available. See discussion of pre Roe approach to the illegality of abortion.

 

Guess I didn't read past the first line asking about jail time.

 

I think we can all agree that anything like abortion that is made illegal is going to involve jail time, right? No way it's ever passed as a misdemeanor crime payable by a fine.

 

It's equated to murder by most who say it should be illegal. Murder = prison.

 

No, if we are talking about the mother. Yes, if we are talking about the abortionist.

@UKMustangFan, sorry, I thought you were responding to the discussion about the pre Roe v Wade approach to the issue. You didn't provide much context to your comment and I misunderstood what you were responding to. My mistake.

 

I don't think there is much danger of charging every woman who has an abortion with murder. They won't be charged with murder or even for being an accomplice or accessory. The law will return to something much like it was before 1973. It will become a state's issue and the battle will be on at the state level where legislatures will be put under pressure to adopt laws that protect the pre-born. Many of the states adopted abortion laws following Roe v Wade. Still, the women will not be criminalized by this change.