Follow-ups To Abortions Now Being Illegal In Texas

[bekkilyn]

No, they are once again hurting women. Pregnant women are the vulnerable PEOPLE.

The rabid anti-choice movement only defines a person as someone who is still in a womb. Once that entity is born, it no longer is a person and can be morally abused, tortured, starved, or murdered at will and most especially for the crime of being born female. They don't care how many actual people they hurt, maim, or kill provided that the holy embryo is preserved at all costs, and if they can do it all in the name of religion, all the better. Afghanistan isn't the only country with a Taliban.

 

[Goonie]

The rabid anti-choice movement only defines a person as someone who is still in a womb. Once that entity is born, it no longer is a person and can be morally abused, tortured, starved, or murdered at will and most especially for the crime of being born female. They don't care how many actual people they hurt, maim, or kill provided that the holy embryo is preserved at all costs, and if they can do it all in the name of religion, all the better. Afghanistan isn't the only country with a Taliban.

Indeed, and they can't wait to execute the doctirs, and give it a few years the rape victims, for daring to think women have control over their own bodies.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Meanwhile:

GoDaddy is cutting off Texas Right to Life’s abortion ‘whistleblowing’ website

And I never even got the chance to report in any false alarms...

 

[bekkilyn]

Meanwhile:

GoDaddy is cutting off Texas Right to Life’s abortion ‘whistleblowing’ website

And I never even got the chance to report in any false alarms...

Heh, this might be the first time I've ever liked GoDaddy for anything.

 

[Hammster]

Well, a moment ago, you were cheering on the state ending lives. A little consistency, if you please?

And a moment ago, I explained it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And a moment ago, I explained it.

Not terribly well, and not with any consideration of causality. Try again?

 

[Hammster]

Not terribly well, and not with any consideration of causality. Try again?

I’ll try to make it really simple. Babies are innocent and don’t deserve to die. Murderers are guilty of murder, and deserve to die.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I’ll try to make it really simple. Babies are innocent and don’t deserve to die. Murderers are guilty of murder, and deserve to die.

According to...?

 

[NxNW]

People are better educated now and have access to free contraception. I would imagine cases will be few.

A 1% failure rate for 100 million women means at least a million unwanted pregnancies in the US.

 

[NxNW]

I’ll try to make it really simple. Babies are innocent and don’t deserve to die.

We're talking embryos, not babies.

Murderers are guilty of murder, and deserve to die.

How many innocents died in the alleged biblical flood?

 

[coffee4u]

Now what? Now maybe millions of babies can stop being murdered every year in the US.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Now what? Now maybe millions of babies can stop being murdered every year in the US.

Now they just need to make it though school without getting shot.

 

[JSRG]

When it's overturned, then it will be murder in some states, and it won't be murder in others.

As far as I am aware, zero states classified abortion as murder prior to Roe v. Wade. The Texas law that the original Roe v. Wade revolved around certainly didn't; it carried a penalty of only 2-5 years and the mother received no punishment at all.

Given that, I doubt even the most anti-abortion states will actually classify abortion as murder if Roe v. Wade be overturned (which, for the record, I think it should be).

EDIT: The law did give a harsher sentence of a minimum of 5 years in prison if the abortion was carried out during the process of birth, though the above considerations still apply. For reference, here's the text of the law that was struck down by Roe v. Wade, copied it from the Supreme Court opinion:

Article 1191. Abortion

If any person shall designedly administer to a pregnant woman or knowingly procure to be administered with her consent any drug or medicine, or shall use towards her any violence or means whatever externally or internally applied, and thereby procure an abortion, he shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than two nor more than five years; if it be done without her consent, the punishment shall be doubled. By `abortion' is meant that the life of the fetus or embryo shall be destroyed in the woman's womb or that a premature birth thereof be caused.

Art. 1192. Furnishing the means

Whoever furnishes the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purpose intended is guilty as an accomplice.

Art. 1193. Attempt at abortion

If the means used shall fail to produce an abortion, the offender is nevertheless guilty of an attempt to produce abortion, provided it be shown that such means were calculated to produce that result, and shall be fined not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars.

Art. 1194. Murder in producing abortion

If the death of the mother is occasioned by an abortion so produced or by an attempt to effect the same it is murder.

Art. 1195. Destroying unborn child

Whoever shall during parturition of the mother destroy the vitality or life in a child in a state of being born and before actual birth, which child would otherwise have been born alive, shall be confined in the penitentiary for life or for not less than five years.

Art. 1196. By medical advice

Nothing in this chapter applies to an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Given that, I doubt even the most anti-abortion states will actually classify abortion as murder if Roe v. Wade be overturned (which, for the record, I think it should be).

They won't at first -- but when the anti-choice crowd realizes that their victory isn't enough, it'll be their next project.

 

[coffee4u]

Now they just need to make it though school without getting shot.

That would be a separate issue now wouldn't it. That's because the US has pathetic gun laws. School shootings are a rare thing here because we have decent gun laws. It's been 25 years since we have seen a mass shooting. And yes, like most Aussies I am all for gun laws. Maybe in the US pro life and no gun laws go together, but I am not American.

 

[Desk trauma]

Given that, I doubt even the most anti-abortion states will actually classify abortion as murder if Roe v. Wade be overturned

I disagree, state legislators have already called for the death penalty and in a post Roe US the race will be on among some red states to out do each other on how illegal they can make abortion.

 

[JSRG]

They won't at first -- but when the anti-choice crowd realizes that their victory isn't enough, it'll be their next project.

At the time of Roe v. Wade, a time when there appears to have been less acceptance of abortion than presently, I do not believe any states classified it as murder. So exactly why would we expect states to do so now if the decision was overturned?

There doesn't even seem to be that much appetite for such a thing among the pro-life movement. They're obviously unified in wanting abortion criminalized, but there is far less unity when it comes to questions such as what the punishment for it should be.

I disagree, state legislators have already called for the death penalty and in a post Roe US the race will be on among some red states to out do each other on how illegal they can make abortion.

Individual "state legislators" call for all kinds of crazy things. Is there evidence that there is a majority of legislators in any state who would to pass such laws? I've seen quite a few insane bills that were introduced to the California congress (which, naturally, conservatives jumped all over as examples of how crazy liberals can be), but had no chance of ever actually being passed because there was actually not really support for them.

 

[Will Joseph]

The new image of America will be the rape victim forced to give birth in handcuffs, as they had the temerity to believe they had rights over their own body. (In handcuffs because in the religious rights America she's facing attempted murder charges).

Rape is stupid enough with a man exposing himself to sexually transmitted infections, so a rapist who impregnates his victim would be an exceptionally stupid idiot. Impregnation and a baby is just more evidence against a suspect.

Now if rapists are forced to pay child support or given more serious jail sentences to pay off such child support, then the number of impregnating rapes might drop. Impregnating a victim is already a very stupid move for any rapist hoping to not get caught by police. Outlawing abortion would make the impregnation even more foolish.

Being forced to give birth after rape is horrible, but such instances of rape might actually drop.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That would be a separate issue now wouldn't it.

Assuming these children are worth a plugged nickel to you once they're born, it would be part of the same issue... saving their lives.

...or is birth the cut-off point for caring about that sort of thing?

 

[TLK Valentine]

At the time of Roe v. Wade, a time when there appears to have been less acceptance of abortion than presently, I do not believe any states classified it as murder. So exactly why would we expect states to do so now if the decision was overturned?

Precisely because the decision was overturned.

Whether or not abortion was more or less accepted, it was not the political rallying cry it has since become. Plenty of groups and politico-religious organizations have made the War on Abortion their raison d'etre, and nothing kills a political activist group quite like success. There's far too much political (and financial capital) to be left behind by ending the fight now... even due to "victory."

There doesn't even seem to be that much appetite for such a thing among the pro-life movement. They're obviously unified in wanting abortion criminalized, but there is far less unity when it comes to questions such as what the punishment for it should be.

Which only goes to show that the matter hasn't been given much thought -- which is a shame. Inany political struggle, two questions must be addressed:

1. "What do we do if we lose?"
2. "What do we do if we win?"

The anti-abortion crowd hasn't considered question 2, have they? What do you think they will do when they discover that abortions, though outlawed, will still be prevalent across the country?

I suspect they'll be as shocked as seeing the first drunk man after prohibition was enacted -- which only goes to show that they also haven't learned from history.

...although I will give Texas for learning one thing -- by offering every citizen a reward for being an obedient informer for the state, they've figured out that it's not the severity of the punishment that deters an action, it's the certainty. Neighbors spying on neighbors; Orwell would be proud.

Individual "state legislators" call for all kinds of crazy things. Is there evidence that there is a majority of legislators in any state who would to pass such laws? I've seen quite a few insane bills that were introduced to the California congress (which, naturally, conservatives jumped all over as examples of how crazy liberals can be), but had no chance of ever actually being passed because there was actually not really support for them.

Those were for appearances' sake -- what will the anti-abortion crowd do once it has tasted actual power?

Experience has shown that those who seek power over others rarely stop after the first taste...