Mandatory punishment for women who abort.

[Wedjat]

Which just means women like me would never in a million years go to a hospital or a doctor after a loss. Which would be great because potential complications and issues that arise after a loss wouldn't be diagnosed, and the required treatments after a loss, like a D&C wouldn't occur. I suspect you'll see the cases of treatable complications from loss absolutely skyrocket. Hemmorage, septic shock, infection...



Do you know how many natural losses occur to women every year? Every day? Not only would the manpower for such a thing be nearly impossible, but no woman wants to be treated like a criminal for something that her body did, something that she had no control over. All that will happen is women who don't want to be pregnant won't go to a doctor when they suspect they are, and women who were pregnant and wanted to be but experienced a loss won't seek medical treatment because the pain of the loss paired with the assumption that she's a murderer is too stressful, painful, humiliating, and demeaning.

Especially if you're "investigating" to see if she's at fault for unintentionally causing the loss. If I were to accidentally hit and kill somebody with my car, I'd be legally responsible. Logic would dictate that the "investigation" would also seek to uncover if she accidentally caused the death of her baby and if she should be punished for it. Then nobody would ever go to the doctor if they were pregnant. I know I wouldn't. In fact, I'd be terrified to ever see a doctor.

I should think that any type of report would be for obvious damage to the uterus from "back alley abortion" type instruments. I assume natural losses wouldn't leave the same sort of marks/injuries.

Of course this is why I support choice in the first place. These kind of logistics are horrendous to even think about, and every instance would only lead to more medical complications than if the whole process were just sanitary and legal like it is now.
Not to mention all the heartache from investigating women who suffered an early termination without wanting one.

 

[Letalis]

How do you determine a fetus that has been aborted due to medication?

 

[Phronesis]

Which just means women like me would never in a million years go to a hospital or a doctor after a loss. Which would be great because potential complications and issues that arise after a loss wouldn't be diagnosed, and the required treatments after a loss, like a D&C wouldn't occur. I suspect you'll see the cases of treatable complications from loss absolutely skyrocket. Hemmorage, septic shock, infection...



Do you know how many natural losses occur to women every year? Every day? Not only would the manpower for such a thing be nearly impossible, but no woman wants to be treated like a criminal for something that her body did, something that she had no control over. All that will happen is women who don't want to be pregnant won't go to a doctor when they suspect they are, and women who were pregnant and wanted to be but experienced a loss won't seek medical treatment because the pain of the loss paired with the assumption that she's a murderer is too stressful, painful, humiliating, and demeaning.

Especially if you're "investigating" to see if she's at fault for unintentionally causing the loss. If I were to accidentally hit and kill somebody with my car, I'd be legally responsible. Logic would dictate that the "investigation" would also seek to uncover if she accidentally caused the death of her baby and if she should be punished for it. Then nobody would ever go to the doctor if they were pregnant. I know I wouldn't. In fact, I'd be terrified to ever see a doctor.

I understand your points, but any time I put your arguments up against "not punishing murderers" they ring hollow. If abortion is morally equal to murder, if it is every bit as wrong, then I see no other choice than to prosecute and investigate it with the same vigor and depth that we do normal murders.

Life is sacred, even if protecting it means sacrificing some comfort and privacy.

 

[Letalis]

Poe.

 

[Phronesis]

Ah. Then the thread is pointless.

And while I don't think abortion is great, if this is what making abortion illegal would mean for women, I'd fight it tooth and nail, not because I agree with abortion but because of the stress and pain it'd put on a woman who lost a pregnancy. Nobody should ever, ever have to deal with that kind of treatment after a loss.

What is pointless about exporing the logical ends of illegalizing abortion as murder? Have you no love for hypothetical discussion?

This seems to me the logical end of making abortion illegal on the basis that it is murder. We ought to treat abortive-mothers with the same prejudice as all other murderers; to fail to do so would be tacit admission that abortion is not, in fact, murder.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I should think that any type of report would be for obvious damage to the uterus from "back alley abortion" type instruments. I assume natural losses wouldn't leave the same sort of marks/injuries.

RU-486 shows no trauma whatsoever. Early abortions require no surgery. What's worse is a natural loss does require a D&C, D&C being a procedure also used in abortions. What's even worse than that is D&Cs are done routinely on women for everything from treatment for infertility to endo. I had one after each loss, more than a couple to treat fertility issues when I was trying to get pregnant, and one to treat endo. So looking for signs of a treatment that is used for abortions and other conditions, especially when the abortion in question if done before 9 weeks (12 in off label use) would have no visable signs of trauma... This just serves to harass women who've lost babies into a guilty until proven innocent situation.

I could call the police, say I was going to shoot my neighbor, walk over and shoot him, be arrested with the gun in my hand, and I'm still innocent until proven guilty. But in this model, a woman who has a loss is presumed guilty of an abortion and has to prove otherwise. It just doesn't work and it pushes not just abortion underground, but pregnancy. You'll see back alley prenatal care right along with back alley abortions.

Of course this is why I support choice in the first place. These kind of logistics are horrendous to even think about, and every instance would only lead to more medical complications than if the whole process were just sanitary and legal like it is now.
Not to mention all the heartache from investigating women who suffered an early termination without wanting one.

I'd never have gone to the doctor after a loss if this was the model we used.

 

[Phronesis]

But in this model, a woman who has a loss is presumed guilty of an abortion and has to prove otherwise.

No, it just reflects the realities that pregnant women who mysteriously are no longer pregnant are suspects of a crime, and we investigate when we think a crime might have been committed.

Do you think that abortion ought to be illegal at all then, tropical?

 

[Wedjat]

RU-486 shows no trauma whatsoever. Early abortions require no surgery. What's worse is a natural loss does require a D&C, D&C being a procedure also used in abortions. What's even worse than that is D&Cs are done routinely on women for everything from treatment for infertility to endo. I had one after each loss, more than a couple to treat fertility issues when I was trying to get pregnant, and one to treat endo. So looking for signs of a treatment that is used for abortions and other conditions, especially when the abortion in question if done before 9 weeks (12 in off label use) would have no visable signs of trauma... This just serves to harass women who've lost babies into a guilty until proven innocent situation.

In that case you're right, even the hypothetical situation in this thread is unrealistic and impractical. In my opinion there really isn't anything left to discuss. This post pretty much sums up why such a prosecution system for illegal abortions is simply infeasible.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I understand your points, but any time I put your arguments up against "not punishing murderers" they ring hollow. If abortion is morally equal to murder, if it is every bit as wrong, then I see no other choice than to prosecute and investigate it with the same vigor and depth that we do normal murders.

You're not punishing murderers, you're not punishing women who get abortions, you're punishing women who get pregnant and experience a loss. You're essentially putting all women who get pregnant on a suspected murderer watchlist, and all women who were pregnant and now aren't as murders you just have to prove murdered.

Life is sacred, even if protecting it means sacrificing some comfort and privacy.

Life and personal rights are sacred, but in an effort to protect the rights and life of a baby during pregnancy, you're attacking the rights and life of a woman. You're criminalizing pregnancy.

What is pointless about exporing the logical ends of illegalizing abortion as murder? Have you no love for hypothetical discussion?

Intelligent hypothetical, yes.

And if this is the "logical end" to criminalizing abortion, you'll see a huge influx of people fighting against making abortion illegal again simply because women do not want to be treated as potential criminals who just haven't been caught because they're pregnant.

This seems to me the logical end of making abortion illegal on the basis that it is murder. We ought to treat abortive-mothers with the same prejudice as all other murderers; to fail to do so would be tacit admission that abortion is not, in fact, murder.

First off, the scenario you outline doesn't treat abortive mothers as murderers, it treats pregnant women as potential murderers, and it treats women who experience a loss as murderers waiting to be discovered.

Secondly, suspected murderers are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That means they are not treated with any prejudice, legal or otherwise. They have rights intact that people have to honor. You cannot simply demand DNA, you can't demand medical records, you can't force exams on them, you must give them a trial... They have basic rights that are honored.

In this model, a woman who's pregnant is offered no such legal right and if she's pregnant and has a loss, she's treated as guilty by a system that operates outside of the judicial part of the law. That is not how the system works.

You have to have reasonable suspicion that an abortion occured and a woman who was pregnant and now isn't just isn't reasonable suspicion. Far, far, far more pregnancies are lost naturally than are aborted.

 

[Phronesis]

In that case you're right, even the hypothetical situation in this thread is unrealistic and impractical. In my opinion there really isn't anything left to discuss. This post pretty much sums up why such a prosecution system for illegal abortions is simply infeasible.

As long ad you don't personally advocate criminalizing abortion then your position is internally consistent and there is no problem here.

 

[SithDoughnut]

No, it just reflects the realities that pregnant women who mysteriously are no longer pregnant are suspects of a crime, and we investigate when we think a crime might have been committed.

If it was illegal, that would be how we would work. What we wouldn't do is presume that every pregnant woman will abort and invade their private lives accordingly. Innocent until proven guilty. I'm not desperate to live in a police state.

The fact is that if abortions were illegal then they would still happen, just illegally. To follow a pregnant woman you have to establish if she's pregnant in the first place, and if abortion is made illegal then there will be ways around it. There were ways around it in the past when abortion was illegal, and there would be now if the law changed.

In fact, the only way I can see your plan working is if every single woman had to be checked for pregnancy on a regular basis, under threat of prosecution if they didn't. Now I don't know about you, but I'd consider that a huge breach of civil liberties and the right to privacy.

 

[keith99]

Until unexpected prosperity is grounds to search someones home and acting a little different is grounds for arrest the original idea of this thread is abhorant. If society does get to that point I'll have no worries, I'll either have left or died trying to stop it.

 

[Phronesis]

You're not punishing murderers, you're not punishing women who get abortions, you're punishing women who get pregnant and experience a loss. You're essentially putting all women who get pregnant on a suspected murderer watchlist, and all women who were pregnant and now aren't as murders you just have to prove murdered.

Not all pregnant women; women who were known to be pregnant but didn't produce a baby. A women who gets pregnant then experiences a totally normal term and gives birth wouldn't even know this law was in place.

Life and personal rights are sacred, but in an effort to protect the rights and life of a baby during pregnancy, you're attacking the rights and life of a woman. You're criminalizing pregnancy.

Again, I'm just proposing testing for previously pregnant women to determine if it was abortion. Normal pregnancies would be completely unaffected.

And if this is the "logical end" to criminalizing abortion, you'll see a huge influx of people fighting against making abortion illegal again simply because women do not want to be treated as potential criminals who just haven't been caught because they're pregnant.

I would hope women would understand that need to deter abortions and punish murderers.

First off, the scenario you outline doesn't treat abortive mothers as murderers, it treats pregnant women as potential murderers, and it treats women who experience a loss as murderers waiting to be discovered.

Secondly, suspected murderers are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That means they are not treated with any prejudice, legal or otherwise. They have rights intact that people have to honor. You cannot simply demand DNA, you can't demand medical records, you can't force exams on them, you must give them a trial... They have basic rights that are honored.

You have to have reasonable suspicion that an abortion occured and a woman who was pregnant and now isn't just isn't reasonable suspicion. Far, far, far more pregnancies are lost naturally than are aborted.

Surely there is a way around this, some way to determine if an abortion occurred, because murderers ought to be punished and as it stands now our government is actively allowing murder to happen. Surely something must be done!

 

[Phronesis]

I'd like to hear some other people who believe abortion is murder weigh in on this. Surely I can't be the only one who believes that we ought to punish murderers!

 

[Phronesis]

If it was illegal, that would be how we would work. What we wouldn't do is presume that every pregnant woman will abort and invade their private lives accordingly. Innocent until proven guilty. I'm not desperate to live in a police state.

The fact is that if abortions were illegal then they would still happen, just illegally. To follow a pregnant woman you have to establish if she's pregnant in the first place, and if abortion is made illegal then there will be ways around it. There were ways around it in the past when abortion was illegal, and there would be now if the law changed.

In fact, the only way I can see your plan working is if every single woman had to be checked for pregnancy on a regular basis, under threat of prosecution if they didn't. Now I don't know about you, but I'd consider that a huge breach of civil liberties and the right to privacy.

So what I get from this is that the slaughter of innocents isn't more abhorrent to you than occasionally having ex-pregnant women checked for signs of abortion.

Abortion can't be that bad then in your opinion, correct? Occasional discomfort for a small number of women is less desirable than the murder of infants?

 

[SithDoughnut]

So what I get from this is that the slaughter of innocents isn't more abhorrent to you than occasionally having ex-pregnant women checked for signs of abortion.

Abortion can't be that bad then in your opinion, correct? Occasional discomfort for a small number of women is less desirable than the murder of infants?

How do you know they were ever pregnant. Any woman who discovers or even suspects that she is pregnant and wants an abortion will certainly not announce it officially, so how can you check it?

As for you other question, I would say that killing a foetus would be an issue if it actually cared. As it does not (at least up to about 22 weeks, where I'd draw the line) then it's not an issue at all. When it comes to pretty much all abortions, the only people (foetuses included) who don't want it to happen are the people who have no right to interfere in the first place.

 

[yasic]

Which just means women like me would never in a million years go to a hospital or a doctor after a loss. Which would be great because potential complications and issues that arise after a loss wouldn't be diagnosed, and the required treatments after a loss, like a D&C wouldn't occur. I suspect you'll see the cases of treatable complications from loss absolutely skyrocket. Hemmorage, septic shock, infection...



Do you know how many natural losses occur to women every year? Every day? Not only would the manpower for such a thing be nearly impossible, but no woman wants to be treated like a criminal for something that her body did, something that she had no control over. All that will happen is women who don't want to be pregnant won't go to a doctor when they suspect they are, and women who were pregnant and wanted to be but experienced a loss won't seek medical treatment because the pain of the loss paired with the assumption that she's a murderer is too stressful, painful, humiliating, and demeaning.

Especially if you're "investigating" to see if she's at fault for unintentionally causing the loss. If I were to accidentally hit and kill somebody with my car, I'd be legally responsible. Logic would dictate that the "investigation" would also seek to uncover if she accidentally caused the death of her baby and if she should be punished for it. Then nobody would ever go to the doctor if they were pregnant. I know I wouldn't. In fact, I'd be terrified to ever see a doctor.

The fact that gunshot wounds are reported does not seem to defer people from seeking medical help after being shot, why would this?

Having them reported, and making you a prime suspect in a criminal investigation are two different things.

 

[Phronesis]

How do you know they were ever pregnant. Any woman who discovers or even suspects that she is pregnant and wants an abortion will certainly not announce it officially, so how can you check it?

A law requiring hospitals to report incomplete pregnancies would do the trick. Those records exist already, this would simply be consolidation of them.

As for you other question, I would say that killing a foetus would be an issue if it actually cared. As it does not (at least up to about 22 weeks, where I'd draw the line) then it's not an issue at all. When it comes to pretty much all abortions, the only people (foetuses included) who don't want it to happen are the people who have no right to interfere in the first place.

If you don't believe abortion is murder then there is no quandary for you here; I am addressing people who believe it's murder, and asking them to follow that claim to it's logical conclusion - punishment of the would be mothers. What I'm after is consistency of opinion.

 

[bigbadwilf]

To be blunt, in my opinion I am not qualified to have an opinion, or a say and neither are you Phronesis, until and unless you can find yourself pregnant.

As for making criminal suspects of anyone "who mysteriously are no longer pregnant", I presume you can actually explain why miscarriages happen well enough to be able not to subject women who have suffered one to whatever persecution you had in mind?

 

[No Swansong]

Poe? Methinks so.

It shocked me anyone even directly responded. Maybe I'm too jaded or perhaps just experienced.