Mandatory punishment for women who abort.

[Tropical Wilds]

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.

15-50% of pregnancies, depending on maternal age and other factors such as past losses or infertility issues, result in a loss. The number of natural losses in the US are somewhere between 2.3 and 5.4 million depending on reporting year (all time high being in 1994 and a peak again in 2005, with an average of around 2-3 million for the other years, see CDC link below).

By comparison, somewhere around 1.3 million abortions occur yearly, though the CDC puts it much lower (remember, the AGI terms all incomplete losses that require medical intervention to complete the loss or non-viable due to incomplete loss pregnancies that are terminated as abortions, while the CDC only terms electively selected for no medical reason terminations as abortions which could explain why AGI says there's 1.3 abortions yearly and the CDC says 800k).

So when you have 800k - 1.3 abortions yearly, and at the very lowest, 2.3 million losses, that means that roughly (and I mean very roughly, when you take highest possible abortions to lowest possible losses into account, and my bad math skills) 2/3 of losses that occur each year are completely natural and not due to abortion.

When you consider that, then consider that only about half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion, meaning that half of accidental pregnancies don't get aborted while just shy of half of intended pregnancies end in abortion, you can't even pin down a for certain demographic to profile a woman as potential aborter... Half of accidental pregnancies aren't aborted as it stands, while just shy of half of intended pregnancies are.

As such, there is no reason to assume that:

A. A woman who was pregnant and is not now probably had an abortion. Statistically speaking a loss is far, far, far more likely due to a natural causes, especially in certain age groups (women over 42 and women under 18) and women with certain issues (past infertility, history of losses, so on).

B. A woman who is pregnant, even if the pregnancy was accidental as about 50% of total pregnancies per year are, will end up getting an abortion, is at higher risk for abortion, or can be profiled as potential aborter before a loss, or as a suspected aborter after a loss.

C. That a planned or intended pregnancy is not going to, for some reason, require that an abortion need to occur.

D. That the ratio to natural loss vs abortion is to such a degree that there's even probable cause to investigate any loss, considering no set demographic of losses as potential abortions can be established, that any loss as a potential abortion. To assume that would be like assuming that all people who come to a hospital end end up dying are dead due to somebody murdering them, not due to a natrual, non-human induced cause.

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

I think abortion is a terrible thing. I think that it's unfortunate and awful that we live in a time and society where people feel that abortion is their only option. I think it's unfortunate and awful that abortions need to occur for medical reasons. I think it's bloody awful that pregnancies occur, no matter how large or small the number may be, due to rape or incest and that women have to weigh out, on top of dealing with the crime that was done against them, if they want to be a parent. I think it's awful that women who deal with a loss have to hear a loss was incomplete and that they need medical intervention to induce a complete loss and that, while they wanted the baby and wanted to be pregnant, they are now classified as women who elected to abort a pregnancy and are statistically reported as such with no consideration of viability.

I also think, in spite of all of that terrible, terrible stuff, and in spite of my own personal desire to see the social, cultural, and medical need for abortion to decrease, to see the number of all abortions decrease... Decrease either because medical advancements make it possible to save pregnancies that couldn't be previously saved or we live in a society that is more supportive to women who are pregnant and at risk for abortion... I'd like to see the decreases occur due to: b

A. Better education on the prevention of pregnancy and increased access to birth control that's effective and affordable for at-risk women AND men

B. Medical advancements that make it possible to help women at risk of loss maintain their pregnancy

C. Support programs for women during pregnancy AND after pregnancy to help them maintain the pregnancy and support their new family s

D. Successful prosecution and punishment for sexual offenders that actually deters others from sexual offenses that could result in a pregnancy due to a crime

E. Because there is a sharp increase of resources available to women AND men AND families regardless of race, religion, income level, social standing, marital status, age, etc that occurs not just during pregnancy, but before, during, and after the pregnancy. Assistance that doesn't come on the condition of agreeing to a philosophy, creed, religion, political group or belief, or an agreement to keep the baby or put him or her up for adoption... Help that's just help because there's an identified need that has to be filled and that need isn't exploited to force agreement to an agenda that may be all too attractive when one is desperate.

However, I do not want to see abortion rates decrease because we've legislated pregnancy into something that's strictly overseen and monitored in all ways by the government, that women (who are more at risk for natural loss than loss through abortion) are assumed to be criminals if they were pregnant and are now not, or because we've decided to attack the family unit as a whole, sacraficing the rights of everybody, because somebody got pregnant. Pregnancy is not, nor should it ever, be treated as the first step to a crime, nor should we ever, ever, ever see a loss as a crime waiting to be uncovered that a woman has to defend herself from a Secret Police-style inquisition that occurs outside of the judicial legal system and only occurs in the investigative legal system, thus voiding any hope of innocent until proven guilty.

Like it or not, innocent until proven guilty means our legal system would rather default to allowing a guilty person go free than an innocent person go to jail. If banning abortion means that a woman who experiences a loss that is more than statistically likely to be due to something totally beyond her control, then no, there is absolutely no way I'd ever support such legislation. I do not want to see women treated as potential murderers because they're pregnant.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

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.

No, but every woman who experiences a loss would. 15-50% of women who get pregnant every year would. Most women will experience a loss in their lifetime, which means most women will be treated like criminals.

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

The only way to weed out the "normal pregnancy" from the one that was aborted would be to investigate or register all women who are pregnant so you can track who is no longer pregnant when they should be, then investigate them to determine if there was a crime.

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

Would you understand if your child had a bruise, cut, or scrape that you are now registered as somebody who had an injured child and an extensive investigation of your family occur as a result, completely ruling out that an overwhelming number of bruises, cuts, and scrapes that occur due to normal activites of a child, due to the need to deter child abusers? An investigation that assumed guilt over innocence, where you had to fight to prove each and every time your child had a bump or bruise that you didn't do it?

Would you understand that, as a male (therefore the statistically highest of probability of being a suspect for everything from murder to rape), you had to submit quarterly to psychological exams and brain scans to see if you are prone to violence, if you're sexually active to prove if you're capable of rape, if you're a parent or near children if you're prone to child molestation? Would you understand the need to submit to all of this as an effort to reduce rape and murder and child molestation

Would you understand, as a need to control theft, having somebody come in and take an extensive inventory of your personal belongings, your finances, your income vs. spending ratio, your detailed spending and buying habits, all to ensure you're not a criminal?

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!

People have rights. Rights that aren't voided due to pregnancy. A right to their own body, a right to privacy, and the right to the assumption of innocence over guilt.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

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.

People are detered from getting medical help after being shot for just that reason, though the number not nearly as high because usually if you're shot, somebody did something to you and you kind of want them caught.

In the event of a loss, there is no other suspect if something occured other than the woman herself, meaning in the event of a loss, by default in the resulting criminal investigation not only is the woman the prime suspect, she's the ONLY suspect. Meaning if abortion were criminalized to this degree and a loss occured, the only possible reason (excepting an act of violence which means you'd be in the hospital for that along with the loss) is due to negligence on the mother's part, an abortion sought by the mother, or a loss where still the automatic prime suspect in defending the loss as natural vs. chosen is the woman. Nobody else. So if she walks in the ED with a loss, the assumption is a crime occured, and that she is the only person who could have done it, meaning the pressure of seeking medical treatment is ENTIRELY different than a gunshot wound where there are a multitude of suspects, least of which is the shot person themselves.

The exception to the gunshot analogy would be if the gunshot wound is self-inflicted, in which case obviously the chances of the person taking themselves to the ED for treatment are very, very, very low for many reasons. But even that wouldn't be the same as opting not to go to the hospital or seek treatment for a loss as most losses aren't due to abortion.

 

[Philothei]

And you will have doctors examine every woman who has a miscarriage as a potential abortion... How sure can the doctors be if an abortion took place or it was a miscarriage? Cause most women would for sure claim they had a miscarriage....

In Byzantium there used to be "special" doctors who performed abortions. Christian doctors did not. The state never "interfered" with the women who indeed abort their children. I do not see how and why would we want to take such a measure esp. when we would need to involve testing etc. and I doubt that abortion can be proven in the first place.

The church indeed imposes a measure to the women who abort their children and canon law dictates for these women that they cannot approach communion up to 10 years. The idea is not punitive though but rather the realization of one's deed such as the murder of an innocent child. BTW murder has the same penance according to canon law. Although the Church constituted such laws the state never "persecuted" a mother for killing her baby while in the womb. Actually these women who were pregnant and contemplated abortion were usually taken in to the monasteries or other Church related philanthropic institutions where they used to try to change their mind to allow for the baby to be born and either given to adoption or arranging for mother and child to live in special homes for "unwed" mothers.

If we really wanted to persecute someone I think to eliminate abortion or at least some abortions then we could arrest all these doctors who perform them. I think that still women would find ways to abort regardless but still the one who performs them is imho no less of an accomplice to it. Doctors were taken to trial in Greece back then when abortion was illegal.

 

[lawtonfogle]

And you will have doctors examine every woman who has a miscarriage as a potential abortion... How sure can the doctors be if an abortion took place or it was a miscarriage? Cause most women would for sure claim they had a miscarriage....

Well yes, most will probably have to be treated like a miscarriage, because few abortions will have enough evidence. But merely saying you can't prove it often does not mean you shouldn't still punish it. Also, miscarriage, depending upon the reason, would still be manslaughter.

 

[yasic]

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

The fact that this is a poe is blateltly obvious, and I would say the OP should not have made the question with that sock puppet.

But the question is still a valid one, regardless, and as such I responded.

 

[The Nihilist]

But merely saying you can't prove it often does not mean you shouldn't still punish it.

Under the American justice system, if you can't prove it, then you are required not to punish it. Or are you joking, I can't tell.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Just my thoughts on a subject.

If we consider abortion to be morally wrong on the level of murder, then it logically extends that we ought to punish the mother if she was complicit in the abortion process.

I got to thinking how law enforcement officials could prove beyong a reasonable doubt that an abortion had taken place, and the only conclusion I could come to is that women should be mandated to recieve maybe quarterly examinations of their uterus, under threat of jail if they refuse. Or maybe make pregnant women register and then if they "miscarry" then an exam will be ordered.

Women who have been found to have undergone abortion should be held as accomplices to murder, maybe conspirators as well, and then punished according to our preexisting laws on the subject.

If I really feel abortion is murder, then it necessarily follows that the people responsible for the murder ought to be punished. Retributive punishment will deter and influence women away from baby-producing activities, and hopefully reduce the amount of abortions.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this issue.

Chile has very good laws on abortion today, as well as Malta. Medically its easy to tell the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion.. Allthough im sure some would 'pass through the cracks', however that happens in all forms of the law. Some criminals are able to get out of it. That is reality..

But yes, abortion should hold the same punishment as first-degree murder. A woman who commits abortion is no different than those crazy women you see on TV who drown their children in a bathtub, kill them in their sleep, or poison them to death. They are child-killers, equally. They both should be equally prosecuted as child-killers...

Plannedparenthood kills around 200,000 children each year. usually for each murder a person gets 60 years in prison. So 200,000 x60 = 12,000,000 days in prison for people who are involved in PP..And that is just one year..


60 million children have died in abortion since Roe. Hence it would take 3 BILLION, 60 MILLION days in prison for the earthly scales of justice to be set level again..

And that is just secular corrupt justice on earth. Can you imagine what the uncorrupt justice will be like on the Day of Judgment??

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Chile has very good laws on abortion today,

In Chilie women aren't even allowed to get an abortion for medical problems or medical complications or to complete a pregnancy loss. As a result, abortion is the third highest cause of maternal death, second being pregnancy loss. The UN is stepping in saying that their laws are so restrictive that it puts women's lives in needless danger.

And the irony is in Chile abortions are widely performed for medical reasons in hospitals and clinics, just not reported to the governmnet.

I'd also like to point out that Chile is not exactly a democratic nation, their abortion laws went into affect under a military dictatorship.

None of this is the model I'd like to see for the US.

Abortion in Chile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for Malta... Do some reading on their "medical tourism" program. That's scary, scary stuff.

Medically its easy to tell the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion.. Allthough im sure some would 'pass through the cracks', however that happens in all forms of the law. Some criminals are able to get out of it. That is reality..

No, it's not easy at all. Especially with early pregnancy. RU-486 is out of the body very quickly and leaves blood and hormone levels at what you would see in a woman with a natural loss. RU-486 is used up to 8 weeks, though off-label and I believe EU use has it up to 12. D&Cs are a standard treatment for a loss, as well as a variety of non-pregnancy related medical issues.

But yes, abortion should hold the same punishment as first-degree murder. A woman who commits abortion is no different than those crazy women you see on TV who drown their children in a bathtub, kill them in their sleep, or poison them to death. They are child-killers, equally. They both should be equally prosecuted as child-killers...

Plannedparenthood kills around 200,000 children each year. usually for each murder a person gets 60 years in prison. So 200,000 x60 = 12,000,000 days in prison for people who are involved in PP..And that is just one year..

In Chile, women go to jail for 3-5 years if they get one, and if you provide one you go to jail for 541 days to 3 years. That is hardly 60 years and even in Chile it seems that the weight for having an abortion is not the same legally as it is for murder.

60 million children have died in abortion since Roe. Hence it would take 3 BILLION, 60 MILLION days in -prison for the earthly scales of justice to be set level again..

How can you possibly develop a formula that accounts for how many days of jail equal the value of a human life? That's pure speculaton.

And that is just secular corrupt justice on earth. Can you imagine what the uncorrupt justice will be like on the Day of Judgment??

Yes I can, thank God. That's why when I read posts like this, I have to remember to not get overly worried. God is in control, not anybody and their punishments, laws, attempted laws, penal codes, or personal grudges found on this board, this country, this planet, or anywhere. As long as that's the case, man can invent any kind of crazy punishment they want, but it doesn't remove the fact that God and his judgment and as you say uncorrupt sense of justice is going to balance out all the crazy that people try to put out there.

 

[Fantine]

The whole "Big Brother" scenario sounds so "1984."

But these circumstances--mandatory monthly pregnancy tests, etc.--exist for a category of young women now.

Women who take Accutane are required to submit proof that they are using one chemical method of birth control and to promise they are simultaneously using a backup method of birth control (usually a condom.)

The treatment period for Accutane (an anti-acne drug used only in cases that have been resistant to all other treatments) is six months.

Before getting Accutane, a woman has to have two negative pregnancy tests (the second one a blood test) one month apart. Then, before getting each's month's prescription filled, she has to have another negative pregnancy blood test, fill out the online I Pledge form and answering a questionnaire. Her doctor also has to fill out the online form. When she goes to the Pharmacist, she has to show her I Pledge card. The pharmacist has to go to the website to make sure she has had the negative pregnancy blood test.

Accutane can cause severe birth defects, which is why avoiding pregnancy is so important.

The author of this legislation, apparently, is pro-life Congressman Bart Stupak. Because he believes abortion to be unacceptable in every case, he felt the only way Accutane could be used by women was if they were 200% sure of not getting pregnant in the six month period.

Stupak had a son who committed suicide at a post-prom party while he was taking Accutane (and, not knowing all the circumstances, it might or might not have been coincidental.)

If this medicine did not provide a permanent cure in the six-month period, it would be much, much too aggravating for any girl to consider taking it. Two of my three children have taken it (one is on her second month now.)

But yes, Big Brother exists for Accutane users.

 

[Letalis]

I took accutane when I was younger. It helped a lot with acne, but it came with a manuscript of warnings and side-effects. It's a risky proposition to take; I'm not surprised legislation is so strict concerning its use.

ETA: Surprisingly, in hispanic countries where you can pick up addictive pain medication and narcotics without any trouble, accutane required approval and scripts from a doctor.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

15-50% of pregnancies, depending on maternal age and other factors such as past losses or infertility issues, result in a loss. The number of natural losses in the US are somewhere between 2.3 and 5.4 million depending on reporting year (all time high being in 1994 and a peak again in 2005, with an average of around 2-3 million for the other years, see CDC link below).

By comparison, somewhere around 1.3 million abortions occur yearly, though the CDC puts it much lower (remember, the AGI terms all incomplete losses that require medical intervention to complete the loss or non-viable due to incomplete loss pregnancies that are terminated as abortions, while the CDC only terms electively selected for no medical reason terminations as abortions which could explain why AGI says there's 1.3 abortions yearly and the CDC says 800k).

So when you have 800k - 1.3 abortions yearly, and at the very lowest, 2.3 million losses, that means that roughly (and I mean very roughly, when you take highest possible abortions to lowest possible losses into account, and my bad math skills) 2/3 of losses that occur each year are completely natural and not due to abortion.

When you consider that, then consider that only about half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion, meaning that half of accidental pregnancies don't get aborted while just shy of half of intended pregnancies end in abortion, you can't even pin down a for certain demographic to profile a woman as potential aborter... Half of accidental pregnancies aren't aborted as it stands, while just shy of half of intended pregnancies are.

As such, there is no reason to assume that:

A. A woman who was pregnant and is not now probably had an abortion. Statistically speaking a loss is far, far, far more likely due to a natural causes, especially in certain age groups (women over 42 and women under 18) and women with certain issues (past infertility, history of losses, so on).

B. A woman who is pregnant, even if the pregnancy was accidental as about 50% of total pregnancies per year are, will end up getting an abortion, is at higher risk for abortion, or can be profiled as potential aborter before a loss, or as a suspected aborter after a loss.

Wow, it is really that high? I thought it was more like 1/3 ended in abortion from unintended.

That is really sad. So bsically in this day and age if you were conceived as un-intended you have only a 50% chance of actually living...Do you ever wonder how our future generation is going to start viewing children with stuff like this going on?

If it is honestly as high as 50% then we as society are treating children with as much value as disposable tissues. Today's western society has utterly failed at teaching women proper motherhood. There is no way decent motherhood and good maternal ethics are gonna survive with an abortion rate that high. You can't properly take care of children while at the same time having such a low value for them..

 

[lawtonfogle]

Under the American justice system, if you can't prove it, then you are required not to punish it. Or are you joking, I can't tell.

You completely misread me.

Even if we could only catch 1 out of every 100 people who committed the crime, we should still punish that 1 who we caught.

"The other 99 people got away with it, so you shouldn't punish me," is not a defense.

 

[yasic]

Wow, it is really that high? I thought it was more like 1/3 ended in abortion from unintended.

That is really sad. So bsically in this day and age if you were conceived as un-intended you have only a 50% chance of actually living...Do you ever wonder how our future generation is going to start viewing children with stuff like this going on?

If it is honestly as high as 50% then we as society are treating children with as much value as disposable tissues. Today's western society has utterly failed at teaching women proper motherhood. There is no way decent motherhood and good maternal ethics are gonna survive with an abortion rate that high. You can't properly take care of children while at the same time having such a low value for them..

How? We view children as regular people with full right. Fetuses are not children so our view on them does not change our view of children in the slightest.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Wow, it is really that high? I thought it was more like 1/3 ended in abortion from unintended.

That should read that about 50% of total unintended pregnancies end in abortion, not 50% of all pregnancies. My mistake. I'm having really severe insomnia and exhaustion, so when I post late sometimes I don't proof like I should.

That is really sad. So bsically in this day and age if you were conceived as un-intended you have only a 50% chance of actually living...Do you ever wonder how our future generation is going to start viewing children with stuff like this going on?

Honestly no I don't since at least for me how I view children is not based off of if another person chooses to be pregnant or not, or chooses to maintain an unplanned pregnancy. My value system for a child doesn't depend on the value system of others. I tend to suspect if it doesn't workk that way for other people they should probably rethink a few things.

If it is honestly as high as 50% then we as society are treating children with as much value as disposable tissues. Today's western society has utterly failed at teaching women proper motherhood. There is no way decent motherhood and good maternal ethics are gonna survive with an abortion rate that high. You can't properly take care of children while at the same time having such a low value for them..

Do not lump all mothers and the whole of motherhood for judgment based off of those who choose not to be mothers. I know a ton of beautiful, wonderful, amazing mothers. Their ability to be a good mother does not depend on somebody else's family dynamic. It also makes no sense to say that you can't properly care for children because somebody else gets an abortion. Somebody will be a good or bad mother regardless of if somebody else gets an abortion. One's parenting skills do not have anything to do with somebody else getting an abortion. What you're essentially telling women is that if you become pregnant and ahve a child you are a terrible mother who can't properly care for kids because abortion is legal, not taking into account that here you have a woman who had a child, not an abortion.

 

[jayem]

Obviously, reasonable anti-abortion people realize that prosecuting women who have abortions would never fly with the vast majority of the public. The OP has a certain logic. If you believe elective abortion is murder, then a woman who sought out and gave consent to the procedure could rationally be considered an accomplice. But pro-lifers know that criminalizing this would be going way too far. As other posters have noted, it would almost require police state tactics to enforce. All of the anti-abortion laws I've ever read about only criminalize performing an abortion, not seeking or having one.

Which means that legal abortion can not properly be considered an individual civil right. It's really an immunity from prosecution. And the immunity actually protects the abortion provider more so than the woman herself.

 

[Philothei]

Since Greece legalized abortion the average is 250,000 a year with a population of 10 million ... Yep to legalize it did brought forth more candidates contrary to the "pro-choice" supporters who guaranteed less abortions

 

[Wayte]

Wow, it is really that high? I thought it was more like 1/3 ended in abortion from unintended.

That is really sad. So bsically in this day and age if you were conceived as un-intended you have only a 50% chance of actually living...Do you ever wonder how our future generation is going to start viewing children with stuff like this going on?

If it is honestly as high as 50% then we as society are treating children with as much value as disposable tissues. Today's western society has utterly failed at teaching women proper motherhood. There is no way decent motherhood and good maternal ethics are gonna survive with an abortion rate that high. You can't properly take care of children while at the same time having such a low value for them..

What you don't realize is that most pro-choicers don't view the fetus as a child. They view them as completely separate ideas. They don't look at it as killing a child, it doesn't register at all the same way to them that it does to you.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Since Greece legalized abortion the average is 250,000 a year with a population of 10 million ... Yep to legalize it did brought forth more candidates contrary to the "pro-choice" supporters who guaranteed less abortions

Try to consider this though.

-When abortion was illegal, how was accurate data for the number of abortions gathered? Any attempt would be very lacking. Any person who admitted to having/self-performing [it happens and did happen...look into it if you don't believe me] an abortion for data would be suddenly at risk of persecution.
-But, when made legal, accurate information on the number of abortions was suddenly available.

Given this conundrum, how can it be said whether there are more or fewer abortions taking place now?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Ok, I've seen like 4 people do this and I just have to say something...

PERsecution - When a person is targeted due to a personal or social factor (religion, race, gender, etc) and efforts are made to humilate, degrade, demean, or remove them or whatever said personal or social factor from society and culture. Examples include Romans vs. Christians, Puritans vs. "Witches," Hitler vs. Jews/homosexuals/single parents/transiants/Poland... It is a social or cultural punishment for non-conformity to a group or percieved norm.

PROsecution - a legal proceeding carried out against a person or persons believed to have broken the law, where the accused has the option to defend themselves or their actions in a court of law where the end result is determining guilt, innocence, or liability. It is a government or legal action as the result of the suspected breaking of a law.

They are not interchangable.