Punishing Drumpf for Abortions

[The_Laconic_Dead]

So, the wearer of the presidential toupee said women should be punished for having an abortion, if abortions were illegal and every liberal died of bleeding heart syndrome.

Then some one informed him that's not real heart condition and he quickly backtracked saying he thought pregnant women and abortion providers were the same thing.

So, should we punish the "harlots" of America, and if so, how badly?

 

[HannahT]

I'm going from memory here, but in the past they went after the providers of abortions...and not really the women. The question that was asked was regarding 'doctor's that performed them, and in the past it wasn't always doctors.

This is a extremely emotional topic, and both sides of this can have heart conditions over it. (shrugs)

I doubt they will ever ban them, and in turn move them underground once again. So, I'm not sure why these questions are really even relevant. All candidates have given there answer, and these reporters just keep on asking anyway. I guess that is the best they can do today.

 

[JusticeIsBlind]

If abortions were illegal then of course women who have them illegally should be punished, as the providers should be as well. The only thing that upsets me is Trump went back on that statement. If something is illegal, their should be consequences. The woman as the victim? Absurd.

 

[HannahT]

Government wants the big dogs - the providers. I agree - she isn't a victim. Although I can see a fine or something, but beyond that? You want to shut down the providers overall if we are to stick to the spirit of it.

 

[jayem]

In his own asinine way, DT is demonstrating the inconsistency of moralistic pro-lifers. If abortion is actually murder, then it's murder for hire. And in every other instance of contract killing, the individual who hires the killer is just as culpable as the hit man. And is prosecuted to the same (and sometimes a greater) degree. So, in the moral sense, why shouldn't the woman who procures an abortion, be prosecuted the same as the abortionist? Why would this this be so shocking? The reason is because all rational people know that an elective abortion just doesn't rise to the same level of criminality as a real murder--which is killing a person.

 

[KWCrazy]

If abortions were illegal then of course women who have them illegally should be punished, as the providers should be as well. The only thing that upsets me is Trump went back on that statement. If something is illegal, their should be consequences. The woman as the victim? Absurd.

Absolutely correct. If abortions are made illegal, violating the law should be prosecuted. Of course, it was a set-up question from the beginning, because we both know nobody is going to make all abortions illegal any time in the near future. If they did, the consequence for violation the law would be spelled out by the law, not by a candidate or even a president.

Trump had it right.... until he caved to those for whom enforcing the law is an option, not a requirement.

 

[Cearbhall]

If abortions were illegal then of course women who have them illegally should be punished, as the providers should be as well. The only thing that upsets me is Trump went back on that statement. If something is illegal, their should be consequences. The woman as the victim? Absurd.

It's a little different when it comes to medical procedures. Generally, it's a better use of the court system's time to go after the person who has a medical license and still has access to other patients than it is to go after the civilian.

 

[JusticeIsBlind]

It's a little different when it comes to medical procedures. Generally, it's a better use of the court system's time to go after the person who has a medical license and still has access to other patients than it is to go after the civilian.

A crime is a crime. If someone kills a pregnant woman today, they are charged with both the murder of the mother and the unborn child. (Funny how it's life in this case but for abortion it's not. But I digress.) A woman going to have an illegal abortion makes her a willing participant in the child's murder. Not sure what's so difficult about that.

 

[Cearbhall]

A crime is a crime.

Do you want higher taxes? Do you realize that 1/3 of women in the U.S. obtain an abortion at some point, and that banning abortion historically has not caused rates to decrease? Do you really want to pay for all those court cases?

It won't happen, anyway, but it's an interesting hypothetical discussion to have.

 

[JusticeIsBlind]

Do you want higher taxes? Do you realize that 1/3 of women in the U.S. obtain an abortion at some point, and that banning abortion historically has not caused rates to decrease? Do you really want to pay for all those court cases?

It won't happen, anyway, but it's an interesting hypothetical discussion to have.

Costs are irrelevant and really a poor excuse to maintain abortion. Once you start passing down some 25 to life sentences, you'll see women start taking responsibility for their actions and using the multitude of birth control options available. This isn't 50 years ago where condoms were pretty much it. Now, there is no excuse. There should remain limited exceptions but this abortion as a method of birth control needs to end...pronto. BTW-I used to be pro-abortion but now I realize this has nothing to do with womens healthcare. This is simply barbaric actions on the part of the irresponsible.

 

[The_Laconic_Dead]

What if she self-aborts? Drugs/alcohol, coat hangers, smashing against something, ect.

What then? Who gets punished then?

In this "crime", it takes two to tango. How do you punish only one participant in an abortion?

What if you simply give her advice on how to do it herself? Is that a conspiracy charge? Aiding and abetting?

What about rape/incest cases? Certainly we have some that say those shouldn't be open to abortions either. Even some majorities of some state legislatures would ban rape/incest exemptions. In South America, certain countries don't even allow for health exemptions.

How far does this get taken?

 

[JusticeIsBlind]

What if she self-aborts? Drugs/alcohol, coat hangers, smashing against something, ect.

What then? Who gets punished then?

The mother

In this "crime", it takes two to tango. How do you punish only one participant in an abortion?

You don't need two participants as you stated in your first question.

What if you simply give her advice on how to do it herself? Is that a conspiracy charge? Aiding and abetting?

Yes...whatever the charge it is a crime.

What about rape/incest cases? Certainly we have some that say those shouldn't be open to abortions either. Even some majorities of some state legislatures would ban rape/incest exemptions. In South America, certain countries don't even allow for health exemptions.

How far does this get taken?

I maintain that rape, incest and life of the mother should all remain exceptions.

 

[The_Laconic_Dead]

[QUOTE="JusticeIsBlind, post: 69449862, member:]
Yes...whatever the charge it is a crime.

I maintain that rape, incest and life of the mother should all remain exceptions.[/QUOTE]

So giving advice would be a criminal act? What about freedom of speech?

And, why do you make exceptions for rape/incest? Is not all life special?

 

[HannahT]

Costs are irrelevant and really a poor excuse to maintain abortion. Once you start passing down some 25 to life sentences, you'll see women start taking responsibility for their actions and using the multitude of birth control options available. This isn't 50 years ago where condoms were pretty much it. Now, there is no excuse. There should remain limited exceptions but this abortion as a method of birth control needs to end...pronto. BTW-I used to be pro-abortion but now I realize this has nothing to do with womens healthcare. This is simply barbaric actions on the part of the irresponsible.

Many of our actions are irresponsible towards humans that are alive today. It many ways we are still barbaric in our treatments towards others, and yet YES let's opine about this issue because its so righteous to do so.

We could care less most of the time when it comes to children that have no family to care for them. Sure, we have institutions...but that's just because people aren't willing to step up. Costs seem relevant there, and pretending institutions are awesome replacements for our lack of will to help a child that was indeed born is telling to me.

Humans with true mental illness are pretty much ignored, because they are not healthy enough to truly advocate for themselves. We drop funding to help them all the time. They end up on the streets to be victimized and ignored once again.

Our righteous list goes on.

Maybe we should deal with our barbaric actions, and irresponsibility towards those that have life...before we claim the right to lay out sentences of 25 to life for abortions. I hate abortions too, but we seem to have all kinds of excuses towards the many in need that are alive and here now. We have no excuses as a society either IMO. We claim costs for those anyway, because we feel they are irrelevant.

Maybe we need to stop and take that log out of our own eye.

 

[JusticeIsBlind]

[QUOTE="JusticeIsBlind, post: 69449862, member:]
Yes...whatever the charge it is a crime.

I maintain that rape, incest and life of the mother should all remain exceptions.

So giving advice would be a criminal act? What about freedom of speech?

And, why do you make exceptions for rape/incest? Is not all life special?[/QUOTE]

Yes, advice on committing a murder is a crime. It's called conspiracy. I believe in exceptions simply because I do. Rape and incest are a violation of a woman and as such, she should have the right to choose whether or not to accept such a pregnancy. In addition, life of the mother is truly a decision between her the doctor. Others may disagree but that's me.

 

[JusticeIsBlind]

Many of our actions are irresponsible towards humans that are alive today. It many ways we are still barbaric in our treatments towards others, and yet YES let's opine about this issue because its so righteous to do so.

We could care less most of the time when it comes to children that have no family to care for them. Sure, we have institutions...but that's just because people aren't willing to step up. Costs seem relevant there, and pretending institutions are awesome replacements for our lack of will to help a child that was indeed born is telling to me.

Humans with true mental illness are pretty much ignored, because they are not healthy enough to truly advocate for themselves. We drop funding to help them all the time. They end up on the streets to be victimized and ignored once again.

Our righteous list goes on.

Maybe we should deal with our barbaric actions, and irresponsibility towards those that have life...before we claim the right to lay out sentences of 25 to life for abortions. I hate abortions too, but we seem to have all kinds of excuses towards the many in need that are alive and here now. We have no excuses as a society either IMO. We claim costs for those anyway, because we feel they are irrelevant.

Maybe we need to stop and take that log out of our own eye.

While many of your points are certainly valid, I'm sure we as a society are able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Suggesting that since we fail at certain aspects means we should somehow excuse or ignore abortion is not really a legit stance IMO. I'm not sure what the sentencing would be, but if abortion is a crime, then it should be punishable as such. What's the point in laws if there are no penalties for violating them?

 

[mark46]

It cannot be illegal to perform abortions and at the same be legal to request and pay for an abortion. Yes, punishing the hit man who pulls the trigger is a good idea. However, there are TWO who are more culpable: the person who ordered the abortion, and the organization who employs the doctor.

This change will likely never happen in the US. The US will not outlaw all abortions without exception.

HOWEVER, let us consider a 3rd term abortion, with no extenuating circumstances (not health of the mother, or deformity of the child). This procedure is illegal in many jurisdictions. Should the criminals be prosecuted. Are they not ALL clearly guilty of a crime.

As a society, we have fought hard on this issue. Trump's stated position (well, one his positions) is indeed that of many, including Reagan. There shall be no abortions, with exceptions. The Supreme Court basically includes all first term abortions as an exception. HOWEVER, there are valid laws on the books against 2nd and 3rd term abortions. Perhaps, prosecuting everyone would help us all understand the law, and how it should be prosecuted.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Absolutely correct. If abortions are made illegal, violating the law should be prosecuted. Of course, it was a set-up question from the beginning, because we both know nobody is going to make all abortions illegal any time in the near future. If they did, the consequence for violation the law would be spelled out by the law, not by a candidate or even a president.

Trump had it right.... until he caved to those for whom enforcing the law is an option, not a requirement.

Isn't Trump pro-life? Or is that just talk?

Anywho, nice to know he caved to political correctness... We'll make an establishment stooge out of him yet.

 

[Maren]

I'm going from memory here, but in the past they went after the providers of abortions...and not really the women. The question that was asked was regarding 'doctor's that performed them, and in the past it wasn't always doctors.

This is a extremely emotional topic, and both sides of this can have heart conditions over it. (shrugs)

I doubt they will ever ban them, and in turn move them underground once again. So, I'm not sure why these questions are really even relevant. All candidates have given there answer, and these reporters just keep on asking anyway. I guess that is the best they can do today.

I pointed out in a thread earlier today, when a person claimed they will support Trump because he is against abortion, that Republicans have been stating they've been against abortion for 50 years but really haven't even tried to do much about it.

Yet, it still comes up every election as one of those issues that Republican candidates are required to address. As such, the question is quite relevant in the Republican primaries.

Isn't Trump pro-life? Or is that just talk?

Anywho, nice to know he caved to political correctness... We'll make an establishment stooge out of him yet.

Actually, and Romney faced this issue 4 years ago, many Republicans would claim Trump is not actually pro-life, since he agrees with exceptions for rape and abortion (not to mention being pro-choice before he decided to run for President).

 

[TLK Valentine]

Actually, and Romney faced this issue 4 years ago, many Republicans would claim Trump is not actually pro-life, since he agrees with exceptions for rape and abortion (not to mention being pro-choice before he decided to run for President).

I believe Trump has compared himself to Reagan in that regard... and invoking Saint Ronnie is yet another step towards complete establishment stoogehood.