Ban abortions?

[akennett]

Bryan, I never said enforcement would be easy, nor particularly effective. Also, I don’t find population support arguments for banning abortions particularly compelling. But, I will address your point of enforcement being difficult.

The reason I do not find this argument to hold up is the nature of the legal system in America today. We outlaw any number of actions of varying importance. Most of these laws are are just as difficult to enforce. How often do you see someone stopped and cited for changing lanes on a highway without using a turn-signal? Not very often, I would imagine. Do you advocate removing this statute because of this difficulty?

Also, in our legal system, we do not punish someone for considering commiting a crime. The hypothetical mother in your post would have to take some concrete step before some sort of punishment would even come into play.

There are a number of issues to determine before such a ban on abortions could be enacted, but this is hardly a reason not to do so. Do we punish the mother? the doctor? How do we punish them and to what extent? Certainly this couldn’t be done by a simple decree that abortion must end. I do not see, though, how this need for careful consideration of these factors translates into a reason for inaction.

[Badtz_Maru]

*Originally posted by akennett *
**The argument that criminalizing abortions will make the proceedure less safe or will not stop them is not a reason to allow this atrocity to continue. One could just as easily (and just as correctly) argue that decriminalizing murder, rape, or theft would make these acts safer for the perpetrator to commit. Similarly, one could argue that criminal statutes do not stop these acts. I don’t hear any real clamor to legalize these crimes though. **

There is a serious difference between abortion and murder, rape, and theft, which is important in deciding how we deal with it.

Murder, rape, and theft harm other people. The majority of Americans do not believe that an unborn embryo or fetus is the equivalent of a human being. It even seems that most anti-choice people make the distinction, as only the most extreme advocate murder sentences for people who get abortions. When there is no direct harm being done, those who wish to ban abortion need to provide a reason why abortion is bad to those of us who do not believe that a fetus is a human being.

Prosecuting murderers, rapists, and thieves also serves a purpose beyond that of simple punishment - we also attempt to isolate them from those they can harm. Many of them feel compelled to commit their crimes and we must do what we can to correct that, or at least restrict their ability to harm others. If there are any women out there who feel compelled to get abortions I am sure they are an insignificant minority of the 3 million or so who are having them every year in our country.

As I mentioned in my prior post, to be able to effectively and fairly enforce a ban on abortion, law enforcement would need to intrude even more into the lives of everyday people. Not everybody who gets an abortion will go to a doctor if it’s illegal, and there are many ways to force a miscarriage. How would you like it if your wife had a miscarriage, and then found yourself under investigation because they always do some routine questioning after a miscarriage, and someone mentioned that you said something about being glad you didn’t have kids? What if you happen to have some abortifacents in your flower garden or your spice cabinet? If we make getting an abortion a crime, there WILL be people who are wrongfully accused of it, and I’m sure some will be found guilty.

Even if you are successful in tracking pregnancies, controlling substances that can be used to induce miscarriages, and manage to bully the medical profession into opening their patients records to investigation, there will still be many unbalanced, inexperienced, and terribly frightened girls and women who will do anything to avoid having a baby, and by removing the legal option all you are doing is forcing them to seek other methods. Explain to me how the enforcement of laws against murder, rape, and theft, no matter how ineffective they may be at times, harm people in any way.

Finally, there is the question of what to do with all these unwanted children if abortion is made illegal. Last I checked, app. 3 million abortions are performed every year in the USA. I see no reason why the criminalization of abortion is going to increase the number of people looking to adopt children - the goodness of our hearts isn’t enough for the children we have now. We have only 2 million people in prisons today, and it’s considered an abnormally large number of people, and building prisons is big business. In the first year of no abortions, you will have 50% more people who need a lot more supervision and costly care than prison inmates. In a couple of decades you have a good 20% of the population raised in institutions (that is, if the miraculous renaissance of adoption fails to occur - I think any adult who is anti-choice and is not at least trying to adopt unwanted children is a fucking hypocrite). Of course, such a drastic change in demographics is unlikely to happen - I can’t see an abortion ban doing more than slowing abortion slightly, and many of those who end up keeping their children will probably try to take care of the children themselves or pass them off to relatives.

[Bryan_Ekers]

*Originally posted by JThunder *
**So killing another human being is okay, if it’s done to prevent misery on the part of someone else? **

No, you’re missing my point. I started with the assumption that abortion is now banned in the fifty states, i.e. it is not “okay”. I’m asking what punishments and/or legal remedies would be appropriate. A murderer (of a post-birth human, I feel compelled to add in order to avoid confusion) can currently get terms of imprisonment ranging from, say, five years all the way up to the death penalty. Where does a post-abortion woman fall on this scale?

akennett said no pro-choice arguments he/she’d ever heard “[held] up under any sort of scrutiny”. I’m simply putting the opposite position under similar scrutiny and seeing if it holds up. It’s easy to say that a practice should be made illegal, but laws do not magically enforce themselves. I’d like to know what powers would have to be given to police, the courts, and the prison system in order to enforce anti-abortion laws.

[akennett]

Lissa, I view the life of the mother exception much in the same light as I do the issue of using lethal force to protect my life. If I were walking down the street, and an assailant attacked me, I would not hesitate to draw my weapon and fire on him. My life and his both have the same intrinsic value, but I have no moral qualms about saving my own life over his. I think this parallels the life of the mother situation as closely as any other analogy.

[Lissa]

*Originally posted by akennett *
**Lissa, I view the life of the mother exception much in the same light as I do the issue of using lethal force to protect my life. If I were walking down the street, and an assailant attacked me, I would not hesitate to draw my weapon and fire on him. My life and his both have the same intrinsic value, but I have no moral qualms about saving my own life over his. I think this parallels the life of the mother situation as closely as any other analogy. **

The attacker on the street is trying to harm you, thus you are justified in defending yourself.

The baby is just trying to be born. There is no intent to harm the mother.

I think that analogy is flawed.

[Bryan_Ekers]

*Originally posted by akennett *
Also, in our legal system, we do not punish someone for considering commiting a crime. The hypothetical mother in your post would have to take some concrete step before some sort of punishment would even come into play.

There are a number of issues to determine before such a ban on abortions could be enacted, but this is hardly a reason not to do so. Do we punish the mother? the doctor? How do we punish them and to what extent? Certainly this couldn’t be done by a simple decree that abortion must end. I do not see, though, how this need for careful consideration of these factors translates into a reason for inaction.

Actually, people are punished for considering crimes, under the various “conspiracy” statutes.

Anyway, feel free to share your wisdom on these issues, but I’m personally disinclined to support any vaguely-defined legal initiative. Laws by their definition restrict freedom and they should never be passed just to make some people feel good. There has to be a demonstrable benefit and practical enforcement in mind.

What is a “concrete step”, by the way? Just out of curiosity, would travelling to another country be a concrete step? Americans who go on overnight visits to Colombia might be plausible suspects for drug smuggling and have their luggage searched, but if a woman goes on a one-day visit to Canada, does she have to take a pregnancy test upon her return to determine if she’d had an abortion?

Let’s say she did have an abortion. What’s the punishment? Until you have a practical idea in mind on how to deal with these tricky issues, inaction is exactly what you should do.

[IEatFood]

First off, Welcome to Magnetic Flux! We are not kidding when we say “Great Debates” here, as you will no doubt see as this thread develops. Enjoy.

As for cases when women might be harmed trying to perform the abortion herself, it doesn’t bother me a bit - any women who would kill her unborn child deserves the same punishment she would get if she killed her 6 year old child.

Hmmmmm… I have to agree with that. At the surface it sounds cruel, but when was the last time anyone felt truly sorry for or sympathetic for a drunk driver who killed or maimed himself on the Road?
Sure we feel horrible for those the careless fool injured or killed (as any reasonable person should), but I have to admit that (as someone who routinely cleans up these gruesome scenes for a living), I cannot remeber the last time I heard something to the effect of “Wow, my kids we just turned into hamburger meat, but I’m just glad that drunk lived through it though”

Bryan, not hostile either, but no, not holding up under scrutiny. Sorry. Obviously some will get away with it, but that alone is never justifcation for legalizing anything. Careful how you answer that, I have a degree in Criminal Law,
As for assigning penalties, it should be done just like any other murder. On a case by case basis determined by competant legal authorities, or a jury of her peers, should she elect for a trial.

One other thing though. The fallacy I see here is that in this instance, we are only penalizing the woman. If Abortion is illegal, and done anyways, I believe it not unreasonable that the “Doctor” who administers the procedure (if there is one), and the man who impregnated her are equally responsible. I say this because my views on the subject are much more in line with protecting life than penalizing irresponsible women.

Zoe,

I am sure that is the case sometimes, but I would be careful about generalizing Fathers that way. Personally, I work about 50 hours a week, go to school (My ego sorely wants a “Dr” tittle one day, [;)] ), am currently developing my second novel, and I still have time to be a full time daddy to my own little angel of 19 months (Her mom may be assigned visitation, but that remains to be seen…) And yeah, there are times when it is a cast Iron PITA, but there is no power in Heaven or Earth that could make me trade her away. I realize this may not be the majority out there, but I am hardly alone in being a full time everything in addition to a full time dad.
I know it will not change your mind, but if I read the salient point of post right, I can tell you that dealing with raising a child and having the responsibilty of paying for it (while not being rich, just to note), have not come close to erroding the concern in this anti-abortionists heart.
Lissa,

I don’t know if you would really want those people around. The children of resentful mothers could end up being some very damaged individuals.

I am positive (almost), that you didn’t mean that as a personal attack on those who are raised that way, so I will try to keep that in Mind.
I know this is a more personal than factual argument here. So please bear with me.
In the summer of 1978, my parents, a coupla broke newlyweds at the time were handed an unexpected surprise in the form of a furture regular at SDMB. Word from around my mother’s family is that I am here only because she dithered to long and in MD, you could not get a 2nd term at that point. She herself has never confirmed it, but her actions since are very consistant with that. I spent the fist 18 of life hearing just how much it costs to raise & maintain a kid, how they couldn’t do this & that anymore, how my father supposedly would never have left her if My twin & I had come later (were pretty sure now that that’s not actually the truth, but what 7 year old would know better, right?)
Now that I have a daughter of my own, I realize just how misaligned that all was, and believe me, though she was at least as unexpect as my brother & myself were, she will never know!
Onward to the point of general misery. If your parents didn’t want you is that ugly? You bet. Would I rather be dead? Are you insane? I love my life. Yeah it started rough, but Oh freakin well. I have a beautiful daughter, a nice house, all the cars I can use a future that seems brighter with each passing day, and I know that I will have an effect on the world around me one day.
I cannot imagine how I would have been better off aborted, or how anyone can believe condescending psudologic like that.
BM

The majority of Americans do not believe that an unborn embryo or fetus is the equivalent of a human being. It even seems that most anti-choice people make the distinction, as only the most extreme advocate murder sentences for people who get abortions.

That’s interesting. The majority of Americans believe an unborn baby is not a full human? So that’s why over 90% of this nation finds 2nd term abortions repugnant and disgusting? I have never seen any conclusive evidence pointing to even a simple majority of people actually educated on the subject to be in favor of it at all. The Pro-Murdering Children camp is vocal to be sure, but that alone does not make a majority. Sorry but I do not buy that.

and…

Prosecuting murderers, rapists, and thieves also serves a purpose beyond that of simple punishment - we also attempt to isolate them from those they can harm.

That would be the point of prosecuting abortion seekers. To prevent them from doing it in the furture and to prevent and discourage them from harming their children.

[akennett]

*Originally posted by Badtz Maru *
There is a serious difference between abortion and murder, rape, and theft, which is important in deciding how we deal with it.

Perhaps, but the analogy I presented still holds. Those crimes are outlawed, which makes their practice less safe, as outlawing abortion would do that practice. I merely stated that this argument can not then be used in an intellectually honest way against abortion.

The majority of Americans do not believe that an unborn embryo or fetus is the equivalent of a human being.

The percentages of those who believe one thing or another do nothing to make that concept a fact. Either a fetus is a human life or it isn’t, and what you, I, or anyone else believes makes no difference in the world.

It even seems that most anti-choice people make the distinction, as only the most extreme advocate murder sentences for people who get abortions.

That’s anti-infanticide (or pro-life if you must). Do you like to be called pro-murder? I fully support a woman’s right to make decisions about her desire to reproduce, but that has no bearing on the discussion of abortion.

Also, whether those who are against abortion advocate the death penalty or not does not reflect on any percieved distinction between a pre- and post-birth life. Many are completely opposed to the death penalty. Many realize the political infeasability of imposing this penalty.

When there is no direct harm being done, those who wish to ban abortion need to provide a reason why abortion is bad to those of us who do not believe that a fetus is a human being.

There is great harm being done. A human life is being destroyed.

Prosecuting murderers, rapists, and thieves also serves a purpose beyond that of simple punishment - we also attempt to isolate them from those they can harm. Many of them feel compelled to commit their crimes and we must do what we can to correct that, or at least restrict their ability to harm others.

And this would not be the same if we punished the “doctors” who perform abortions? Please note, I did not specify who I would punish nor to what extent they would be punished (if I had that power).

As I mentioned in my prior post, to be able to effectively and fairly enforce a ban on abortion, law enforcement would need to intrude even more into the lives of everyday people. Not everybody who gets an abortion will go to a doctor if it’s illegal, and there are many ways to force a miscarriage. How would you like it if your wife had a miscarriage, and then found yourself under investigation because they always do some routine questioning after a miscarriage, and someone mentioned that you said something about being glad you didn’t have kids? What if you happen to have some abortifacents in your flower garden or your spice cabinet? If we make getting an abortion a crime, there WILL be people who are wrongfully accused of it, and I’m sure some will be found guilty.

As I have said before, the fact that it would be difficult to enforce the ban is not an effective argument against the law.

Explain to me how the enforcement of laws against murder, rape, and theft, no matter how ineffective they may be at times, harm people in any way.

Simple, If I feel that I want to murder someone, and then carry through with me plans, the state will then punish me. I am harmed under this situation. Those who get abortions are not the innocents, rather it is the dead victim of this act who is the true innocent.

Finally, there is the question of what to do with all these unwanted children if abortion is made illegal…I can’t see an abortion ban doing more than slowing abortion slightly, and many of those who end up keeping their children will probably try to take care of the children themselves or pass them off to relatives.

What was the situation like before abortions were legal? Are you saying that we as a society are unable to adapt to change? I’m not saying that there won’t be rough patches in the transition, but again I fail to see how a change in society and how it operates is an argument against banning abortion.

[Bryan_Ekers]

*Originally posted by Lissa *
**The attacker on the street is trying to harm you, thus you are justified in defending yourself.

The baby is just trying to be born. There is no intent to harm the mother.

I think that analogy is flawed. **

You can shoot a person who is endangering you and not knowing it. A person who is suffering from extreme mental illness may not be able to form the legal intent to commit bodily harm, but if they come at me swinging a sledgehammer while screaming “Demon!” I think blowing them away would be perfectly justified.

Similarly, if a young child had wandered into a demolition zone (ridiculous hypothetical, I know) and was toying with an explosive that could kill a few dozen workers, striking the child (and possibly causing the child’s death) could be perfectly justifiable.

And if I was in the middle of a medical procedure necessary to save my life, and someone barged in and said I had no right to continue, I might blow that person away as a matter of self-defense.

[akennett]

*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers *
Actually, people are punished for considering crimes, under the various “conspiracy” statutes.

Conspiracy, and the hypothetical woman saying to herself “Huh, guess I’ll go butcher my kid today” are two totally different concepts. I could not be arrested for conspiracy if I decided in my own mind that today I want to kill my poli-sci prof (another hypothetical - honest!).

[qutoe]Until you have a practical idea in mind on how to deal with these tricky issues, inaction is exactly what you should do.
[/QUOTE]

I would agree with you if this was a forum to make or support proposed laws. However, the OP (in my estimation) is trying to determine broad support for the concept. There is no legislative power (that I’m aware of) conferred on the SDMB. The first step in making policy is to get a consensus on the need for that action, not writing the details of such a law.

[Bryan_Ekers]

*Originally posted by akennett *
Conspiracy, and the hypothetical woman saying to herself “Huh, guess I’ll go butcher my kid today” are two totally different concepts. I could not be arrested for conspiracy if I decided in my own mind that today I want to kill my poli-sci prof (another hypothetical - honest!).

Irrelevant. While it’s a practical impossibility to stop a woman from causing her own abortion (well, unless you want to strap her down, as mentioned above) typically women who wish to terminate a pregnancy will consult with a gynecologist at some stage. If abortion was outlawed, then conspiracy charges could be levelled at anyone who gave medical advice to a woman seeking an abortion, or anyone who offered travel advice to help her go to a nation where abortions were legal. You said earlier:

The hypothetical mother in your post would have to take some concrete step before some sort of punishment would even come into play.

Well, what is a “concrete step”? Talking to an ob/gyn? Walking into a clinic? Lying down on a table? Buying a bus/plane/train ticket to Canada? In order to enforce any legislation, you’d have to put some pretty heavy restrictions on what medical advice women can get and what travel arrangements they can make.

I would agree with you if this was a forum to make or support proposed laws. However, the OP (in my estimation) is trying to determine broad support for the concept. There is no legislative power (that I’m aware of) conferred on the SDMB. The first step in making policy is to get a consensus on the need for that action, not writing the details of such a law.

Sure, we can talk about the issue at length, and our discussion has no weight of law, but as soon as you or anyone starts saying there ought to be a law, I’ll feel free to point out the practical difficulties in creating or enforcing such legislation. At the very least, you’d have to stomp all over the concept of medical confidentiality.

[tilly]

Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal. It will never be overturned. The back lash would be monumental and devistating to all of the gain the republican party has made in the house and Senate…

Even your present republican leaders think it should stay legal (the new majority leader of the senate)

Abortion is legal, yes it should have limitations to it.

A womens right too choose is no ones business except the women doing the choosing get over it!!!

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers *
**Sure, we can talk about the issue at length, and our discussion has no weight of law, but as soon as you or anyone starts saying there ought to be a law, I’ll feel free to point out the practical difficulties in creating or enforcing such legislation. At the very least, you’d have to stomp all over the concept of medical confidentiality. **

Feel free. But a ban would undoubtedly reduce the number of abortions performed. Or do you dispute that notion? The problems with enforcing a justifiable ban do not, by themselves, negate the need for the ban.

We should enforce the ban in a manner that optimizes its objective without unreasonably infringing on a “non-banned” right. The fact that this may be difficult at times is a given, just as it’s a given that it’s tough to get some people not to steal. So what?

[Essured]

A question. If we’re making it illegal for the woman to control the contents and use of her uterus at any time, are we also making it illegal for her to refuse to provide bone marrow or organs if the mother’s two year old child will die without them?

If so, is this restricted only to the mother, or does it include the father, too ? Does it include a stranger on the street who just happens to be compatible ?

If not, what is the difference ?

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by tilly *
**Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal. It will never be overturned. The back lash would be monumental and devistating to all of the gain the republican party has made in the house and Senate… **

Roe v. Wade did NOT make abortion legal. It deemed that certain state statutes were unconstitutional not because they banned abortion, but because they did so too broadly. The decision actually discusses circumstances where the state may have a compelling interest in prohibiting abortion, regardless of the mother’s wishes. You can say that Roe v. Wade effectively made certain categories of abortions legal.

I just thought I’d point this out, since you seem such a fan of the decision. I personally think it is one of the most twisted pieces of self-contradictory nonsense the SC has ever crafted. No typos, though, so it has that going for it.

BTW, you understand that the Senate and the Supreme Court are separate bodies, right?

[Ben_Hicks]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
In order to enforce any legislation, you’d have to put some pretty heavy restrictions on what medical advice women can get and what travel arrangements they can make.

Red Herring. Since the overwhelming majority of women know that they are pregnant before it is outwardly evident then restrictions on travel arrangements would be totally unworkable and thus would not ever be implemented to help enforce an abortion ban.

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by Goo *
**A question. If we’re making it illegal for the woman to control the contents and use of her uterus at any time, are we also making it illegal for her to refuse to provide bone marrow or organs if the mother’s two year old child will die without them?

If so, is this restricted only to the mother, or does it include the father, too ? Does it include a stranger on the street who just happens to be compatible ?

If not, what is the difference ? **

Not analogous, IMO. Refusing to donate marrow or a kidney is not the same as a decision to exercise a right that necessarily actively kills another human being via dismemberment. Abortion equals an active decision to ensure that another person is dismembered/killed.

Not so in your analogy. There may be other bone marrow donors, for example. Can you see the distinction? That this may make the chances of the child worse is not an issue. The law does not attempt to maximize everyone’s chances at survivial in every circumstance; that is an impossible objective. The law can and should, however, prohibit people from taking active steps to ensure another person’s destruction. This is a reasonable and practical objective.

[Ben_Hicks]

Originally posted by tilly
Abortion is legal, yes it should have limitations to it.

Originally posted by tilly
A womens right too choose is no ones business except the women doing the choosing get over it

There’s a contradiction there. Can you spot it?

Highlight the big black box below for the answer.

According to your first statement there should be restrictions on abortion. However, your second statement says women have the right to choose and this means that they can choose to abort their child for any reason whatsoever. They can abort because hey had a bad hair day and want to lash out at something if they so desire. Right to choose means they can choose abortion for ANY reason their imaginations can conceive. Are you saying that women should have the right to choose but we should restrict their reasons for choosing?

[robertliguori]

As always in these debates, I must ask: what justification is given for a fertilized egg or fetus being a human individual with more rights than a skin cell or a cancer?

[Bryan_Ekers]

Originally posted by Ben Hicks
Red Herring. Since the overwhelming majority of women know that they are pregnant before it is outwardly evident then restrictions on travel arrangements would be totally unworkable and thus would not ever be implemented to help enforce an abortion ban.

So… if nobody knows the woman is pregnant, it’s okay for her to leave the country and come back un-pregnant? Just out of curiosity, what if abortions were banned in the U.S. and Canadian clinics started popping up near the border in the best capitalist tradition of meeting demand? Would women leaving the U.S. at nearby border crossings be subject to extra scrutiny? And define “outwardly evident”. If she’s 3.5 months along and looks like she might be pregnant, can a U.S. customs agent question her before she leaves U.S. soil and after she returns?

And that’s assuming a federal ban. In reality, if Roe v. Wade was tossed tomorrow, the seperate states would have to come up with their own legislation. The conservative states would pass bans (if they could) while the liberal states wouldn’t. Can a woman be questioned if she takes a round-trip with a two-day stopover from conservative Colorado to liberal California? Will women no longer be free to travel within the United States?

What penalties, if any, do you propose for a woman who leaves her home state (which has a ban in place), terminates her pregnancy somewhere else, and returns?

*Originally posted by Bob Cos *
Feel free. But a ban would undoubtedly reduce the number of abortions performed. Or do you dispute that notion? The problems with enforcing a justifiable ban do not, by themselves, negate the need for the ban.

Well, actually I do dispute it. Bans may make it possible to close abortion clinics and punish gynecologists who perform the procedures in their offices, but as has been pointed out, there are herbs (as well as drugs like RU486) that can cause spontaneous abortions. Couple this with the instant information of the internet and women will be able to conduct their own research. And the “war on drugs” has only proven that people who want drugs for pleasure will find way to get them. Drugs to end an inconvenient pregnancy will also find their way in, and the demand will be very high.

And let’s say legislation does reduce the number of abortions. So you’ve managed to force some women to carry children they didn’t want to term. Congratu-fucking-lations. It’s Miller Time, because your work is obviously done.

Before you advocate criminal legislation of any kind, you’re going to have to prove that the amount of misery prevented is greater than the amount of misery caused. Banning safe surgical “D&C” abortions and forcing women to seek other, potentially more hazardous alternatives will lead to the deaths of adult women, and I find that far more compelling than the abortion of any number of first-trimester fetusses.

Unlike tilly, who did post a contradiction, I’m comfortable with leaving the issue completely unlegislated. While a woman past 30 weeks should be encouraged to see the pregnancy through, surely the final decision should be up to her and her doctor.

We should enforce the ban in a manner that optimizes its objective without unreasonably infringing on a “non-banned” right. The fact that this may be difficult at times is a given, just as it’s a given that it’s tough to get some people not to steal. So what?

Okay, and how do you propose going about doing that?