# Pro-lifers: What should the punishment for getting an abortion be? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 11, 2006, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899 "2006-03-11T00:54:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2006, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/301 "2006-03-15T18:35:04Z")
Suppose the moon was made of blue cheese? ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2006, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/302 "2006-03-15T21:15:08Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Suppose the moon was made of blue cheese? It would still have no bearing on this discussion. It is in the state’s interest to punish murderers. The law establishing first-degree murder penalties is the state’s instrument for punishing murderers. It is more popular, and less liekly to be repealed, because Italian-Americans are exempted from prosecution. Good law? How does it differ from exempting pregnant women from prosecution from what can only be described as murder? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2006, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/303 "2006-03-15T23:51:48Z")
Do you ever get the impression that we’re just repeating ourselves? And that no one’s mind is going to be changed here? ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/304 "2006-03-16T00:24:52Z")
I still want to know the answer to my question. If I’m willing to risk death rather than be pregnant, what potential punishment could you possibly threaten me with that would stop me from aborting? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/305 "2006-03-16T00:51:28Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > How does it differ from exempting pregnant women from prosecution from what can only be described as murder? Because it needn’t only be described as murder. Roe v. Wade itself identified a compelling state interest in restricting abortions: > [@](#): > > On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant’s arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman’s sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court’s decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one’s body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court’s decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization). > We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. So, the very decision that overturned absolute state restrictions against abortion likewise recognized a compelling state interest to do so at a certain point. Say the SD law effectively overturns Roe v Wade. To say that it is illogical to do so–how can there be a compelling state interest to regulate abortion absent a charge of murder?–well, the same could be asked of Roe v. Wade, couldn’t it? Roe allowed for the possibility of restricting abortion to protect “potential life,” not actual life. Whether or not the SD law was crafted properly, there is already SC precedent for recognizing a state interest without recognizing an existing human life. That would work for me. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/306 "2006-03-16T00:56:43Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > If I’m willing to risk death rather than be pregnant, what potential punishment could you possibly threaten me with that would stop me from aborting? So what? Should we dispense with any crime on the books where there are people who would rather risk death than not commit the crime? How about terrorism? Should we make that legal? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/307 "2006-03-16T01:17:06Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > **FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll.** Feb. 28-March 1, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters). > “Please tell me if you think abortion should be legal or illegal in each of the following situations . . . .” > > “If the pregnancy is unwanted” > > Legal: 43% > Illegal: 49% > Unsure: 8% Fox News? Maybe I am showing my bias here, but enough of us have caught the various "news"casters and talking heads of Fox News in so many “spins”, editorializings of news, outright lies and blatant falsehoods. that you’ll excuse me if I totally ignore anything they have to say on ANY subject. On the other hand, if there is something from the AMA (about the medical aspects) or the American Bar Association (on the legalities), I’m all ears. If we are going to start drawing our “facts” from Fox news, I’m outta here. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/308 "2006-03-16T01:22:50Z")
> [@](#): > > **Stratocaster** said: > So what? Should we dispense with any crime on the books where there are people who would rather risk death than not commit the crime? How about terrorism? Should we make that legal? That depends upon your goal. If you want to stop abortion, and threats of punishment won’t do it, then what? Punishment will not stop abortion from happening. I doubt it will even cause a significant reduction in them. Supposedly the goal of the anti-choice people is stopping abortion from happening, right? Threats of punishment will not deter desperate women. It will not save the embryos. It won’t do a damn thing to protect ‘life.’ ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/309 "2006-03-16T01:24:47Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Fox News? Maybe I am showing my bias here, but enough of us have caught the various "news"casters and talking heads of Fox News in so many “spins”, editorializings of news, outright lies and blatant falsehoods. that you’ll excuse me if I totally ignore anything they have to say on ANY subject. On the other hand, if there is something from the AMA (about the medical aspects) or the American Bar Association (on the legalities), I’m all ears. > > If we are going to start drawing our “facts” from Fox news, I’m outta here. One doesn’t dispute facts by throwing stones at the source, not unless you’re prone to logical fallacies. This isn’t an editorial. It’s a survey with a certain statistical precision noted. If you find fault with the survey method, please point it out. “I’d prefer not to believe this” isn’t a counter. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/310 "2006-03-16T01:30:51Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > That depends upon your goal. > > If you want to stop abortion, and threats of punishment won’t do it, then what? Perhaps it won’t stop you. That is not at all the same as saying it won’t significantly reduce abortions. > [@](#): > > Punishment will not stop abortion from happening. Laws against armed robbery don’t stop armed robberies from occurring either. > [@](#): > > I doubt it will even cause a significant reduction in them. Upon what do you base this counter-intuitive doubt? It certainly minimized abortions prior to Roe v Wade. > [@](#): > > Supposedly the goal of the anti-choice people is stopping abortion from happening, right? Threats of punishment will not deter desperate women. It will not save the embryos. It won’t do a damn thing to protect ‘life.’ Right, 'cause you say so. And this “anti-choice” bullshit is really tiresome. Whenever I hear it, I generally find that meaningful debate is not possible. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/311 "2006-03-16T01:32:36Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Because it needn’t only be described as murder. Roe v. Wade itself identified a compelling state interest in restricting abortions:So, the very decision that overturned absolute state restrictions against abortion likewise recognized a compelling state interest to do so at a certain point. Say the SD law effectively overturns Roe v Wade. To say that it is illogical to do so–how can there be a compelling state interest to regulate abortion absent a charge of murder?–well, the same could be asked of Roe v. Wade, couldn’t it? Roe allowed for the possibility of restricting abortion to protect “potential life,” not actual life. Whether or not the SD law was crafted properly, there is already SC precedent for recognizing a state interest without recognizing an existing human life. > > That would work for me. Reading this same decision, it does not open the door for an outright ban, which I fear we are headed. It still puts the burden on the state to prove a compelling interest and justify it. It goes further to say SOME state regulation may be permissible. Again, regulation is not necessarily the same as banning. We have regulations for gambling in some states - they are not banning gambling, they only regulate it. Big difference. It also says the privacy right is not absolute. That is true in so many other areas too. We have a right to privacy in our homes, persons, property and effects. But, with a legal warrant, that can be overridden. Again though, a warrant has to be requested and issued. South Dakota though, is an attempt to “go all the way”. No regulation, just a ban. No right to privacy in “our” persons, just a law. The Supreme Court allowed some wiggle room for real life situations. SD does not. “They” want all or nothing" and this is just the first step. Take a salami. Take off the first slice. Then take the next slice later on. Repeat until nothing is left. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/312 "2006-03-16T01:38:35Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] As for Fox News, it may just as well be the Free Republic or News Max. Like momma always said, “consider the source”. The other saying, also appropraite to Fox News is “fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me”. I choose not to rely on a “news” source that has already shown a dependable record of slanted and partisan truthiness. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/313 "2006-03-16T01:42:51Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Reading this same decision, it does not open the door for an outright ban, which I fear we are headed. It still puts the burden on the state to prove a compelling interest and justify it. Yes, but if it is overturned, that’s not relevant. My point was that the holy grail of SC pro-choice decisions recognized a compelling state right to prohibit abortions without recognizing the existence of human life. If Roe v. Wade could so so, why couldn’t another SC decision? And why aren’t the pro-choice posters in this thread equally outraged over this “non sequitur” embedded in Roe v Wade? > [@](#): > > South Dakota though, is an attempt to “go all the way”. No regulation, just a ban. No right to privacy in “our” persons, just a law. The Supreme Court allowed some wiggle room for real life situations. SD does not. “They” want all or nothing" and this is just the first step. Yes, and if Roe v Wade is held a sacrosanct, they will fail. If it is not, then there is the possibility of an SC decision that would permit the restiction of abortions based on a compelling state interest, differently defined, while not establishing the human rights of the fetus. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/314 "2006-03-16T01:44:14Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > As for Fox News, it may just as well be the Free Republic or News Max. Like momma always said, “consider the source”. The other saying, also appropraite to Fox News is “fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me”. I choose not to rely on a “news” source that has already shown a dependable record of slanted and partisan truthiness. Fine. We’ve firmly established your affection for this particular logical fallacy. Gotcha. ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/315 "2006-03-16T02:25:17Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > And this “anti-choice” bullshit is really tiresome. Whenever I hear it, I generally find that meaningful debate is not possible. :rolleyes: Funny, I get the same hives when I hear someone describe themselves as “pro-life”–does “anti-abortion” offend you in the same way that “anti-choice” does? This is an honest question, and not an attempt at a jab. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/316 "2006-03-16T02:30:57Z")
**Self-created propaganda terms** Pro-Life, Pro-Choice **Innacurate derogatory terms** Pro-Abortion, Anti-Choice **Neutral terms** Pro-abortion rights, anti-abortion ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/317 "2006-03-16T02:42:19Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Yes, but if it is overturned, that’s not relevant. My point was that the holy grail of SC pro-choice decisions recognized a compelling state right to prohibit abortions without recognizing the existence of human life. If Roe v. Wade could so so, why couldn’t another SC decision? And why aren’t the pro-choice posters in this thread equally outraged over this “non sequitur” embedded in Roe v Wade?Yes, and if Roe v Wade is held a sacrosanct, they will fail. If it is not, then there is the possibility of an SC decision that would permit the restiction of abortions based on a compelling state interest, differently defined, while not establishing the human rights of the fetus. But would Roe v Wade be overturned? I don’t think so. As written, it already supplies some wiggle room for both sides, and is as much of a “compromise” as can be hoped for right now. The problem is, there seems to be no interest in any compromise at all. There is regulation, there is restriction, there is outright ban. Each is different. I see SD (and activity in other states) as a first attempt, in order to get closer to a total ban. Further, if the states “chicken out” and avoid having a fetus clasified as a human being with all the attendant rights, then they have a hard time proving that the laws do NOT have some underlying religious basis. Even the point when this fetus becomes a living sentient being is subject to some nasty religious debate and not all religions agree. We can’t pinpoint it scientifically yet, that’s for sure. So where does that leave us? The better course would be to ensure that people never get into this situation. better sex education, easier access to birth control and medical insurance/care, etc. But oh. That might cost effort and money. That might offend the “holy rollers”. My bad. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/318 "2006-03-16T02:46:16Z")
> [@MixieArmadillo](#): > > Funny, I get the same hives when I hear someone describe themselves as “pro-life”–does “anti-abortion” offend you in the same way that “anti-choice” does? > This is an honest question, and not an attempt at a jab. No. While I generally see it as yet another means of avoiding calling pro-lifers what they’d prefer, at least it isn’t “loaded” in the way that “anti-choice” is. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/319 "2006-03-16T02:50:20Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > But would Roe v Wade be overturned? I don’t think it will be now. > [@](#): > > As written, it already supplies some wiggle room for both sides, and is as much of a “compromise” as can be hoped for right now. The problem is, there seems to be no interest in any compromise at all. The SC’s job, as much as some would prefer otherwise, isn’t to find comprimise. It’s to determine what is constitutional. On good days they base their decision on something actually in the Constitution. > [@](#): > > The better course would be to ensure that people never get into this situation. better sex education, easier access to birth control and medical insurance/care, etc. But oh. That might cost effort and money. That might offend the “holy rollers”. My bad. Right. Because religious people are against spending money and exerting themselves. Everyone knows that. ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899/320 "2006-03-16T03:05:20Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > No. While I generally see it as yet another means of avoiding calling pro-lifers what they’d prefer, at least it isn’t “loaded” in the way that “anti-choice” is. It’s a hell of a lot more honest than either, too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-what-should-the-punishment-for-getting-an-abortion-be/347899.md?page=17)