Try this one again...if abortion was illegal, how would you prove a woman had one?

"Personhood" alone opens a can of legal worms the "pro-lifers" cannot fathom. Your example for one. Imagine if a woman was 3 weeks pregnant and got arrested on an auto theft charge and was sentenced to 6 months in prison. LEGALLY, the fetus would be innocent and thus could not legally be incarcerated in a penal facility.

So if it's a "person" at 3 weeks....even if the woman was released before the fetus was born.....the woman could SUE the state (as legal guardian of her delivered child) for its "illegal incarceration" while it was a fetus.

Even if they claimed "no inconvenience or hardship" for the fetus....doesn't matter. If it's considered a "person" with Constitutional rights? Those rights would be violated by having it incarcerated along with the woman.

Then we start getting into things like "negligent homicide".....for miscarriages.

 

Sure we did. Women DIED from botched abortions (although I'm not entirely sure you won't say "Well? So? They got what they deserved"). Typically these were not wealthy women....who easily afforded "private spas" or "sanitariums".

We also had difficulty prosecuting abortion cases because of the EXACT reason I laid out....doctors could claim they were performing a necessary and therapeutic D&C due to a miscarriage. Depending on the degree of popularity of the local doctor....prosecutors wouldn't even pursue it.

Plus we didn't have proven pharmaceutical abortifacients....though herbal ones had been around for millenia. RU-486 opens up a brand new "Drug War" for guys like you that makes breaking up crystal meth labs look like busting Grateful Dead fans for smoking a joint.

RU-486 is a steroidal compound...close to the same steroid compounds used to treat infections. Same residual effects and traces. So a woman who got RU-486 and used it, could later claim she was taking a compound for a "sinus infection"....have an early abortion....and no DA could prove any different.

But the main thing is....despite the FALSE history you have been fed, abortions were not that less common before Roe. Just more dangerous to poor women...or "hushed up" for the others.

So we're back to ...are you REALLY serious in your desire to enforce and prosecute a hypothetical ban on abortion?

Or do you just want it made illegal....but abortion continues....and you get to talk about how "moral and righteous" you and the country would be?

 

Less women died from botched abortions then children that died from successful ones. The laws that were on the books in the country can be put back and the same enforcement used. Imperfect though it was it did save a few children. You know if it saves just one child then it is worth it. As for how "moral and righteous" me and the country would be those are your words not mine. I am not more righteous then the next man. But when I see a wrong I do feel that I should speak up.

 

When the first patient dies under an illegal abortion what would the Dr. do with the body? Dump it in a river?

 

Yes I do know that and the reason the problems were not there was because abortion was not illegal due to the personhood of the fetus.

The first restrictions on abortion were brought in under poison laws as many of the concoctions used were dangerous to the female, the next raft of restrictions were brought in under lobbying by the medical profession as they wanted the whole business of abortion to only administered by them thus pushing out the numerous midwifes etc who performed abortions.

Historical abortion restrictions had absolutely nothing to do with the personhood status of the unborn.

 

1. Notice how easily you dismiss the deaths of women? Not overtly as I said you might...but just as much.

2. "You know if it saves just one child then it is worth it." Fine....let's ban guns. Strictly. If it stops ONE Newtown...it's worth it, right?

3. In two lines you contradict yourself. You claim you are "no more righteous than the next man"....and in the next you claim YOUR view on abortion is the only righteous one.

- - - Updated - - -

No, he'll claim it was complications from a D&C required for uterine bleeding or miscarriage.

How would you prove him a liar in a court?

 

ASSUMING that zefs are "children." That's a no-no.

Ummmm, that would be NO enforcement. Allowing all the self-righteous ____(fill in the blank) to stick their heads in the sand and ignore that abortions are happening.

.

No children were "saved." There you go again, assuming that zefs are "children." Criminalizing abortion will result in an unknown number of deaths of women, that isn't better than "saving just one child" however emotionally appealing that may sound.

"Moral and righteous" and "wrong" are judgments, meaning good people can disagree on what they are. Those judgments should be the basis for your decisions for your own life, not the basis for law or governmental action.

 

You notice that you and I pointed out several flaws in Crawdadr's thinking...and hopes and dreams. But not uncommon ones to the "pro-lifers".

They all tend to believe the same things...that are patently false-

1. That there were few abortions before Roe v. Wade.

2. That state laws against it prevented women from seeking abortions or prevented wealthier women from obtaining safe ones.

3. That it would be "as easy" to enforce a national ban on abortion "as it was before". (Despite the fact that today, there are pharmaceutical means of inducing abortion that are safe and effective...and would easier to obtain than even marijuana is now, if made contraband. And despite the obvious need for a massive police state to enforce it, especially a NATIONAL police, since there would still be pro-choice friendly states where local law enforcement would "turn a blind eye" to a violation of a national ban.)

4. That even a state-by-state ban would reduce abortions. (Again, despite the fact of our Interstate Highway System and bus and air travel. Less convenient to poorer women...yes....but nothing that will reduce abortions.)

5. That their view of morality is superior to the morality of those who are pro-choice and thus, while being political conservatives on other issues and insisting they "want Government out of our lives and off our backs".....DO want Government in uteruses because of their "superior morality".

and finally 6. That despite FORTY-PLUS YEARS of failing to overturn Roe v. Wade.....that despite the fact that a majority on the Supreme Court were nominated by 'pro-life' Republican Presidents (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy) and the USSC has kept Roe intact.....despite polls that show a majority of Americans (while in their personal lives "pro-life") do NOT want abortion outlawed or agree with the Roe decision....

that Roe will be overturned and there will be popular support for a national Abortion Prohibition "soon" or even within their life-times.

 

Actually I do not think it will ever be overturned. There is not nor will there ever be enough support for that. I just like talking to fine folks like you and "its just a zef" Grannie.

 

Maybe you could try learning something from them.

 

One option when it comes to abortion criminalization is to just have the act of performing the abortion illegal, not asking someone else to do it. So the doctor who did the abortion would be punished, not the woman who it was done on. This is quite fair as the woman is naturally in a lot of stress and because of all the propaganda on how abortion is ok, not able to think clearly. The doc on the other hand should know better. This approach of course also makes proving a crime illegal (not to mention that only having abortion aparatus could be illegal, like with drugs).

 

Well, don't let the OTHER "pro-lifers" hear you say that this is all an "academic exercise", Crawdadr.

They ACTUALLY believe that "some day soon" not only will Roe be overturned, but that a national Abortion Prohibiiton will be enacted.

But thanks for the honesty.

 

Oh I doubt that, I was a firm believer in pro-choice for many years. But as I really studied my faith I came to realise that it was incompatible with that stance. In the end I believe in a soul and I believe that when you are conceived the holy spirit enters that child. It does not matter if that child dies soon after or goes to term and joins us out here. How can I on one hand say I believe in what the Bible, Church Fathers, and Church Tradition say while also supporting something all three agree is wrong? So I made a choice

 

The Bible doesn't say when "the holy spirit enters the child." That's dogma. Church leaders and church tradition have an agenda.

 

Until 1869, the Roman Catholic Church did not consider that a fetus gained a "soul" until "quickening"...about 16 weeks. While they considered abortion "sinful"...they did NOT consider that a fetus before that point had a soul.

- - - Updated - - -

See above. Historically, it was even ambigious from the Church leaders. As I noted, for centuries, the Catholic Church didn't consider a fetus before "quickening" ...to have a soul.

 

I agree with the Agenda part but you are wrong about scripture:

Jeremiah 1:5 Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, 5"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you;

Luke 1:15 You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb.

I can go on with both Old and New Testament but you get the picture.

 

Note the phrasing "BEFORE I formed you in the womb".....

so by that God "knew you"....when there was no fertilized ovum in your mother. He "knew" you even before your father's sperm contacted the egg.


In the Luke passage, Luke talks of "birth" and makes no mention of WHEN the Holy Spirit entered the womb.

 

I am not Roman Catholic I am Orthodox and we are a tad more mystical in our beliefs then the legalistic Romans. But you are correct St. Thomas Aquinas is the one I remember the most and he shaped a lot of the Roman thought on just about everything including abortion.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly so once you are in the womb he still knows you and you have a soul.

 

No, it says God knew him BEFORE he was formed in the womb....that indicates a period BEFORE the egg was fertilized and began mitosis.

Mystical if you wish, God "knew" you before you even had a physical form. But that doesn't mean God opposes abortion, since it's referring to a time even BEFORE fertilization.

BTW, in the Old Testament? God orders the KILLING of not just babies, but older children, as well. Hardly a "pro-life" Deity.

 

"...'and I appointed you a prophet to the nations.'" Are we all prophets then?

I am not going to go off topic into religion with you. This article and many others debunk "Biblical evidence":

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/bible.shtml

I will just say that you can't make laws based on your religion. It's unconstitutional.

 

You are very correct about the Old Testament, the coming of Christ had a very "humanising" effect upon our Deity. He lived as us, ate as us, and eventually died as us. Christ really changed everything for the Abrahamic faiths.

But we are getting far afield this stuff should probably be in the religion section. This forum is more for the legalistic and scientific opposition and support of abortion and I am sorry for taking us off onto a tangent.

- - - Updated - - -

You are correct very unconstitutional and it should not be done because of faith alone.

 

Well, I don't believe in fairy tales and myths, I live in, and believe in, the real world.

I am glad you are against war, capital punishment, corporate corruption (such as killing people with their products like cars).

 

So God "changed"? It thought He was perfect and eternal and immutable?

 

I don't claim to understand the workings of the almighty we get but a very small glimpse through religion and that small fragment has been enough too keep us asking questions ever since man looked up at the stars and asked "why."

 

Well, isn't what I asked a basic question to what you say you believe?

If you believe that God "became nicer" in the New Testament from His Old Testament self.....then "God changed". But God isn't supposed to "change"...He's supposed to be PERFECT and ETERNAL.

Which means He was "perfect" in the Old Testament days and is exactly the same at the dawn of Creation....or 20 billion years ago....or in 4 BC....or in 2014 AD....or in 503,114, 994 AD a half a billion years from now.

If God "changed" it means His previous state was IMperfect and needed "reform"...which means He wasn't perfect....and if God wasn't perfect....according to the very definition....He wasn't "God".