How much jail time for women who've had abortions?

CorporateWhore

RainDog wrote:

Oh please, please, please, please let there be a concerted conservative effort to push for criminal charges. Oh please, please let CorporateHero/BarroomWhore/Corp....whatever become the new model of conservative America. Is it really too much to ask?

America definitely identifies more with my conservatism than your liberal pinko b.s.

Abookamongstthemany

CorporateWhore wrote:

America definitely identifies more with my conservatism than your liberal pinko b.s.

And that's why abortion is legal and we never see any large scale protests against it, I guess.

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

And that's why abortion is legal and we never see any large scale protests against it, I guess.

Yeah, and I guess that's why they have to put things like gay marriage bans on an actual ballot these days - rather than just taking it as a foregone conclusion like they did 20 years ago.

The, um - ahem - "sad" fact is, the country has been getting more and more socially liberal since its inception. And, looking at the major party candidates on both sides - a bit more fiscally liberal as well.

CorporateWhore

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

And that's why abortion is legal and we never see any large scale protests against it, I guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Life

"The first March for Life was held on the West Steps of the Capitol, with an estimated 20,000 supporters in attendance. [1] In recent years the number of marchers has been estimated at around 100,000 to 300,000 each year,[citation needed] considered the most attended annual march in Washington D.C.[2]"

Pwned!

Abookamongstthemany

CorporateWhore wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Life

"The first March for Life was held on the West Steps of the Capitol, with an estimated 20,000 supporters in attendance. [1] In recent years the number of marchers has been estimated at around 100,000 to 300,000 each year,[citation needed] considered the most attended annual march in Washington D.C.[2]"

That is pretty big, true enough. But you see protests against the war in every large city and much more frequently with each passing year...when the majority of people are against something you'll see it everywhere...and no, I don't mean a few people gathered at the local clinics.

Abookamongstthemany

http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StateAbortion0805SortedbyProChoice.htm

CorporateWhore

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

That is pretty big, true enough. But you see protests against the war in every large city and much more frequently with each passing year...when the majority of people are against something you'll see it everywhere...and no, I don't mean a few people gathered at the local clinics.

In my opinion, protesting doesn't indicate public opinion at all. It attracts the most intense advocates of that position.

March for Life people are generally pretty humble and tranquil during the March for Life, mainly because the thing they're protesting is so sobering. 40 million babies isn't something you get into a frenzy over.

Abookamongstthemany

CorporateWhore wrote:

In my opinion, protesting doesn't indicate public opinion at all. It attracts the most intense advocates of that position.

March for Life people are generally pretty humble and tranquil during the March for Life, mainly because the thing they're protesting is so sobering. 40 million babies isn't something you get into a frenzy over.

That doesn't make any sense.

soulsinging

CorporateWhore wrote:

In my opinion, protesting doesn't indicate public opinion at all. It attracts the most intense advocates of that position.

March for Life people are generally pretty humble and tranquil during the March for Life, mainly because the thing they're protesting is so sobering. 40 million babies isn't something you get into a frenzy over.

yeah, those people arent the most intense advocates by ANY stretch. i could round up 300,000 people once a year to march on dc over pollution easily too... the difference being the pinko liberals know when they're not gonna win something.

CorporateWhore

soulsinging wrote:

yeah, those people arent the most intense advocates by ANY stretch. i could round up 300,000 people once a year to march on dc over pollution easily too... the difference being the pinko liberals know when they're not gonna win something.

You couldn't get 300,000 people annually. I guarantee it. Liberals are lazy, stupid, and ugly. Haha, they need help wiping their own asses.

All kidding aside, "winning" does not make a difference. You protest abortion to simply indicate that, "Yes, we're opposed to the Roe v. Wade decision and we're still here in 2007." Pro-Life people don't seem to be going away for some reason. The decision was made in 1973. And we're still here.

soulsinging

CorporateWhore wrote:

You couldn't get 300,000 people annually. I guarantee it. Liberals are lazy, stupid, and ugly. Haha, they need help wiping their own asses.

All kidding aside, "winning" does not make a difference. You protest abortion to simply indicate that, "Yes, we're opposed to the Roe v. Wade decision and we're still here in 2007." Pro-Life people don't seem to be going away for some reason. The decision was made in 1973. And we're still here.

but it didn't take off until the 80s when pat robertson and jerry jenkins (i hope he's burning in hell) hijacked christianity to exploit it for political purposes and ronald reagan played the part of their point man. you could bump it up even later by saying it wasn't a huge issue until the 90s when newt decided america needed a contract to battle the decadence of bill clinton's sex life (you know, having the mistress and everything... wait, that WAS newt!). it's just a political football, and a very effective one.

in any case, id see roe v overturned myself. let the voters speak.

CorporateWhore

soulsinging wrote:

but it didn't take off until the 80s when pat robertson and jerry jenkins (i hope he's burning in hell) hijacked christianity to exploit it for political purposes and ronald reagan played the part of their point man. you could bump it up even later by saying it wasn't a huge issue until the 90s when newt decided america needed a contract to battle the decadence of bill clinton's sex life (you know, having the mistress and everything... wait, that WAS newt!). it's just a political football, and a very effective one.

in any case, id see roe v overturned myself. let the voters speak.

Christians have always opposed abortion. That's nothing new. Robertson et al made it a political movement because evangelicals had no cohesive movement back then.

Nothing wrong with organizing.

It's very easy to say that you want to let the voters speak now. Back in 1973, we didn't have that opportunity. After 25 years of legal abortion, plenty of voters have been influenced by a pro-choice culture and think it is normal. Had they grown up in a society where abortion was illegal, many would have different views.

A majority of the states had laws on the books already that addressed abortion. The voters HAD spoken and leftist judges took that right from them.

keeponrockin

CorporateWhore wrote:

Christians have always opposed abortion. That's nothing new. Robertson et al made it a political movement because evangelicals had no cohesive movement back then.

Nothing wrong with organizing.

It's very easy to say that you want to let the voters speak now. Back in 1973, we didn't have that opportunity. After 25 years of legal abortion, plenty of voters have been influenced by a pro-choice culture and think it is normal. Had they grown up in a society where abortion was illegal, many would have different views.

A majority of the states had laws on the books already that addressed abortion. The voters HAD spoken and leftist judges took that right from them.

Honest question. You know that if abortion was illegal, people would still do it, in much more dangerous ways. Would you do anything to combat that?

CorporateWhore

keeponrockin wrote:

Honest question. You know that if abortion was illegal, people would still do it, in much more dangerous ways. Would you do anything to combat that?

Yeah sure. Make it illegal to do abortion in dangerous ways too. Safe or dangerous, abortion would occur far less if it were illegal.

Put people in jail for a long time if they perform an abortion or have one performed.

Collin

CorporateWhore wrote:

Yeah sure. Make it illegal to do abortion in dangerous ways too. Safe or dangerous, abortion would occur far less if it were illegal.

Put people in jail for a long time if they perform an abortion or have one performed.

What about cases where the mother is in danger, or in cases of rape?

RainDog

CorporateWhore wrote:

A majority of the states had laws on the books already that addressed abortion. The voters HAD spoken and leftist judges took that right from them.

Curious how that happens, considering that of the nine Justices sitting on the bench when Roe was decided, six were appointed by Republicans.

Roe v. Wade had a vote split of 7-2. Five of those Republican Justices ruled in favor of legal abortion. Of the two that dissented, one was appointed by JFK.

In fact, the Supreme Court has been mostly Republican since, yet still Roe v. Wade is considered established law.

Ah well. I suppose as long as Republicans have something to run on, it's O.K. that nothing's really done about it.

CorporateWhore

RainDog wrote:

Curious how that happens, considering that of the nine Justices sitting on the bench when Roe was decided, six were appointed by Republicans.

Roe v. Wade had a vote split of 7-2. Five of those Republican Justices ruled in favor of legal abortion. Of the two that dissented, one was appointed by JFK.

In fact, the Supreme Court has been mostly Republican since, yet still Roe v. Wade is considered established law.

Ah well. I suppose as long as Republicans have something to run on, it's O.K. that nothing's really done about it.

I don't know what the fuck yer talking about. Justices are neither Republican nor Democrat, but conservative or liberal. The person who appointed them doesn't matter as we've seen with Souter and O'Connor.

Stealth nominees have frequently been wolves in sheep's clothing.

God will judge them too.

godpt3

no jail time, but how about forcibly sterilizing any woman that has an abortion which wasn't necessary.

given2fall

I really don't see why anyone would have such a hard time with this question. I'd say if the woman chooses an abortion once it has been outlawed, then she should serve the same sentence as any other murderer. Or perhaps, since she herself does not actually kill the baby it should be conspiracy to commit murder.
I have absolutely no problem with putting the woman who has an abortion on the same level as someone who hires a hitman to kill his or her neighbour, and putting the doctor who performs the abortion on the same level as a hitman. It seems pretty simple to me.

The ONLY scenario in which I don't believe abortion should be outlawed at all is if the mother's life is at serious risk. I still don't necessarily agree with abortion even then, since it's like somebody saying "well, it's either me or some other (innocent) person who must die, so I choose for the other person to die". Seems pretty selfish to me, and who is any one person to say that one life (even his or her own) is more valuable than that of another? HOWEVER, by that same reasoning, who are we as a society or the government, to say that one life (the baby's) is more valuable than another (the mother's)? Therefore, it should not be the right of anyone else to essentially hand out a death sentence to a woman in order to save the life of her child. This is THE ONLY situation in which I do believe the woman should have the right to choose, regardless of whether or not her choice is morally right or wrong.

soulsinging

CorporateWhore wrote:

Christians have always opposed abortion. That's nothing new. Robertson et al made it a political movement because evangelicals had no cohesive movement back then.

Nothing wrong with organizing.

It's very easy to say that you want to let the voters speak now. Back in 1973, we didn't have that opportunity. After 25 years of legal abortion, plenty of voters have been influenced by a pro-choice culture and think it is normal. Had they grown up in a society where abortion was illegal, many would have different views.

A majority of the states had laws on the books already that addressed abortion. The voters HAD spoken and leftist judges took that right from them.

how patently conservative... people are weak-minded sheep who need to be told what to think... we need the church to police people's thinking, lest they start thinking gays are humans or something crazy like that.