NationStates Jolt Archive

this was a question from the debate last night.

if abortion is outlawed what should the woman who gets an abortion be charged with, what should the abortionist be charged with? (i dont like the term abortionist but in the event of abortion being outlawed there will come to be non medical professionals who perform abortions)

i was just listening to rush limbaugh (i lasted about a minute before yelling "you are an asshole" at the radio and changing stations) and HE found this to be an unfair question.

is it unfair?

personally, i would like to know the answer.

poll questions in case they wont fully post:

1) the woman should be charged with murder

2) the woman should be charged with some other crime like manslaughter or negligent homicide or whatever that includes prision time

3) the woman should face some other penalty that you will describe

4) the woman should face no charges

5) the abortionist should be charged with murder

6) the abortionist should be charged with a lesser crime that includes prison time

7)the abortionist should face some other punishment that you will describe

8) the physician should lose his license to practice medicine

9) the non-physician should be charged with practicing medicine without a license

10) i cant handle hypotheticals, abortion should be legal, dammit.

She should be charged with murder and given the death penalty. HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED DAMMIT!!! Gods I love irony.

Jaywalking. *nod*

She should be charged with murder and given the death penalty. HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED DAMMIT!!! Gods I love irony.

http://wavcentral.com/sounds/movies/modern_problems/ccyes.mp3

Abortion should be legal as should the death penalty.

do you think it was unfair of CNN to ask the question? rush limbaugh sure did.

not that the candidates answered it other than to say "it would be a state crime not a federal one so its none of my business"

do you think it was unfair of CNN to ask the question? rush limbaugh sure did.

Why would it be unfair? If abortion were illegal, that is a question that would have to be answered. If they are in favor of making abortion illegal, it's something they need to be able to answer.

not that the candidates answered it other than to say "it would be a state crime not a federal one so its none of my business"

In other words, they didn't answer it. They want it to be a state issue so that the states can ban it. As such, they should have an opinion on the proper punishment for it.

That doesn't really answer her question, though...

True.
There should be no punishment for the woman seeking an abortion or for the Doctor who provides the service.

Abortion should be legal as should the death penalty.

That doesn't really answer her question, though...

this was a question from the debate last night.

if abortion is outlawed what should the woman who gets an abortion be charged with, what should the abortionist be charged with? (i dont like the term abortionist but in the event of abortion being outlawed there will come to be non medical professionals who perform abortions)
If it's made illegal, then the punishment would be Murder.

That would be on the person who performed the Abortion as well as the person who paid for/requested the abortion.

now would a convicted Rapist who got a woman pregnant and she got an illegal abortion then be charged with accessory to Murder?

Why would it be unfair? If abortion were illegal, that is a question that would have to be answered. If they are in favor of making abortion illegal, it's something they need to be able to answer.



In other words, they didn't answer it. They want it to be a state issue so that the states can ban it. As such, they should have an opinion on the proper punishment for it.

i dont know why rush thought it was unfair except that he thought it was a democrat question. he may have explained it but one minute was all i could take of him.

i would really like to know the answer. id like every advocate of the banning of abortion, especially in the first 12 weeks, to say what the punishment should be .

do you think it was unfair of CNN to ask the question? rush limbaugh sure did.

not that the candidates answered it other than to say "it would be a state crime not a federal one so its none of my business"

That's actually a damn good answer. I know how much some of you guys hate it when the Federal Government declines to grab more power for itself, but most true Republicans, like Libertarians, would rather get the Federal Government out of as many issues as possible. To say it's an issue for the state is to take the actual position of the true Conservative side.

True.
There should be no punishment for the woman seeking an abortion or for the Doctor who provides the service.

so you think if it were banned, it should only be a formality?

not that i dont agree but it would be silly to pass a law with no consequences.

Well, first it would be hard to place a penalty in light of current information.

First, legally, the fetus/embryo would have to be redefined as a "person"; such, at present, would require a constitutional amendment, since constitutionally, only those who are "born" possess rights... A Fetus, legally speaking, is not a person... Since most people who oppose abortion, also oppose the 14th amendments definition of person/citizen, on the issue of illegals having children while in this country, I do not see them expanding the scope of the concept to include the unborn, as this would widen the scope to make even unborn fetus/embryos inside illegal aliens persons and citizens... So that is not likely... A fetus, possesses no constitutional rights at present. They are not citizens nor are they "people" from the legal standpoint. So murder or manslaughter would be impossible, unless incorporated as aforementioned.

Another hurtle would be overturning Roe v. Wade; this seems unlikely as well, no matter how many pro-life SCOTUS justices are appointed, Roe V. Wade will not be overturned unless the issue is revisited in another case before SCOTUS... This would require a contest on the multitude of state late-term abortion bans to go before the court; which is also not likely... Even the pro-choice do not have a big contest with such late-term abortions.

Why would it be unfair? If abortion were illegal, that is a question that would have to be answered. If they are in favor of making abortion illegal, it's something they need to be able to answer.


Was that one of the questions asked by the people who represented themselves as undecided or Republican, when in reality they were campaigners from one of the Democratic candidates? Because if someone lied to get their question in, then Rush has good reason to be outraged.

That's actually a damn good answer. I know how much some of you guys hate it when the Federal Government declines to grab more power for itself, but most true Republicans, like Libertarians, would rather get the Federal Government out of as many issues as possible. To say it's an issue for the state is to take the actual position of the true Conservative side.

its a reasonable position but it doesnt answer the question. all these men want to ban abortion across the board. they should have some idea what the punishment should be

well OK, i think giuliani only wants to turn back roe v wade but he should still have some idea of the consequences.

That's actually a damn good answer. I know how much some of you guys hate it when the Federal Government declines to grab more power for itself, but most true Republicans, like Libertarians, would rather get the Federal Government out of as many issues as possible. To say it's an issue for the state is to take the actual position of the true Conservative side.

No, it's a shitty answer. The idea of outlawing abortion is to do so on a federal level, not a state level. So you can't claim you want it outlawed and then backpedal and cower behind "states rights" when someone asks what the penalty is to be.

That's actually a damn good answer. I know how much some of you guys hate it when the Federal Government declines to grab more power for itself, but most true Republicans, like Libertarians, would rather get the Federal Government out of as many issues as possible. To say it's an issue for the state is to take the actual position of the true Conservative side.

In other words, "Take power away from the individual and give it to the state instead." If the federal government banned it, that would be the federal government grabbing power. Right now, the power is in the hands of the individual, where it should be.

Meanwhile, given that the candidates mostly claim that they think states should decide to ban it, they still dodged the question.

Was that one of the questions asked by the people who represented themselves as undecided or Republican, when in reality they were campaigners from one of the Democratic candidates? Because if someone lied to get their question in, then Rush has good reason to be outraged.

He would have a reason to be upset, but "unfair question" wouldn't be it.

I'm asking why the question itself is supposed to be unfair.

If abortion was made illegal but had no punishment applied to it, it would allow Doctors and Medical clinics the legal right to refuse to preform the procedure.

They already have that right. Emergency medicine is a little different, but neither doctors nor clinics are legally required to perform elective abortions. Many doctors choose not to do so.

its a reasonable position but it doesnt answer the question. all these men want to ban abortion across the board. they should have some idea what the punishment should be

well OK, i think giuliani only wants to turn back roe v wade but he should still have some idea of the consequences.

I don't think it necessarily has to be answered in the way you're looking for. The reason being it would probably become a pointless sidetrack. If the stated opinion of a given candidate is that the issue should be decided by the states, then his/her own opinion of the punishment is thus irrelevant, and to force them to answer would be a meaningless sidetrack. I'm sure every one of those candidates has an opinion on the subject of what a hypthetical puishment should be, but it's not relevant if they're not the ones who would decide it.

And why should they humor the question anyway? You know what would happen. They'd be quoted as stating the punishment and made out to seem as though they wanted to go out and impose that puishment right this very minute on all those concerned.

You KNOW that's how the left wing talking heads and pundits would characterize it.


No, it's a shitty answer. The idea of outlawing abortion is to do so on a federal level, not a state level. So you can't claim you want it outlawed and then backpedal and cower behind "states rights" when someone asks what the penalty is to be.

But therin lies your misconception. You started off by saying "The idea of outlawing abortion is to do so on a federal level" which is false. Why would it be on a Federal level? Even murder itself is a state level crime. (If I go out and kill somebody, as long as it's all contained within the state, I'll be prosecuted by the state of Maryland, not the FBI.)

Well, first it would be hard to place a penalty in light of current information.

First, legally, the fetus/embryo would have to be redefined as a "person"; such, at present, would require a constitutional amendment, since constitutionally, only those who are "born" possess rights... A Fetus, legally speaking, is not a person... Since most people who oppose abortion, also oppose the 14th amendments definition of person/citizen, on the issue of illegals having children while in this country, I do not see them expanding the scope of the concept to include the unborn, as this would widen the scope to make even unborn fetus/embryos inside illegal aliens persons and citizens... So that is not likely... A fetus, possesses no constitutional rights at present. They are not citizens nor are they "people" from the legal standpoint. So murder or manslaughter would be impossible, unless incorporated as aforementioned.

Another hurtle would be overturning Roe v. Wade; this seems unlikely as well, no matter how many pro-life SCOTUS justices are appointed, Roe V. Wade will not be overturned unless the issue is revisited in another case before SCOTUS... This would require a contest on the multitude of state late-term abortion bans to go before the court; which is also not likely... Even the pro-choice do not have a big contest with such late-term abortions.


a fetus wasnt a person before roe v wade. im not sure what the legal theory would be on banning abortion but it might not have to include personhood.

the republicans seem to be pinning their hope of repealing roe v wade on the catholic church. perhaps the theory is that if they make the entire court catholic the pope will tell them how to rule and they will ignore the constitution.

so you think if it were banned, it should only be a formality?

not that i dont agree but it would be silly to pass a law with no consequences.

In essence yes, it would only be a formality. It may be a bit silly, but look through the laws of any state and you will find that there are some absolutely ridiculous one still around.
If abortion was made illegal but had no punishment applied to it, it would allow Doctors and Medical clinics the legal right to refuse to preform the procedure.

I'm sure that from a legal stand point my argument is full of flaws, as I am not a lawyer. If any one here is please feel free to point out where the holes are.:)

Abortion should be legal as should the death penalty.

Aye, the pro-killing things position.

In other words, "Take power away from the individual and give it to the state instead." If the federal government banned it, that would be the federal government grabbing power. Right now, the power is in the hands of the individual, where it should be.


Again, why do you assume that an abortion ban would be done at the Federal level when even murder is prosecuted at the state level?


Meanwhile, given that the candidates mostly claim that they think states should decide to ban it, they still dodged the question.


I think they gave the most honest answer at their disposal. I think your objection is that thy wouldn't play into the hands of the left.


He would have a reason to be upset, but "unfair question" wouldn't be it.

I'm asking why the question itself is supposed to be unfair.

If someone felt it necessary to lie to get the question out there, then the answer should be obvious: To get the Republican candidates to say something that could be used against them later.

I don't think it necessarily has to be answered in the way you're looking for. The reason being it would probably become a pointless sidetrack. If the stated opinion of a given candidate is that the issue should be decided by the states, then his/her own opinion of the punishment is thus irrelevant, and to force them to answer would be a meaningless sidetrack. I'm sure every one of those candidates has an opinion on the subject of what a hypthetical puishment should be, but it's not relevant if they're not the ones who would decide it.

And why should they humor the question anyway? You know what would happen. They'd be quoted as stating the punishment and made out to seem as though they wanted to go out and impose that puishment right this very minute on all those concerned.

You KNOW that's how the left wing talking heads and pundits would characterize it.



they had no problem answering questions about education that is a local issue at best. why not abortion?

yes the press would have made something out of it, why shouldnt they? its an important question that deserves an answer. all this "happy talk" about being pro life has a dark side. id like to know just how dark they want this side to be.

Also, if abortion were to become a crime, which I would vehemently oppose, I think appropriate punishments would be a fine for the woman seeking the abortion, and loss of medical license for the doctor performing the abortion.

But therin lies your misconception. You started off by saying "The idea of outlawing abortion is to do so on a federal level" which is false. Why would it be on a Federal level? Even murder itself is a state level crime. (If I go out and kill somebody, as long as it's all contained within the state, I'll be prosecuted by the state of Maryland, not the FBI.)

So, why are current laws regulating abortion (which are state level) insufficient? Why all this horseshit every election cycle, well every federal election cycle, about abortion? If it's a state's issue the the status quo is sufficient yes? They want it to be a federal issue so they can ban it. Otherwise no one would give a rat's ass during a presidential campaign.

Aye, the pro-killing things position.

The death penalty reminds people that human life has value and should not be take carelessly as in the case of murder. It sets down that If you take some ones life you will have to pay for it with your own.


As for the stand point on abortion. I think that a woman has the right to chose. An early term abortion in my opinion is not murder.

Again, why do you assume that an abortion ban would be done at the Federal level when even murder is prosecuted at the state level?

I don't. There are two different possibilities in banning abortion - that the state could do it or the federal government could do it. No matter which level of government does it, it is still the government taking power away from the individual. As it stands, neither has that power, and thus neither is "grabbing power". The only way that the federal government would be "grabbing power" on this topic would be if they did ban abortion.

I think they gave the most honest answer at their disposal. I think your objection is that thy wouldn't play into the hands of the left.

My objection is that they wouldn't answer the damn question.

If they think abortion should be banned, they should have a punishment in mind. They could also point out that they think it should be a state issue if they wish, but that doesn't answer the given question.

If someone felt it necessary to lie to get the question out there, then the answer should be obvious: To get the Republican candidates to say something that could be used against them later.

...which still doesn't make the question itself unfair. It makes the actions taken by the person asking the question unfair.

So, I'll ask again, why is the question itself unfair? Why shouldn't a person who thinks abortion should be banned tell us what they think the punishment for it should be?

In essence yes, it would only be a formality. It may be a bit silly, but look through the laws of any state and you will find that there are some absolutely ridiculous one still around.
If abortion was made illegal but had no punishment applied to it, it would allow Doctors and Medical clinics the legal right to refuse to preform the procedure.

I'm sure that from a legal stand point my argument is full of flaws, as I am not a lawyer. If any one here is please feel free to point out where the holes are.:)

im no lawyer either but it seems to me that it would disallow the offering of abortion services. it woud close all abortion clinics.

then if a woman could find someone to do the procedure, it would be ok but not in a hospital or clinic. no insurance would pay for it. no government entity would ensure the quality of the facility or the practitioner. she would be completely on her own and at the mercy of strangers.

In other words, "Take power away from the individual and give it to the state instead." If the federal government banned it, that would be the federal government grabbing power. Right now, the power is in the hands of the individual, where it should be.

Meanwhile, given that the candidates mostly claim that they think states should decide to ban it, they still dodged the question.



He would have a reason to be upset, but "unfair question" wouldn't be it.

I'm asking why the question itself is supposed to be unfair.

Indeed, from a practical standpoint, SCOTUS did not take rights away from the states and take it for themselves... They took power from the states and handed it to the people...

To so-called "states rights" advocates:

From my stand point, a "state" whether it is the Federal State, or the individual member state of this union, does not have "rights", they, like the federal government, have specific powers granted to them by the people of that state; the people are the only ones with "rights". When I think of "state's rights" I think of the peoples of a state's right to self-government... Not that the state in particular possesses rights, which is how the issue seems to come accross to me in how such people speak... When the 14th Amendment was ratified, it expanded the protection of rights against government interference from a ban on actions by the federal government, to a ban on actions against those rights by ANY government action, federal, state or local within these United States. Since enumeration includes a provisions for non-enumerated rights (right to privacy) which is already alluded to within other provisions, the federal judiciary has the capacity to rule against a state attempting to violate those rights possesses by the people.

I'm of the pro-choice stance. It should be kept legal but other venues should be used before abortion is. This means improving and utilising a complete and comprehensive sexual education so both males and females know their options. Birth control pills and emergency contraceptive pills should as readily available as condoms are.

they had no problem answering questions about education that is a local issue at best. why not abortion?

yes the press would have made something out of it, why shouldnt they? its an important question that deserves an answer. all this "happy talk" about being pro life has a dark side. id like to know just how dark they want this side to be.

Well, because the Federal Government has already involved itself in regulating educational standards at the Federal Level. (I'm not saying it's right, but that's the precedent.) With things like the No Child Left Behind business and national standardized testing, the question is relevant because a President will be dealing with that sort of thing.

But you're right, Education SHOULD be administered purely at the local or state level.

And yes, the press would have made something of it but under false pretenses. The candidates aren't stupid and they know that's what would have happened. Think about this scenario: Suppose one of the candidates like Fred Thompson had said "Well, I think it's a state level issue but I'd say the punishment should be something like 15 years in prison."

Can you imagine what we'd be hering the next day? Headlines on forums like this one or liberal blogs or liberal news media shouting "THOMPSON ADVOCATES IMPRISONMENT FOR ABORTION SEEKERS!"

Which isn't really the truth, is it? But you know as well as I do there'd be a thread up today with all sorts of hand wringing and crying form the left about how the Republicans want to imprison people... proof positive from the debate last night.

The death penalty reminds people that human life has value and should not be take carelessly as in the case of murder. It sets down that If you take some ones life you will have to pay for it with your own.


As for the stand point on abortion. I think that a woman has the right to chose. An early term abortion in my opinion is not murder.

Wasn't disagreeing with you, just sharing the silly name I came up with to describe my position.

they didnt all get to answer the question.

as a kind of follow up the next question was "if roe v wade were reversed and congress passed a federal law banning abortion, would you sign it?"

giuliani said NO because it should be left to the states. mitt romney said that he would love to sign such a law if it represented some kind of consensus in the country (romney looked very creepy happy to answer this question)

soooooo giuliani is preparing for the general election where he cant look hardcore anti-abortion but romney is still shilling for the fundamentalist vote in the primaries?

Wasn't disagreeing with you, just sharing the silly name I came up with to describe my position.

hehe ok :)

they didnt all get to answer the question.

as a kind of follow up the next question was "if roe v wade were reversed and congress passed a federal law banning abortion, would you sign it?"

giuliani said NO because it should be left to the states. mitt romney said that he would love to sign such a law if it represented some kind of consensus in the country (romney looked very creepy happy to answer this question)

soooooo giuliani is preparing for the general election where he cant look hardcore anti-abortion but romney is still shilling for the fundamentalist vote in the primaries?

I'm really curious as to on what grounds Romney would propose making abortion a federal crime.

And yes, the press would have made something of it but under false pretenses. The candidates aren't stupid and they know that's what would have happened. Think about this scenario: Suppose one of the candidates like Fred Thompson had said "Well, I think it's a state level issue but I'd say the punishment should be something like 15 years in prison."

Can you imagine what we'd be hering the next day? Headlines on forums like this one or liberal blogs or liberal news media shouting "THOMPSON ADVOCATES IMPRISONMENT FOR ABORTION SEEKERS!"

Which isn't really the truth, is it? But you know as well as I do there'd be a thread up today with all sorts of hand wringing and crying form the left about how the Republicans want to imprison people... proof positive from the debate last night.

well yes it would be the truth. its just a truth that they dont way to say.

what is the POINT of banning abortion if there will be no penalties? they may well not think that a woman should be prosecuted for it. if so, they should say so. they may think that a doctor shoud only lose his license. if so, they should say so.

if they think that everyone involved in abortion should be charged with murder, they should say so. we need to know that kind of crazy thinking.

So, why are current laws regulating abortion (which are state level) insufficient? Why all this horseshit every election cycle, well every federal election cycle, about abortion? If it's a state's issue the the status quo is sufficient yes? They want it to be a federal issue so they can ban it. Otherwise no one would give a rat's ass during a presidential campaign.

Because let's say the population of a given state wanted to outlaw Abortion completely. They're restrained from doing so by Roe V Wade.

And why do you say "they want it to be a federal issue?" They explicitly stated otherwise.

I don't. There are two different possibilities in banning abortion - that the state could do it or the federal government could do it. No matter which level of government does it, it is still the government taking power away from the individual. As it stands, neither has that power, and thus neither is "grabbing power". The only way that the federal government would be "grabbing power" on this topic would be if they did ban abortion.


Like I indicated above, Roe V Wade prevents states from having complete latitude with legislature regarding abortion.


My objection is that they wouldn't answer the damn question.

If they think abortion should be banned, they should have a punishment in mind. They could also point out that they think it should be a state issue if they wish, but that doesn't answer the given question.


No, your objection is that they didn't give an answer that you liked. You continue to maintain that they think abortion should be banned, and from a personal opinion t hat's probably true, but that' snot the POSITION they're taking. They're taking the position that it should be a state level decision.

Tell me this: If they do believe it should be decided at the state level, then why does it matter what they think the punishment should be? Why is that so important to you?


...which still doesn't make the question itself unfair. It makes the actions taken by the person asking the question unfair.

So, I'll ask again, why is the question itself unfair? Why shouldn't a person who thinks abortion should be banned tell us what they think the punishment for it should be?

It make sthe question unfair because it tries to pigeonhole them into a position that they haven't advocated. All of your objections and questions seem to be predicated on the premise that these candidates advocated an abortion ban at the Federal level. This isn't what they said.

Indeed, from a practical standpoint, SCOTUS did not take rights away from the states and take it for themselves... They took power from the states and handed it to the people...

Indeed. Unfortunately, every "states' rights" discussion is about taking power from the people and giving it to the state governments. "ZOMG, the federal government took our power!" is a misdirection.


Well, because the Federal Government has already involved itself in regulating educational standards at the Federal Level. (I'm not saying it's right, but that's the precedent.) With things like the No Child Left Behind business and national standardized testing, the question is relevant because a President will be dealing with that sort of thing.

The Federal Government already involved itself in regulating abortion as well - for better or for worse. And, to my knowledge, all of the "states' rights" candidates with the ability to do so voted in favor of that involvement.

And yes, the press would have made something of it but under false pretenses. The candidates aren't stupid and they know that's what would have happened. Think about this scenario: Suppose one of the candidates like Fred Thompson had said "Well, I think it's a state level issue but I'd say the punishment should be something like 15 years in prison."

Can you imagine what we'd be hering the next day? Headlines on forums like this one or liberal blogs or liberal news media shouting "THOMPSON ADVOCATES IMPRISONMENT FOR ABORTION SEEKERS!"

Which isn't really the truth, is it?

If he thinks it should be banned (which he has made quite clear to be the case), it would absolutely be the truth. He advocates making abortion illegal and has a sentence in mind for it. As such, he advocates that sentence for those who have abortions.

You have advocated making elective abortion illegal. I'm sure you have a possible sentence in mind. Are you going to tell me that you don't advocate enforcing that sentence?


These debates are supposed to be about difficult questions. They're supposed to let the voters know where a candidate stands. But candidates get too hung up in hand-wringing over how it will sound to others and don't answer the questions. And it isn't just the Republicans. They all do it. The Democrats, for instance, were asked to rank human rights and national security in importance. Most of them hemmed and hawed and avoided the question (and those who did answer it scared the hell out of me).

im no lawyer either but it seems to me that it would disallow the offering of abortion services. it woud close all abortion clinics.

then if a woman could find someone to do the procedure, it would be ok but not in a hospital or clinic. no insurance would pay for it. no government entity would ensure the quality of the facility or the practitioner. she would be completely on her own and at the mercy of strangers.

It would provide the clinic the legal right to refuse to preform the procedure, that does not mean that all of them would refuse.

But you may have fair point.

I'm really curious as to on what grounds Romney would propose making abortion a federal crime.

he only had 30 seconds. but it was asked if he would sign such a law. i think that supposes that the congress had found some reasonable basis for it.

well yes it would be the truth. its just a truth that they dont way to say.

what is the POINT of banning abortion if there will be no penalties? they may well not think that a woman should be prosecuted for it. if so, they should say so. they may think that a doctor shoud only lose his license. if so, they should say so.

if they think that everyone involved in abortion should be charged with murder, they should say so. we need to know that kind of crazy thinking.

But, like I said in my last post, if they're NOT advocating a Federal ban on abortion, but rather, letting the states decide, then what possible relevance could their own opinion of what the punishment should be have? If they're not involved in that process then a question like that can only be intended to generate ammo for pro-choice people to mischaracterize the candidates as advocating something they aren't. You guys are doing it right now!

Also, if abortion were to become a crime, which I would vehemently oppose, I think appropriate punishments would be a fine for the woman seeking the abortion, and loss of medical license for the doctor performing the abortion.
For the second, I agree, but for the first, perhaps it may depend. I think that "it should be left to the states" is a dodgy answer, because the individual states still have to tackle the issue. That answer is simply saying, "I'm not the ones who should decide, they should."

Imposing punishments on the woman may be tricky. What if we have the case of a very very poor mother of eight who decided to abort her latest pregnancy because "she didn't think she could give the baby a good life". This woman works as a laundrywoman, and even her and her husband's earnings aren't enough to give a decent life for their family of ten. The morality of this notwithstanding (I don't want to debate it right now), it would be more barbaric to impose a fine she can't even pay or to even imprison the woman. It would sink their family further and further into poverty.

However, if the woman aborted her pregnancy because she did not want have to have a big belly on her latest trip to the beach (again I don't want to debate the morality of this, we are assuming that abortion was illegal), then perhaps a punishment is in order.

About the practitioners: Non-medical personnel doing abortion procedures should be prosecuted, regardless of whether abortion is illegal or not. It's like practicing medicine without a licence, though abortion is therapeutic only in certain circumstances. Abortionists, assuming abortion is illegal, must also be prosecuted, however it may depend on the status of the law and the exceptions they allow (ie. if the abortionist performs only the abortions that is legally permitted, then no prosecution can be done).

I live in a country where abortion is illegal, except in certain circumstances. It is rare that people are being persecuted for abortion, most people frown upon abortion but don't care anyway. Damn I can even buy abortifacients in front of a Catholic church! Our laws have a provision for punishment, but rarely enforced, just like most of our other laws.......

isnt the long time republican platform that all abortion should be banned, preferably by constitutional ammendment?

its not "roe v wade should be overturned and the issue left to the states" is it?

Abortion should be punishable by intelligent design, so as to put the universe back in equilibrium between liberals and conservatives.

a fetus wasnt a person before roe v wade. im not sure what the legal theory would be on banning abortion but it might not have to include personhood.

the republicans seem to be pinning their hope of repealing roe v wade on the catholic church. perhaps the theory is that if they make the entire court catholic the pope will tell them how to rule and they will ignore the constitution.

I know they were not a person before; which is the primary reason for Roe v. Wade's existence in the first place... The right to privacy of the mother, trumps the non-existent "rights" of the non-person/non-citizen fetus/embryo. To give the embryo/fetus "rights" whereby the government, state or federal, can then act to protect, would require that these, by present definition, non-persons, be incorporated into persons... Thus expanded the protection of rights of people upon them...

By personal belief, I think a fetus/embryo is a person, and is a life, and has particular rights, my wife does as well. We would never get an abortion because we consider it a moral wrong... Where I differ with pro-life persons, is that I consider this a PERSONAL viewpoint, which does not seem to be feasible, legally speaking, to impliment; and therefore side with the pro-choice that such decisions regarding abortion be PERSONAL choices by the parties directly involved... Not a choice by the state or federal government.

Like I indicated above, Roe V Wade prevents states from having complete latitude with legislature regarding abortion.

Yup. Which has nothing to do with power of the federal government. It is power reserved to the individual.

No, your objection is that they didn't give an answer that you liked. You continue to maintain that they think abortion should be banned, and from a personal opinion t hat's probably true, but that' snot the POSITION they're taking. They're taking the position that it should be a state level decision.

And they also take the position that it should be banned on a state level. Why should I ignore that position?

Tell me this: If they do believe it should be decided at the state level, then why does it matter what they think the punishment should be? Why is that so important to you?

It isn't the answer itself that's important so much as the willingness to answer. An unwillingness to answer makes it appear that they haven't really thought through their positions and/or that they aren't really willing to fully take on the position. I'm sick and tired of candidates waffling around and hand-wringing over how a question can be used against them. The people want to know, so answer the damn question.

It make sthe question unfair because it tries to pigeonhole them into a position that they haven't advocated. All of your objections and questions seem to be predicated on the premise that these candidates advocated an abortion ban at the Federal level. This isn't what they said.

You really haven't been reading what I've been saying, have you? I've made it clear multiple times that the "states' rights" thing is a red herring. It's irrelevant to the answer to the actual question which is, "What should the punishment be if it is outlawed." It doesn't matter what level of government outlaws it, the question is "what is the appropriate punishment?"

But, like I said in my last post, if they're NOT advocating a Federal ban on abortion, but rather, letting the states decide, then what possible relevance could their own opinion of what the punishment should be have? If they're not involved in that process then a question like that can only be intended to generate ammo for pro-choice people to mischaracterize the candidates as advocating something they aren't. You guys are doing it right now!

they didnt all get to answer so i dont know what the rest of them would have said. i think only ron paul and giuliani got to respond...(i could be wrong)

every one of those men is strongly pro life. they must have thought it through. if "leaving it to the states" means the death penalty in oklahoma (as could be the case) they should have an opinion and we should know what it is.

its the same when the democrats dodge the balanced budget questions. they ALL want to raise taxes but dont say exactly what that means except that they will "raise taxes on the rich". they never say just what that means but i sure would like to know the answer.

he only had 30 seconds. but it was asked if he would sign such a law. i think that supposes that the congress had found some reasonable basis for it.

Fair point. So I have a question. Can anyone here come up with a good argument for abortion being classified as a federal crime?

The Federal Government already involved itself in regulating abortion as well - for better or for worse. And, to my knowledge, all of the "states' rights" candidates with the ability to do so voted in favor of that involvement.

And if so, then they'd be caught in an inconsistency that should be noted when one makes a decision on whether or not to vote for them, no?


If he thinks it should be banned (which he has made quite clear to be the case), it would absolutely be the truth. He advocates making abortion illegal and has a sentence in mind for it. As such, he advocates that sentence for those who have abortions.

You're making a leap of logic that's unwarranted, and you're putting words in people's mouths. In my humble opinion, I might think that driving with a cell phone should be illegal in my area. Does that instantly make me an advocate for such a law? Well, no. Not unless I go out and take some kind of action to try and bring it about. Does it mean that I have a punishment in mind? Well, no... not necessarily.


You have advocated making elective abortion illegal. I'm sure you have a possible sentence in mind. Are you going to tell me that you don't advocate enforcing that sentence?


Actually I don't have a sentence in mind. I found it very difficult to answer the poll question for that reason. Even if I did, if I believe that it should be decided at the state level then at best I might have an opinion of what the penalty should be in my home state. But if I'm running for President, I don't get to decide that, do I?


These debates are supposed to be about difficult questions. They're supposed to let the voters know where a candidate stands. But candidates get too hung up in hand-wringing over how it will sound to others and don't answer the questions. And it isn't just the Republicans. They all do it. The Democrats, for instance, were asked to rank human rights and national security in importance. Most of them hemmed and hawed and avoided the question (and those who did answer it scared the hell out of me).

You're right that candidates often avoid tough questions. It happens on both sides all the time. But at the same time, just because a particular question has been posed, it doesn't necessarily make the question relevant.

And if so, then they'd be caught in an inconsistency that should be noted when one makes a decision on whether or not to vote for them, no?

I'm just pointing out that your "They can talk about education because the federal government already meddles in it" wasn't an answer. They obviously talk about state-regulated issues. Why should this one be different?

You're making a leap of logic that's unwarranted, and you're putting words in people's mouths. In my humble opinion, I might think that driving with a cell phone should be illegal in my area. Does that instantly make me an advocate for such a law? Well, no. Not unless I go out and take some kind of action to try and bring it about. Does it mean that I have a punishment in mind? Well, no... not necessarily.

"I think driving with a cell phone should be illegal."

"So you advocate making it illegal?"

"No!"

Does that really make sense to you? If you think it should be illegal, you advocate making it illegal. You don't have to actually take action.

Actually I don't have a sentence in mind. I found it very difficult to answer the poll question for that reason.

Then you haven't thought it through very well, have you?

Even if I did, if I believe that it should be decided at the state level then at best I might have an opinion of what the penalty should be in my home state. But if I'm running for President, I don't get to decide that, do I?

You don't get to decide on a penalty if it's a federal issue either. But a president can (and does) exert influence at both the state and federal level in pushing for certain laws.

You're right that candidates often avoid tough questions. It happens on both sides all the time. But at the same time, just because a particular question has been posed, it doesn't necessarily make the question relevant.

It doesn't make it unfair either. You've yet to show how it is unfair.

Meanwhile, as far as I'm concerned, if a voter wants to know, the question is relevant. It's even more relevant if lots of voters want to know.

Yup. Which has nothing to do with power of the federal government. It is power reserved to the individual.

Not according to the Constitution, which states that any powers not outlined therin for the Federal Government are reserved for the states.

And if you want to go the individual vs. state because you feel abortion is a right, then we go down the usual pro-choice vs. pro-life argument which leaves the topic of this thread.


And they also take the position that it should be banned on a state level. Why should I ignore that position?


Quite simple, my dear. It's because they're running for President, not Governor.


It isn't the answer itself that's important so much as the willingness to answer. An unwillingness to answer makes it appear that they haven't really thought through their positions and/or that they aren't really willing to fully take on the position. I'm sick and tired of candidates waffling around and hand-wringing over how a question can be used against them. The people want to know, so answer the damn question.


Seems like they were perfectly willing to answer. You just didn't like the answer.


You really haven't been reading what I've been saying, have you? I've made it clear multiple times that the "states' rights" thing is a red herring. It's irrelevant to the answer to the actual question which is, "What should the punishment be if it is outlawed." It doesn't matter what level of government outlaws it, the question is "what is the appropriate punishment?"

I've been reading it. I think you're missing my point which is that the states rights issue is NOT a red herring. It's relevant for the reasons I've already stated. If a Presidential candidate would like to see the issue turned over to the states exclusively, then THAT opinion is relevant because you will (presumably) see that opinion reflected in his/her choice of Supreme Court appointees and which laws he/she will veto. The punishment phase is utterly irrelevant IF the laws are passed at the state level, which the President has nothing to do with. If his/her position is that the states should decide, then punishment is irrelevant and trying to get an answer is phishing.

But, like I said in my last post, if they're NOT advocating a Federal ban on abortion, but rather, letting the states decide, then what possible relevance could their own opinion of what the punishment should be have? If they're not involved in that process then a question like that can only be intended to generate ammo for pro-choice people to mischaracterize the candidates as advocating something they aren't. You guys are doing it right now!

Your naiveté is showing. You need only look at the gay marriage debate to see what happens when a state exercises it's rights against the wishes of the "Moral Majority". They clamor for a federal law so fast it makes your head spin.

I'm just pointing out that your "They can talk about education because the federal government already meddles in it" wasn't an answer. They obviously talk about state-regulated issues. Why should this one be different?

Frankly IMHO they should approach the education issue the same way.


"I think driving with a cell phone should be illegal."

"So you advocate making it illegal?"

"No!"

Does that really make sense to you? If you think it should be illegal, you advocate making it illegal. You don't have to actually take action.


Of course you do. That's what defines an advocate. Everybody has an opinion. Not everyone is an advocate.


Then you haven't thought it through very well, have you?


LOL Or maybe my focus is on the more constructive part, the part where you prevent death. Punishment is just fixing the barn door after the horses are gone.


You don't get to decide on a penalty if it's a federal issue either. But a president can (and does) exert influence at both the state and federal level in pushing for certain laws.


So to get this far you're going out on a limb and assuming some pretty unlikely base conditions.


It doesn't make it unfair either. You've yet to show how it is unfair.


No, I have yet to change your mind. (Not that it matters whether I do or not.)

I've shown it. You're just justifying it.


Meanwhile, as far as I'm concerned, if a voter wants to know, the question is relevant. It's even more relevant if lots of voters want to know.

Mhmm and who asked the question? Was it a democrat plant? (It matters)

Not according to the Constitution, which states that any powers not outlined therin for the Federal Government are reserved for the states.

Nice editing out for what you WANT it to say...

Actually, the 9th says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And the 10th: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Roe v. Wade merely said such rights are reserved to the PEOPLE... And such rights remain a power of the PEOPLE rather than the POWER of the state... In fact, if you want to get nitty gritty about it, NO WHERE in the text of the US Constitution, has any right been enumerated to a state, only to people... When dealing with states, it always speeds of gurantees and of powers. Roe v. Wade dealt with privacy rights of PEOPLE...

Your naiveté is showing. You need only look at the gay marriage debate to see what happens when a state exercises it's rights against the wishes of the "Moral Majority". They clamor for a federal law so fast it makes your head spin.

Strawman.

Fair point. So I have a question. Can anyone here come up with a good argument for abortion being classified as a federal crime?

welp, im not sure but it seems to me that if there is a constitutional ammendment defining the unborn as legal persons then it forces states to include abortion as murder.

any federal statute would be the method of doing that.

Nice editing out for what you WANT it to say...

Actually, the 9th says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And the 10th: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Roe v. Wade merely said such rights are reserved to the PEOPLE... And such rights remain a power of the PEOPLE rather than the POWER of the state... In fact, if you want to get nitty gritty about it, NO WHERE in the text of the US Constitution, has any right been enumerated to a state, only to people... When dealing with states, it always speeds of gurantees and of powers. Roe v. Wade dealt with privacy rights of PEOPLE...

And if Roe v Wade were overturned and abortion could be outlawed on the basis of it being a murder? At what level would the law be passed?

States. Just like murder itself.

Strawman.

Horseshit, and I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Horseshit, and I don't think that word means what you think it means.

uhuh.

Nothing like a little profanity to take the place of an actual argument, eh?

Your naiveté is showing. You need only look at the gay marriage debate to see what happens when a state exercises it's rights against the wishes of the "Moral Majority". They clamor for a federal law so fast it makes your head spin.

Yeah. I was really pissed about Bush's attempt to put the FMA in place, and strangely enough, it was primarily because he was trying to put shit in the Constitution that had no business being there. Marriage law, IMO, is the state's responsibility.

I have a similar gripe with trying to make abortion a federal crime. I just can't see any legitimate reason to move it into that jurisdiction.

Yeah. I was really pissed about Bush's attempt to put the FMA in place, and strangely enough, it was primarily because he was trying to put shit in the Constitution that had no business being there. Marriage law, IMO, is the state's responsibility.

I have a similar gripe with trying to make abortion a federal crime. I just can't see any legitimate reason to move it into that jurisdiction.

It's only a limited time before they try the same with Abortion, despite NB's absurd claims.

welp, im not sure but it seems to me that if there is a constitutional ammendment defining the unborn as legal persons then it forces states to include abortion as murder.

any federal statute would be the method of doing that.

Yes, but we don't have such an amendment, and we're unlikely to have one in the near future. So as a practical matter, I still don't get what they'd base the decision to move the matter into federal hands on.

It's only a limited time before they try the same with Abortion, despite NB's absurd claims.

I wouldn't be surprised if they tried. I'd also be quite surprised if they were able to succeed, though.

Yes, but we don't have such an amendment, and we're unlikely to have one in the near future. So as a practical matter, I still don't get what they'd base the decision to move the matter into federal hands on.

The states cannot be relied upon to follow a good Xian example. They have to be guided.

Not according to the Constitution, which states that any powers not outlined therin for the Federal Government are reserved for the states.

Whoopsy! Someone missed the 9th Amendment!

And if you want to go the individual vs. state because you feel abortion is a right, then we go down the usual pro-choice vs. pro-life argument which leaves the topic of this thread.

Quite simple, my dear. It's because they're running for President, not Governor.

Irrelevant.

Seems like they were perfectly willing to answer. You just didn't like the answer.

That's because he didn't answer the actual question.

"What color is the sky?"
"I think the sky's color is determined by molecules and light."

....you didn't answer my question.

LOL Or maybe my focus is on the more constructive part, the part where you prevent death. Punishment is just fixing the barn door after the horses are gone.

Part of making something illegal is determining the punishment. And, if you think a law is the way to stop abortion from happening, it can only be because you think the punishment would deter people from doing it. So what would that punishment be?

So to get this far you're going out on a limb and assuming some pretty unlikely base conditions.

What unlikely base conditions?

The truth of the matter is that a president doesn't get to decide most of the things they debate about. Nearly everything they talk about is a matter that has to be carried out through legislation. They accomplish their goals by exerting the influence of their position on legislators. That's the way they work. And they do it at the state level as well as the federal level if it is a major issue to their administration.

No, I have yet to change your mind. (Not that it matters whether I do or not.)

I've shown it. You're just justifying it.

No, you haven't. You've talked about how the question might have been planted. You've given excuses for not answering it.

You have yet to show that the question itself is in any way unfair.

Mhmm and who asked the question? Was it a democrat plant? (It matters)

Beats me. And I don't really think it matters. Democrats do vote in the Republican primaries sometimes and vice versa. As long as it was an eligible voter, it is a relevant question.

(although I will amend my earlier statement to restrict this to questions of government policy. I don't think something like "Boxers or briefs?" is relevant to an election.)

And if Roe v Wade were overturned and abortion could be outlawed on the basis of it being a murder? At what level would the law be passed?

States. Just like murder itself.

Of course states would determine such.... IF they were ever allowed to steal the people's rights away again as they did... Too much relies upon Roe v. Wade, however, regarding personal rights...

Abortion is presently regulated at state levels... As such is their powers granted to them by the people... States merely are not allowed to violate the rights of the people, by making abortion defacto ILLEGAL... Virginia, a pretty conservative state in itself, has specific codes which LEGALIZE abortion in certain cases, and make them ILLEGAL in others... No one contests states the powers of regulating abortion... merely their power to invade the privacy of their people...

As such, what would the penalty be in Virginia, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, in the case where a women gets an abortion provided to her by a physician licensed under the Medical Board? No penalty... Such an action is perfectly legal....

Whoopsy! Someone missed the 9th Amendment!

So you say.


And if you want to go the individual vs. state because you feel abortion is a right, then we go down the usual pro-choice vs. pro-life argument which leaves the topic of this thread.

I said this.


Irrelevant.


Of course it's relevant. It's the core of the issue as to why theirs was a good answer. You might disagree, but it most certainly is relevant. It's the POINT.


That's because he didn't answer the actual question.

"What color is the sky?"
"I think the sky's color is determined by molecules and light."

....you didn't answer my question.


No, he gave a reply that made the question irrelevant. A better analogy would be:

"What's the gas mileage of your car?"
"My car is electric. It doesn't run on gas."

..then along comes someone like yourself shouting "YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!


Part of making something illegal is determining the punishment. And, if you think a law is the way to stop abortion from happening, it can only be because you think the punishment would deter people from doing it. So what would that punishment be?


Are you asking me now? Is my opinion relevant?


What unlikely base conditions?


Well, like Roe v Wade being overturned, for one thing. For another, a slew of states suddenly outlawing elective abortion. For another, any of these candidates being in a position to decide the punishment.


The truth of the matter is that a president doesn't get to decide most of the things they debate about. Nearly everything they talk about is a matter that has to be carried out through legislation. They accomplish their goals by exerting the influence of their position on legislators. That's the way they work. And they do it at the state level as well as the federal level if it is a major issue to their administration.


Then the question should address such things, if it's an honest and fair question.


No, you haven't. You've talked about how the question might have been planted. You've given excuses for not answering it.

You have yet to show that the question itself is in any way unfair.


No matter how many times you say it, you can't will that to be true. You're just not satisfied with my answer because it fails to either change your mind or kowtow to your point of view.


Beats me. And I don't really think it matters. Democrats do vote in the Republican primaries sometimes and vice versa. As long as it was an eligible voter, it is a relevant question.

If it's a plant, it matters, because such a person would have been put up to it and ask a question that's designed to give people like yourself something to criticize them about even though it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

If a Republican plant had asked an irrelevant question at a Democratic debate, and the candidates answered it this way, you guys would be defending the candidates and castigating the Republicans for playing dirty pool.

Admit it. You know it's true.

For the record, I generally don't care what the politics are of a person asking questions at a dabate. It's their intent that I find relevant.

No, of course, if it wasn't one of the 3 known plants, then it's an uninformed but not necessarily unfair question, because if it really was a republican or undecided then they ought to know the positions of the candidates better than that.

Of course states would determine such.... IF they were ever allowed to steal the people's rights away again as they did... Too much relies upon Roe v. Wade, however, regarding personal rights...

Abortion is presently regulated at state levels... As such is their powers granted to them by the people... States merely are not allowed to violate the rights of the people, by making abortion defacto ILLEGAL... Virginia, a pretty conservative state in itself, has specific codes which LEGALIZE abortion in certain cases, and make them ILLEGAL in others... No one contests states the powers of regulating abortion... merely their power to invade the privacy of their people...

As such, what would the penalty be in Virginia, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, in the case where a women gets an abortion provided to her by a physician licensed under the Medical Board? No penalty... Such an action is perfectly legal....


Abortion is an individual right If and ONLY IF it's not murder, which is an issue beyond the scope of this thread.

Yes, but we don't have such an amendment, and we're unlikely to have one in the near future. So as a practical matter, I still don't get what they'd base the decision to move the matter into federal hands on.

oh well if we are going to deal only in reality....

the best they can do is look tough by passing partial birth abortion bans that change nothing.

although looking at their platform, they hope to convince the (majority catholic) supreme court that the fetus is a person and is thus protected under the 14th ammendment. they would ban the procedure and punish the provider but not punish the woman who got the abortion.

so, like being able to pass a partial birth abortion ban, i suppose they would pass a total ban and only leave the truly medically necessary abortions being still legal.


if an embryo is a person, it is appropriate for the federal government to protect them the same way it is appropriate for the federal government to protect dark skinned or female persons.

The states cannot be relied upon to follow a good Xian example. They have to be guided.

Well, I suppose that would count as a practical justification for the move, but it wouldn't be a smart one. If that's all the justification they have, then it's probably going to be very easy to get it reversed.

if an embryo is a person, it is appropriate for the federal government to protect them the same way it is appropriate for the federal government to protect dark skinned or female persons.
sorry, but I just got an image of a picket line with signs that read
"Embryos deserve the right to vote!"
"Equal right for Embryos!"
"End Embryo Segregation now!"
:D

sorry, but I just got an image of a picket line with signs that read
"Embryos deserve the right to vote!"
"Equal right for Embryos!"
"End Embryo Segregation now!"
:DNot to mention they would count for something in car pool lanes.

sorry, but I just got an image of a picket line with signs that read
"Embryos deserve the right to vote!"
"Equal right for Embryos!"
"End Embryo Segregation now!"
:D

lol.

ending embryo segregation could be a bit of a problem. kinda what they are fighting against.

Abortion is an individual right If and ONLY IF it's not murder, which is an issue beyond the scope of this thread.

If it's beyond the scope, then discussing penalties is no longer an issue... One must first determine WHAT abortion is BEFORE discussing its penalty... At present, abortion is not murder, and is a procedure which has certain protections under the umbrella of privacy rights of already defined persons...

To protect the "fetus" under an idea of self-possessed rights, the fetus must first be a person... You can't "murder" something that isn't a person.

oh well if we are going to deal only in reality....

Yeah, I have an unfortunate fondness for reality. :)

the best they can do is look tough by passing partial birth abortion bans that change nothing.

although looking at their platform, they hope to convince the (majority catholic) supreme court that the fetus is a person and is thus protected under the 14th ammendment. they would ban the procedure and punish the provider but not punish the woman who got the abortion.

so, like being able to pass a partial birth abortion ban, i suppose they would pass a total ban and only leave the truly medically necessary abortions being still legal.

if an embryo is a person, it is appropriate for the federal government to protect them the same way it is appropriate for the federal government to protect dark skinned or female persons.

That's interesting. Why do you think they would punish the provider and not the woman? Isn't asking for a murderer to kill someone for you worthy of some punishment, even if a lesser one?

Not to mention they would count for something in car pool lanes.


Now that would just be silly (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/12/earlyshow/main1203514.shtml) :D

So you say.

It's blatantly obvious. Anyone who says that all powers not given to the federal government are instead given to the state is ignoring the 9th Amendment.

Of course it's relevant. It's the core of the issue as to why theirs was a good answer. You might disagree, but it most certainly is relevant. It's the POINT.

...except it wasn't an answer to the question period.

No, he gave a reply that made the question irrelevant. A better analogy would be:

"What's the gas mileage of your car?"
"My car is electric. It doesn't run on gas."

That would be a good analogy, if the person didn't have and state an opinion on whether or not abortion should be legally banned. Since that isn't the case, it isn't a good analogy. The answer was possible, they just chose not to give it.

Are you asking me now? Is my opinion relevant?

Do you wish to ban abortion? If you do, and you think think the ban would actually prevent abortion from happening, then you should have an opinion on what the punishment for it should be. After all, it isn't going to be a deterrent if the punishment doesn't deter the action.

Well, like Roe v Wade being overturned, for one thing. For another, a slew of states suddenly outlawing elective abortion. For another, any of these candidates being in a position to decide the punishment.

None of that is at all relevant. I'm not asking what the candidates will actually accomplish if elected. No one can answer that question. I'm asking what they would try to do. I'm asking what they want to see accomplished.

Then the question should address such things, if it's an honest and fair question.

So now you're claiming that pretty much every question in the debate was dishonest and unfair?

If it's a plant, it matters, because such a person would have been put up to it and ask a question that's designed to give people like yourself something to criticize them about even though it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

If a Republican plant had asked an irrelevant question at a Democratic debate, and the candidates answered it this way, you guys would be defending the candidates and castigating the Republicans for playing dirty pool.

Admit it. You know it's true.

No, it isn't. First of all, you're making the assumption that I'm a Democrat or that I cut the Democratic candidates any more slack. I don't. I get angry at all of them for avoiding questions - even the one I currently support.

Meanwhile, as I've already pointed out, I don't see the question as irrelevant. It is a question that should be asked of anyone who favors banning abortion - especially anyone running for political office.

No, it isn't. First of all, you're making the assumption that I'm a Democrat or that I cut the Democratic candidates any more slack. I don't. I get angry at all of them for avoiding questions - even the one I currently support.

Meanwhile, as I've already pointed out, I don't see the question as irrelevant. It is a question that should be asked of anyone who favors banning abortion - especially anyone running for political office.

Hell, I know I personally hold Barack--and any other candidates I happen to support-- to a higher standard than I do other politicians. After all, that's why I support them, no? ;)

Yeah, I have an unfortunate fondness for reality. :)



That's interesting. Why do you think they would punish the provider and not the woman? Isn't asking for a murderer to kill someone for you worthy of some punishment, even if a lesser one?

because the general public wouldnt support punishment for the woman. as politicians they have to make their positions at least somewhat palatable.

what i dont understand is why the candidates couldnt just say "id punish the provider but not the woman" last night. (answer: because they started with ron paul) does the typical republican primary voter want to send such women to prison?

i feel like im missing something.

because the general public wouldnt support punishment for the woman. as politicians they have to make their positions at least somewhat palatable.

what i dont understand is why the candidates couldnt just say "id punish the provider but not the woman" last night. (answer: because they started with ron paul) does the typical republican primary voter want to send such women to prison?

i feel like im missing something.

I don't know if the typical Republican would or not. I'll ask around.

the best they can do is look tough by passing partial birth abortion bans that change nothing.

I wouldn't say "change nothing" here. It does change something. It makes late-term abortion more dangerous for the patient.


Hell, I know I personally hold Barack--and any other candidates I happen to support-- to a higher standard than I do other politicians. After all, that's why I support them, no?

Indeed.

I wouldn't say "change nothing" here. It does change something. It makes late-term abortion more dangerous for the patient.


very true. i should have said "saves no fetal life"

i agree with the candidates in that is should be left up to the state whether or not abortion should be allowed. this also leaving it up to the states to decide on punishment if one is conducted within their borders.

and if a state was to make it illegal and i was to decide on a punishment i would say that the doctor that conducts abortion should be fined and reviewed by a committee of doctors to decide if his license should be revoked.

if it wasn't a doctor that did the operation then it should be a crime of practicing medicine without a license

The fetus should be eaten, by both the person recieving the abortion, and the person doing the procedure.

i agree with the candidates in that is should be left up to the state whether or not abortion should be allowed. this also leaving it up to the states to decide on punishment if one is conducted within their borders.

and if a state was to make it illegal and i was to decide on a punishment i would say that the doctor that conducts abortion should be fined and reviewed by a committee of doctors to decide if his license should be revoked.

if it wasn't a doctor that did the operation then it should be a crime of practicing medicine without a license

Yeah, the right to an abortion should be left to the states, because states should be able to take away rights from people just to make some religious nuts happy. :rolleyes:

Now that would just be silly (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/12/earlyshow/main1203514.shtml) :D

Nice! Good find. The judge just decided the nature of the foetus. That ought to stir the hornet's nest.

this was a question from the debate last night.

if abortion is outlawed what should the woman who gets an abortion be charged with, what should the abortionist be charged with? (i dont like the term abortionist but in the event of abortion being outlawed there will come to be non medical professionals who perform abortions)

i was just listening to rush limbaugh (i lasted about a minute before yelling "you are an asshole" at the radio and changing stations) and HE found this to be an unfair question.

is it unfair?

personally, i would like to know the answer.

poll questions in case they wont fully post:

1) the woman should be charged with murder

2) the woman should be charged with some other crime like manslaughter or negligent homicide or whatever that includes prision time

3) the woman should face some other penalty that you will describe

4) the woman should face no charges

5) the abortionist should be charged with murder

6) the abortionist should be charged with a lesser crime that includes prison time

7)the abortionist should face some other punishment that you will describe

8) the physician should lose his license to practice medicine

9) the non-physician should be charged with practicing medicine without a license

10) i cant handle hypotheticals, abortion should be legal, dammit.

The woman should be sentenced to a brief period of violent abdominal cramps. The doctor should be sentenced to having a middle-class 5-figure income working in crummy neighborhoods until he gives up working in abortion clinics in pursuit of something more lucrative.

Now that would just be silly (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/12/earlyshow/main1203514.shtml) :D

That should be its own thread.

"Pro-life state judiciary admits that fetuses aren't people."

The poll could be:
Are pro-lifers hypocritical bullshitters?
Yes.
Hell Yes!
No, they're just hypocrites.
No, they're just bullshitters.

How do you expect me to come up with a hypothetical penalty for something that should clearly in all common sense should not be illegal at all?

I don't like abortion. There's nothing wrong with being against it. But if you think it should be illegal, I think you have brain damage.

And stupid Republicans: putting women and abortionists in prison would waste tax dollars. And you're all so against that, right?

She should be charged with murder and given the death penalty. HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED DAMMIT!!! Gods I love irony.I'm porlife and all, but this is a tad extreme. I really hope your joking.

I don't believe in the current statist system wherein punishment is done by putting someone in a cell to do nothing productive, get killed because of some questionable evidence or pay a fine to the government instead of the person injured. What I think would be applicable in this hypothetical would be an indeterminate head-price to be determined by custom, where the plaintiff would be entitled to lex talionis but would be expected to instead demand an extremely high monetary sum, by forced labor if necessary (shoving a convict into a cell to languish for all eternity or outright executing them is morally questionable and extremely wasteful.)

I don't want abortion to be outlawed, but I don't support it, either. So I actually have a plan for my ideal state:
The woman does not face jail time, but she must attend classes on contraception, "good choices," etc. Basically, everything she should have learned in sex ed but didn't. If she gets a second abortion, she must undergo a sex change.
I'm kidding! No, if she gets a second abortion, she must pay a fine equivalent to delivering a child in a hospital.
The doctor will be treated as if malpractice occurred. The money from the suit will go to the education of the woman.
There should still be plenty of gray area. If a woman has an abortion because her partner pressured her into having one, he will also have to attend some class, and abortions performed because the woman's life is at risk will not be treated as such.

You people suck with your confusin options. I didn't notice the no charges ones. Abortion is not a crime and never should be. I find it highly unnatural and disturbing (not because a fetus is a human), but the choice must be there for the first trimester.

I support giving the death penalty to the women who get abortions and the doctors, or not doctors who perform them. Yes, if necessary we will kill the woman twice for performing it on herself. No, I'm not joking.

@ Ashmoria:
Why are you hating on catholics? Most Catholics are liberal and believe that abortion is OK, or at least not to be outlawed. Its not like Catholics are agents from the Vatican sent to destroy us, despite what you might believe.

Question for those who would outlaw abortion:

If abortion should be treated as murder, and people who threaten or attempt murder are jailed to prevent them from carrying it out, then should pregnant women be strapped down for nine months and forced to spawn a human if they express their intent to abort?

- If you answer yes, then you believe it's okay for the government to regulate every extent of our lives so as to preserve the lives of others, which means you would at the very least advocate welfare, universal health care, and massive foreign aid, and even enslaving doctors if there is a shortage of them. It means you are totally communist, in the Stalinist totalitarian sense.

- If you answer no, then it means you are not wanting to outlaw abortion in order to prevent abortion, but rather for another purpose, probably to punish. An indicator that this is so is if you oppose measures that would actually reduce abortions, such as condoms in schools, mandating maternity leave, funding health care and daycare for children, and other progressive social policies, but favor outlawing abortion nonetheless.


Bottom line 1:
A true libertarian or consistently-principled conservative would oppose abortion regulation because it has the government violate personal autonomy in the most egregious way.

Bottom line 2:
You can't foster a rigid, capitalist society and expect abortion not to flourish; simply because of the role restrictions such a society imposes.

She should be sentenced to the death of her unborn child for her crimes against humanity.

If abortion is to be made a crime, I would be in favour of reinsemination being the punishment for both mother and surgeon.

Yes, this includes the case where the surgeon is male. I'll let you think about that one.

I support giving the death penalty to the women who get abortions and the doctors, or not doctors who perform them. Yes, if necessary we will kill the woman twice for performing it on herself. No, I'm not joking.

@ Ashmoria:
Why are you hating on catholics? Most Catholics are liberal and believe that abortion is OK, or at least not to be outlawed. Its not like Catholics are agents from the Vatican sent to destroy us, despite what you might believe.

im "hating on catholics" because it is my thought that the reason that the republican presidents keep nominating catholics for the supreme court is not because they LIKE them but because they assume that all catholics are under the control of the pope who would instruct them to do whatever it takes to outlaw abortion in this country

its more hating on republicans really.

I support giving the death penalty to the women who get abortions and the doctors, or not doctors who perform them. Yes, if necessary we will kill the woman twice for performing it on herself. No, I'm not joking.


so how far back does this go? would a woman using the IUD, the morning after pill or even the birth control pill--all methods that prevent implantation-- be up for the death penalty?

so how far back does this go? would a woman using the IUD, the morning after pill or even the birth control pill--all methods that prevent implantation-- be up for the death penalty?

Preventing conception is fine, because it is analagous to working instead of killing someone for money.

Once there is an egg/sperm fusion, aborting or using anything to intentionally kill it, would be bad.

The price to pay should be abortion. Yes, even if we need to use time machines.

so how far back does this go? would a woman using the IUD, the morning after pill or even the birth control pill--all methods that prevent implantation-- be up for the death penalty?

It is my understanding that the birth control pill hasn't been proven to prevent implantation. But I do consider the Morning after pill to be a method of early term abortion, of course we can't know whether or not there was a fertilized egg, the easy solution is to outlaw the product completely in that case.

To your "catholics" comment, perhaps, that would make republicans pretty stupid then, though I would think that would have a lot more to do with them being protestants, since that was once a common belief among them. Sorry for assuming, but it did seem you were implying that, to be honest I was surprised that you would have said such a thing, obviously that wasn't the case. Of course its possible Catholics are just good judges ;)

im "hating on catholics" because it is my thought that the reason that the republican presidents keep nominating catholics for the supreme court is not because they LIKE them but because they assume that all catholics are under the control of the pope who would instruct them to do whatever it takes to outlaw abortion in this country

its more hating on republicans really.

I don't think the Republicans assume the nominees are under the control of the Pope, I think the Republicans believe they are pro-life (which they are).
It is kind of weird how the recent nominees have all been Catholic. Maybe dressing in ceremonial robes and using precedent to make decisions has greater appeal to them than others.

It is my understanding that the birth control pill hasn't been proven to prevent implantation. But I do consider the Morning after pill to be a method of early term abortion, of course we can't know whether or not there was a fertilized egg, the easy solution is to outlaw the product completely in that case.


true but what about women who obtain these products outside the country and are using them here?


To your "catholics" comment, perhaps, that would make republicans pretty stupid then, though I would think that would have a lot more to do with them being protestants, since that was once a common belief among them. Sorry for assuming, but it did seem you were implying that, to be honest I was surprised that you would have said such a thing, obviously that wasn't the case.

i completely understand your concern. and yes i do think that the republicans are just that stupid. when bush insisted that he never asked about abortion in his interview with his nominees, then nominated 2 catholics (and one former catholic--harriet miers) i decided that he was assuming something that only a (stupid) protestant would assume about a catholic.

I don't think the Republicans assume the nominees are under the control of the Pope, I think the Republicans believe they are pro-life (which they are).
It is kind of weird how the recent nominees have all been Catholic. Maybe dressing in ceremonial robes and using precedent to make decisions has greater appeal to them than others.

well you know a lot of people are pro life but wouldnt consider messing with the constitution over it. its that extra step that seems to me to be a leap. its not like roe v wade and the precedents leading up to it havent stood the test of time. its folly to assume that a constitutional scholar would overturn it without actually asking him about it.

well you know a lot of people are pro life but wouldnt consider messing with the constitution over it. its that extra step that seems to me to be a leap. its not like roe v wade and the precedents leading up to it havent stood the test of time. its folly to assume that a constitutional scholar would overturn it without actually asking him about it.

I was talking about why Catholics would be more likely to become Supreme Court justices, not why they would be pro-life. I was joking, comparing the Court to the Church, because both are rife with rituals and a love of tradition.

true but what about women who obtain these products outside the country and are using them here?
Then we should prosecute them for importing illegal materials, it would be hard to prove that they had actually performed an abortion, unless we could find evidence that there was a fertilized egg that had been aborted.


i completely understand your concern. and yes i do think that the republicans are just that stupid. when bush insisted that he never asked about abortion in his interview with his nominees, then nominated 2 catholics (and one former catholic--harriet miers) i decided that he was assuming something that only a (stupid) protestant would assume about a catholic.

And possibly stupid non-protestants as well. (Now, I'm even annoying myself)

I was talking about why Catholics would be more likely to become Supreme Court justices, not why they would be pro-life. I was joking, comparing the Court to the Church, because both are rife with rituals and a love of tradition.

i didnt come off angry did i? i was responding to the first part of your post. i understood the joke even if i didnt respond to it.

It should be greater than the punishment for smoking, less than the punishment for contributing to global warming.

i didnt come off angry did i? i was responding to the first part of your post. i understood the joke even if i didnt respond to it.
No, you didn't sound angry, just...confused.:)
I see what you were responding to now, that makes sense.

I have to say, as to the republican debate, I wish they would have just answered the question, instead of scurrying around it. It annoys me to no end when they(politicians) just won't, absolutely refuse to answer a question. Anything is fair game, people want to know your beliefs, if you don't want to answer to what you believe in don't run for office, please!

I have to say, as to the republican debate, I wish they would have just answered the question, instead of scurrying around it. It annoys me to no end when they(politicians) just won't, absolutely refuse to answer a question. Anything is fair game, people want to know your beliefs, if you don't want to answer to what you believe in don't run for office, please!

thats why ron paul comes off so good in debates even though he has terrible politics. when he answers a question, he seems as if he is telling the straight truth as he sees it.

i wish they all would tell the truth and let the people decide who they like best instead of trying to be all things to all people and ending up just being liars.

Lackadaisical1, since you are so strongly pro-life...

do you find fred thompson's ragging on mitt romney for not being pro life all his life influences your opinion of romney? does it matter to you how long someone has held his pro life stance as long as he HAS a pro life stance?

Lackadaisical1, since you are so strongly pro-life...

do you find fred thompson's ragging on mitt romney for not being pro life all his life influences your opinion of romney? does it matter to you how long someone has held his pro life stance as long as he HAS a pro life stance?

I don't think it matters how long someone is pro-life, as long as its sincere. Its possible to be wrong at some point, doesn't mean you're worthless. As to whether or not he actually believes it I'm sort of conflicted, politicians are generally good at lying. It really is too bad politicians won't say what they believe, that, more than anything(ok, a lot of things) destroys the legitimate political process in this country. For example, Bush, and others came into office with people assuming they'd be a fiscal conservative, and unfortunately has racked up lots of debt.

I personally don't like thompson, I've never liked the idea of actor/politicians, the ultimate liars?... I used to be pro-Romney, but I now have trouble remembering why.

Just as ye aborted thy child so shall ye be aborted THINESELF!!

Just as ye aborted thy child so shall ye be aborted THINESELF!!

But first.
Shame and the pillory!

so you think if it were banned, it should only be a formality?

not that i dont agree but it would be silly to pass a law with no consequences.

That would be the German version - illegal but not punishable.

I watched the debate last night. Interestingly, all of the candidates actually asked did answer the question in regards to the woman seeking abortion. They all said that she should not be charged with anything. I find that rather interesting, given that it basically demonstrates conclusively that they don't really see abortion as murder. If I pay someone to commit murder, guess what I get charged with?

Several thought that the doctor should be charged with something, but only Ron Paul completely avoided that question with his, "I'm not running for governor" quip. I think three candidates total answered it (hard to remember now - it was late) and at least one of the others argued that it should be treated just like a doctor who performs a non-medical late-term abortion would be - the same kinds of punishments.

Edit: Looked up the transcript real quick. It was Thompson who also answered the question and said that it should be treated the same as illegal abortion currently is.

If it was illegal then I think charging someone with having an abortion would suffice. The same would go for the doctor(or whoever), charge him/her with performing an abortion.

I don't think it matters how long someone is pro-life, as long as its sincere. Its possible to be wrong at some point, doesn't mean you're worthless. As to whether or not he actually believes it I'm sort of conflicted, politicians are generally good at lying. It really is too bad politicians won't say what they believe, that, more than anything(ok, a lot of things) destroys the legitimate political process in this country. For example, Bush, and others came into office with people assuming they'd be a fiscal conservative, and unfortunately has racked up lots of debt.

I personally don't like thompson, I've never liked the idea of actor/politicians, the ultimate liars?... I used to be pro-Romney, but I now have trouble remembering why.

i find all the republicans creepy so its hard for me to judge any of them individually. i just wondered why it should be important for a candidate to have been prolife his whole life. seeing the light should be good enough.

although i agree with you, i dont trust that romney IS prolife (not that i would want him to be but still) and i dont trust that giuliani is prolife. and i certainly wouldnt trust anyone who would lie on such an important subject in order to trick people into voting for them. if they swing hard to the middle after the primaries, they are not getting any respect from me.

Abortion should be not legal and the death penalty has nothing to do with it.

Which doesn't answer the question of what should the punishment be for having an abortion in a country in which it is illegal.

Abortion should be not legal and the death penalty has nothing to do with it.

so what should the penalty be for getting or performing an abortion?

Abortion should be not legal and the death penalty has nothing to do with it.

this was a question from the debate last night.

if abortion is outlawed what should the woman who gets an abortion be charged with, what should the abortionist be charged with? (i dont like the term abortionist but in the event of abortion being outlawed there will come to be non medical professionals who perform abortions)

What I love is how anti-choicers usually just fall back on saying that the DOCTORS should be the only ones held responsible. I guess they believe that a woman should be legally allowed to hire a hitman to murder her 5 year old, huh?

Nah, of course not. It's just that they believe female human beings are not rational moral beings, and therefore cannot be held accountable for how their soft, female minds can be corrupted by nasty feminaziabortiofaggots and whatnot.

im no lawyer either but it seems to me that it would disallow the offering of abortion services. it woud close all abortion clinics.

then if a woman could find someone to do the procedure, it would be ok but not in a hospital or clinic. no insurance would pay for it. no government entity would ensure the quality of the facility or the practitioner. she would be completely on her own and at the mercy of strangers.
Which would return us to the good old pre-Roe days, when wealthy women could receive safe medical care while poor women could scrape enjoy an unsanitary uterine scraping with a coat hanger.

Let's just be really, really clear about that, shall we? Abortion prohibitions DO NOT STOP ABORTIONS FROM HAPPENING. What they do is ensure that only the wealthy can have safe abortions, while the non-wealthy have unsafe abortions.

Ok, your poll makes some erroneous assumptions - like that we are all against or should be against abortion. Neither the woman nor the doctor should face any repercussions - abortion, whether you like it or not, is a choice, not a crime.

I personally think that it is not a good form of birth control. I do think there are situations where it is needed. I also think, in the final analysis, it is between the woman and her doctor and not between the woman, her doctor, the state and any religion.

What's the penalty for performing an illegal abortion now? Why wouldn't they just apply those sentencing guidelines and parameters to an earlier trimester?

Some abortions are illegal to perform now, after certain time periods have passed (or else trimester limits are meaningless), simply moving the time period forward shouldn’t need to dictate a change in sentencing guidelines for what is already a crime. If a person gets a ticket for driving faster than the posted speed limit it doesn’t matter if the posted speed is changed from 75 to 65, it’s still going to be a ticket punishment.

Ok, your poll makes some erroneous assumptions - like that we are all against or should be against abortion. Neither the woman nor the doctor should face any repercussions - abortion, whether you like it or not, is a choice, not a crime.

I personally think that it is not a good form of birth control. I do think there are situations where it is needed. I also think, in the final analysis, it is between the woman and her doctor and not between the woman, her doctor, the state and any religion.

I completely agree. Do not assume that any strong personal beliefs about something on your part equate to common sense on everyone else's part. Unless the ultraconservatives get someone elected to the Presidency (not likely, since the last one made a mess of everything and turned out to be a retard), abortion is and will continue to be legal. Since we live in a DEMOCRACY, there is no "punishment" for things that are not illegal.

Perhaps in the future, you can clarify that your question is indeed a hypothetical one, if that is truly your intention, i.e. "IF abortion were illegal, what should the punishment be?"

Ok, your poll makes some erroneous assumptions - like that we are all against or should be against abortion. Neither the woman nor the doctor should face any repercussions - abortion, whether you like it or not, is a choice, not a crime.

I personally think that it is not a good form of birth control. I do think there are situations where it is needed. I also think, in the final analysis, it is between the woman and her doctor and not between the woman, her doctor, the state and any religion.

yes that is the point of the poll. if someone wants abortion to be illegal, what should the punishment be.

if you are not against legal abortion, you can perhaps think of it hypothetically. IF abortion were made illegal what do you think would be the kind of punishment meted out for having or performing one?

if abortion were made illegal then surely that would at a minimum mean that no physician would be allowed to offer that service and retain his license to practice. a non physician would be tossed into jail for practicing medicine without a license.

at a minimum

that means that even if getting an abortion didnt get you charged with anything you still wouldnt be able to get a safe abortion in this country. as bottle says, it would mean going back to the old days getting an abortion meant risking your life. it doesnt stop abortions, it only stops safe abortions.

What's the penalty for performing an illegal abortion now? Why wouldn't they just apply those sentencing guidelines and parameters to an earlier trimester?

Some abortions are illegal to perform now, after certain time periods have passed (or else trimester limits are meaningless), simply moving the time period forward shouldn’t need to dictate a change in sentencing guidelines for what is already a crime. If a person gets a ticket for driving faster than the posted speed limit it doesn’t matter if the posted speed is changed from 75 to 65, it’s still going to be a ticket punishment.

the problem is that there ARE no illegal abortions performed. the vast majority of abortions are done before 12 weeks. when you get to the stage where its heavily controlled by the state, they are done for medical necessity. they are a small fraction of all abortions. when you get to the kind of tragedy that necessitates a "partial birth abortion" , they do a different procedure if that one is outlawed.

i suppose there are a few bizarre cases where some frightened girl had her clueless friend do something that would abort her unwanted pregnancy so her abusive family wouldnt find out but im not going to go looking for those (hypothetical) cases.

the problem is that there ARE no illegal abortions performed. the vast majority of abortions are done before 12 weeks. when you get to the stage where its heavily controlled by the state, they are done for medical necessity. they are a small fraction of all abortions. when you get to the kind of tragedy that necessitates a "partial birth abortion" , they do a different procedure if that one is outlawed.

i suppose there are a few bizarre cases where some frightened girl had her clueless friend do something that would abort her unwanted pregnancy so her abusive family wouldnt find out but im not going to go looking for those (hypothetical) cases.

There MUST be the description of what is an illegal abortion in the law books, and if so then those books must also have a penalty parameter/guideline for committing those crimes. Yes?

There MUST be the description of what is an illegal abortion in the law books, and if so then those books must also have a penalty parameter/guideline for committing those crimes. Yes?

*shrug* i suppose so. im not sure they would be applicable to a situation where all abortions are illegal.

there is a difference between "practicing medicine without a license" and "fetal murder".

there are old laws that used to cover illegal abortions before roe v wade, i think they usually carried a prison sentence of a few years for all participants. i expect that the enforcement of these laws was very uneven.

Well, first it would be hard to place a penalty in light of current information.

First, legally, the fetus/embryo would have to be redefined as a "person"; such, at present, would require a constitutional amendment, since constitutionally, only those who are "born" possess rights... A Fetus, legally speaking, is not a person... Since most people who oppose abortion, also oppose the 14th amendments definition of person/citizen, on the issue of illegals having children while in this country, I do not see them expanding the scope of the concept to include the unborn, as this would widen the scope to make even unborn fetus/embryos inside illegal aliens persons and citizens... So that is not likely... A fetus, possesses no constitutional rights at present. They are not citizens nor are they "people" from the legal standpoint. So murder or manslaughter would be impossible, unless incorporated as aforementioned.

Another hurtle would be overturning Roe v. Wade; this seems unlikely as well, no matter how many pro-life SCOTUS justices are appointed, Roe V. Wade will not be overturned unless the issue is revisited in another case before SCOTUS... This would require a contest on the multitude of state late-term abortion bans to go before the court; which is also not likely... Even the pro-choice do not have a big contest with such late-term abortions.

Or you could just have a law against abortion. Stolen TV's and Speed Limits don't count as people either. There is Roe v. Wade but it could be overturned. And even if it had to be "legal," a 115% tax, enforced by the IRS, on the income of someone who gets or gives an abortion would pretty thoroughly do it in.

Seriously though, I actually agree that abortion should be legal, but the argument that there would be no constitutional way to make it illegal is ridiculous.

*shrug* i suppose so. im not sure they would be applicable to a situation where all abortions are illegal.

there is a difference between "practicing medicine without a license" and "fetal murder".

there are old laws that used to cover illegal abortions before roe v wade, i think they usually carried a prison sentence of a few years for all participants. i expect that the enforcement of these laws was very uneven.

I found an example of just that.... although it wasn't enforced, it was passed by a state legislature to ban all abortions:

As follows:

Section 2. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
No person may knowingly administer to, prescribe for, or procure for, or sell to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, or other substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being. No person may knowingly use or employ any instrument or procedure upon a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being.
Any violation of this section is a Class 5 felony.
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs//abortion/sdabortionlaw06.html

And this is the sentencing guidelines for that state:

(8) Class 5 felony: five years imprisonment in the state penitentiary. In addition, a fine of ten thousand dollars may be imposed; and
(9) Class 6 felony: two years imprisonment in the state penitentiary or a fine of four thousand dollars, or both.

The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant who has been found guilty of a felony, shall order in addition to the sentence that is imposed pursuant to the provisions of this section, that the defendant make restitution to any victim in accordance with the provisions of chapter 23A-28.

Nothing in this section limits increased sentences for habitual criminals under §§ 22-7-7, 22-7-8, and 22-7-8.1.
http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=22-6-1

i find all the republicans creepy so its hard for me to judge any of them individually. i just wondered why it should be important for a candidate to have been prolife his whole life. seeing the light should be good enough.

although i agree with you, i dont trust that romney IS prolife (not that i would want him to be but still) and i dont trust that giuliani is prolife. and i certainly wouldnt trust anyone who would lie on such an important subject in order to trick people into voting for them. if they swing hard to the middle after the primaries, they are not getting any respect from me.

Yeah, Guiliani definitely is not pro-life I wouldn't believe it if his moma swore it was true. Plus hes just an unsavory person, always having affairs and such, I don't like people who openly break promises anymore than those who do it in secret.

Was that one of the questions asked by the people who represented themselves as undecided or Republican, when in reality they were campaigners from one of the Democratic candidates? Because if someone lied to get their question in, then Rush has good reason to be outraged.

A question is a question no matter who asked it. No matter the answer, it's still informative to hear. The problem is that no candidate wants to tell people that the death penalty will be applied to people getting abortions.

Some of you people who support of abortion could have married a person who was aborted, had they not been aborted. Soem fo you people who support abortion could have been friends with a human who was aborted. Maybe someday you'll die, becuase someone who could have saved you was aborted.

Abortion IS killing a human, and there is no second way around that. It is murder in every sence of the word, and it is WRONG!

A question is a question no matter who asked it. No matter the answer, it's still informative to hear. The problem is that no candidate wants to tell people that the death penalty will be applied to people getting abortions.

now that ive read the official party stance on the subject, which is that only the abortion provider would be punished, im wondering if the problem wasnt that they would have to say that the death penalty would be applied but that it WOULDNT be.

after all, the primaries are won by appealing to the most conservative of republicans. the christian fundamentalist nutcases make up a hefty percentage of those who vote in the republican primaries.

Some of you people who support of abortion could have married a person who was aborted, had they not been aborted. Soem fo you people who support abortion could have been friends with a human who was aborted. Maybe someday you'll die, becuase someone who could have saved you was aborted.

on the other hand, someone who would have been aborted might otherwise grow up to become the mastermind of an international terrorist organization bent on destroying humanity. damn, wish we'd aborted them when we had the chance!

Abortion IS killing a human, and there is no second way around that. It is murder in every sence of the word, and it is WRONG!

so what should the punishment for getting an abortion be?

I only have one thing to say concerning abortion to those religious conservatives; OT law did not consider abortion murder, the penalty for causing an abortion was merely todays equivalent of a fine.

on the other hand, someone who would have been aborted might otherwise grow up to become the mastermind of an international terrorist organization bent on destroying humanity. damn, wish we'd aborted them when we had the chance!


so what should the punishment for getting an abortion be?

Extremly few people turn out to be a international terrorist organization. MANY people turn out to be someones soul mates, or someones heroe.

I've always felt the punishment for abortion should depend on the circumstance. If someone was unwillignly forced into having a baby, especially if that person is very young, the punishment should be low or even non-existent. In the scenerio, the criminal responsible for th baby should recieve life in jail or the death penalty.

In other cases though, i could see the woman that gets a abortion being sent to jail for a long time.