so here''s what happens...test case on abortion?

[rainbowtrout]

times just did a big article covering El Salvador and their journey from moderate abortion policy to total criminalization. it''s a rather long article, here''s the link and a snippet:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine/09abortion.html?pagewanted=1


"Back-alley abortion" is a term that has long been part of the abortion debate. In the United States, in the years since Roe v. Wade, it has come to seem metaphorical, perhaps even hyperbolic, but it happens to conjure precisely D.C.''s experience. And it''s easy in El Salvador to find plenty of evidence that D.C.''s story is neither isolated nor the worst case. A report by the Center for Reproductive Rights offers this grim list of tools used in clandestine abortions: "clothes hangers, iron bars, high doses of contraceptives, fertilizers, gastritis remedies, soapy water and caustic agents (such as car battery acid)." That list is meant to disgust a reader in the same way that imagery of mangled fetuses is meant to when employed by those who oppose abortion. But the criminalization of abortion in the modern age, in El Salvador at least, is not so simple as a grim return to the back alley. For the most part, the new law has not resulted in a spike in horror stories of painful and botched clandestine procedures."

 

[tanuki]

If a woman who is injured by a botched abortion presents for treatment afterward, the Government of El Salvador has a law that forces the Doctor who takes care of her to report the botched abortion to the authorities (similar to the way medical providers are required by law to report suspected child abuse).

If she has a hysterectomy the her uterus is kept for evidence, and her medical records are also part of the evidence. They can also force her to go thru a pelvic exam so evidence can be obtained (by getting a search warrant for "down there")

The authorities would then use such evidence to go after the abortion provider.

El Salvador - presumably as a lever to make the woman testify - the woman can be arrested for getting the abortion and face jail time for her role in the process..

Which has always been the missing link in the debate here.

If abortion is murder why does the pro life movement never suggest penalties for the woman for getting one?

If I hired someone to kill someone not only would the killer go to jail - I would go to jail for hiring him in the first place.
It wouldn''t matter if I said that I was emotionally distraught. Murder is murder.

 

[rainbowtrout]

I thought this was a bit revealing:

beginning to emerge, as it did on "Meet the Press" in October 2004, when Tim Russert, the host, asked Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican representative then in the middle of what turned out to be a successful campaign for the U.S. Senate, to explain his position in favor of a total ban on all abortion procedures. DeMint was reluctant to answer Russert''s repeated question: Would you prosecute a woman who had an abortion? DeMint said he thought Congress should outlaw all abortions first and worry about the fallout later. "We''ve got to make laws first that protect life," he said. "How those laws are shaped are going to be a long debate."

Russert refused to leave the congressman alone. "Who would you prosecute?" he persisted.

Finally DeMint blurted, "You know, I can''t come up with all the laws as we''re sitting right here, but the question is, Are we going to protect human life with our laws?"


This is the problem..both sides hide behind their rhetoric, even when "a woman''s right to choose" and "the culture of life" have become meaningless phrases. What does it REALLY mean to criminalize abortion? And why do we persist in shying away, even in el Salvador, from persecuting the women and instead go for the doctors because "they knew what they were doing." Oh, and the woman thought she was having a facial??

 

[fire&ice]

This has been, in the basic, a question I have posed to Pro-Lifer's all along. NEVER AN ANSWER OR EXPLAINATION. If abortion is murder, how is contributing to a miscarriage (falling in a reckless activitiy) not involuntary manslaughter?

 

[movie zombie]

with you, f&i.

Date: 4/9/2006 9:51:48 AM
Author: fire&ice
This has been, in the basic, a question I have posed to Pro-Lifer''s all along. NEVER AN ANSWER OR EXPLAINATION. If abortion is murder, how is contributing to a miscarriage (falling in a reckless activitiy) not involuntary manslaughter?

what is a reckless activity? playing tennis when you know you''re pregnant? driving a car?

and what about those women who can conceive but miscarry often many times due to many medical reasons: are they murders for continuing to become pregnant?

its a slippery slope......

movie zombie

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/9/2006 8:30:20 PM
Author: movie zombie
with you, f&i.

Date: 4/9/2006 9:51:48 AM
Author: fire&ice
This has been, in the basic, a question I have posed to Pro-Lifer''s all along. NEVER AN ANSWER OR EXPLAINATION. If abortion is murder, how is contributing to a miscarriage (falling in a reckless activitiy) not involuntary manslaughter?

what is a reckless activity? playing tennis when you know you''re pregnant? driving a car?

and what about those women who can conceive but miscarry often many times due to many medical reasons: are they murders for continuing to become pregnant?

its a slippery slope......

movie zombie

If you define abortion as murder under the law, then I don''t see how a women couldn''t be brought up on involuntary murder charges. Also, one could take out an insurance policy on the unborn fetus.

 

[movie zombie]

like you, f&i, i don''t see how involuntary manslaughter charges would be avoidable.

movie zombie

 

[fire&ice]

And the question still remains unanswered by pro-lifers.

 

[MINE!!]

I suppose this is not going to be the answer that you people are going to find sensible. But as a pro-lifer, my first and foremost concern is to save the life of a child. To stop the murder of the innocent and the children. I am not sure of the answer, but I am sure that the #1 concern is to save the life of the innocent who are murdered in the name of convience, like the Nazi''s and the Jews and with the governement''s approval...

 

[rainbowtrout]

actually, I was less interested in *what* people thought about the morality side of things than how it plays out in law. People rarely get past their two camps of rhetoric to talk about nuts and bolts: pro-choicers have a hard time admitting that abortions are ever wrong/should be illegal, opposite for some pro-lifers. I thought the mixed feelings of the woman who supported criminalizing abortion in the article was the most interesting

 

[movie zombie]

actually, it is the law that is most interesting and how it plays out. never stopped to think about why it is prolifer''s go after the doctors when it is women themselves that are electing to have the procedure. if women didn''t seek it it out then it wouldn''t be an issue. so why isn''t the south dakota law written to criminalize women seeking abortion? why aren''t prolifers seeking such laws? go to the source of the reason there is a market for such a procedure and not the person providing the service. is the next step laws specifiying what women....pregnant women anyway....can do or not do? there is a movement within the prolife camp to eliminate birth control because it stops fertilization of the egg and in such a case is stopping life from coming to fruition. it is easy to say these people are on the fringe and marginalize them.....but where does the first step down the path of eliminating women''s choice actually take us?

thanks, f&i, for giving me some food for more thought......

movie zombie

ps it is my theory that prolifers have taken the easy target of the doctors rather than try to legislate to women as a group.....to do so might be political suicide.

 

[rainbowtrout]

it''s something like the el salvador laws, where women get off if they give up the doctor...it''s just odd how it works itself out. I thought the rich/poor divide was interesting too

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/10/2006 4:10:16 PM
Author: rainbowtrout
actually, I was less interested in *what* people thought about the morality side of things than how it plays out in law.

How it plays out in the law is what will dictate "morality". And, if you want to point the finger somewhere - ultimately the doctor could be charged with murder for hire. The women being equally copable.

It''s one of those things - "seemed like a good idea at the time". Taking what a law may morph into is something that needs to be examined.

I don''t buy the argument that minimalizes people who have abortions as "not wanting to be inconvienced". In the case of my friend (who had to go to a therapist afterwords), the baby would be born with no brain stem - to the point that it would not know enough to breath on it''s own. Why would someone subject a women to carry to full term only to have the BABY die within minutes? Not to mention the risk of the mother. It''s cruel - plain and simple. Many times this decision isn''t taken lightly. To add, it''s really none of my business or the government''s the motives of a personal decision between a women and her doctor.

 

[Angela1977]

The two camps can''t get past their rhetoric to get to the law...that''s why they had to make this an invasion of privacy issue and the challenges of murder haven''t gotten R v. W overturned.
I suspect that the woman seeking the abortion hasn''t been targeted (as of yet) because of a diminished mental capacity. We''re now using post partum depression as a defense for murder. I suspect that hormonal imbalances and societal pressure could be argued for the defense of the woman. It''s been well-documented what an emotional decision this is, with possible mental ramifications far-reaching...a doctor on the other hand, is supposedly emotionally detached from the act. It''s much easier (and less "messy") to go after someone who does this professionally that the individual woman who presumably only does this once (you know what I''m saying here...I''m not talking about the women who use this method as their birth control...I''m considering them to be the vast minority). That''s a much tougher political sell...and while this is an extremely emotional argument, it has to play out politically. And the people running the "camps" are smart enough to know that.

 

[KittenKat]

Date: 4/10/2006 5:27:32 PM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 4/10/2006 4:10:16 PM
Author: rainbowtrout
actually, I was less interested in *what* people thought about the morality side of things than how it plays out in law.

How it plays out in the law is what will dictate ''morality''. And, if you want to point the finger somewhere - ultimately the doctor could be charged with murder for hire. The women being equally copable.

It''s one of those things - ''seemed like a good idea at the time''. Taking what a law may morph into is something that needs to be examined.

I don''t buy the argument that minimalizes people who have abortions as ''not wanting to be inconvienced''. In the case of my friend (who had to go to a therapist afterwords), the baby would be born with no brain stem - to the point that it would not know enough to breath on it''s own. Why would someone subject a women to carry to full term only to have the BABY die within minutes? Not to mention the risk of the mother. It''s cruel - plain and simple. Many times this decision isn''t taken lightly. To add, it''s really none of my business or the government''s the motives of a personal decision between a women and her doctor.

I am just tired of people telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Based on THEIR morals, of course.

I have NEVER known someone who had an abortion out of ''not wanting to be inconvenienced''. I know they are out there... But who am I to judge them?

Illegal or not, people WILL find ways to have this procedure done. I''d rather people be safe.