How Much Jail Time?

[Sojourner]

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010696/site/newsweek/"]Anna Quindlen poses this question to pro-lifers in her Newsweek column. [/url]
[quote]Buried among prairie dogs and amateur animation shorts on YouTube is a curious little mini-documentary shot in front of an abortion clinic in Libertyville, Ill. The man behind the camera is asking demonstrators who want abortion criminalized what the penalty should be for a woman who has one nonetheless. You have rarely seen people look more gobsmacked. It's as though the guy has asked them to solve quadratic equations. Here are a range of responses: "I've never really thought about it." "I don't have an answer for that." "I don't know." "Just pray for them."

You have to hand it to the questioner; he struggles manfully. "Usually when things are illegal there's a penalty attached," he explains patiently. But he can't get a single person to be decisive about the crux of a matter they have been approaching with absolute certainty.

A new public-policy group called the National Institute for Reproductive Health wants to take this contradiction and make it the centerpiece of a national conversation, along with a slogan that stops people in their tracks: how much time should she do? If the Supreme Court decides abortion is not protected by a constitutional guarantee of privacy, the issue will revert to the states. If it goes to the states, some, perhaps many, will ban abortion. If abortion is made a crime, then surely the woman who has one is a criminal. But, boy, do the doctrinaire suddenly turn squirrelly at the prospect of throwing women in jail. . . .

The great thing about video is that you can see the mental wheels turning as these people realize that they somehow have overlooked something central while they were slinging certainties. Nearly 20 years ago, in a presidential debate, George Bush the elder was asked this very question, whether in making abortion illegal he would punish the woman who had one. "I haven't sorted out the penalties," he said lamely. Neither, it turns out, has anyone else. But there are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can't countenance the first, you have to accept the second. You can't have it both ways.[/quote]
My opinion: Too bad those documentary folks didn't interview me -- I would have had no problem answering a question about penalties for women who have abortions. As you suggested, I think the most reasonable course of action is regulating providers rather than criminalizing women seeking abortions. There are plenty of reasons women shouldn't be criminalized for seeking abortions, not the least of which is that abortion is in many cases a last resort for women who see no feasible way of bearing and raising a child ... it's almost a "necessity" defense.

No one is arguing that women seeking abortions do so because it's fun, or because it's something they want to do. In many cases, they see it as the best of the available solutions to a very difficult situation -- and none of the alternative solutions are very palatable. Friends I've known who have had abortions did so because they were scared of the life-changing consequences of bearing children and uncertain of their ability to raise and provide for these children, and didn't have (or didn't think they had) the necessary support systems to be able to adequately care for and support a child. When our answer to these fears is to kill the child rather than find ways to assist in building adequate long-term support, we've failed not only the children but also their mothers.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1345410' date='Jul 31 2007, 07:26 PM']When our answer to these fears is to kill the child rather than find ways to assist in building adequate long-term support, we've failed not only the children but also their mothers.[/quote]

Excellent point. The resources to help such women, and to challenge the mindset of abortion as well, are needed.

I guess a similar example, on a different scale, is that prostitution is not illegal here. The reason for this is that they have recognised that the women don't choose that lifestyle for fun, but often resort to it due to drug addictions. So the solution is seen as cracking down on drugs and helping those with addictions, instead of punishing the symptom (prostitution) of a deeper problem.

[Era Might]

I don't know, I think there has to be some legal consequence. Otherwise there is no real deterrent to having an abortion. I understand the anguish that often goes along with abortion, but an innocent person is being killed. If a mother were to kill her child after he is born, for the same reasons that some women have abortions (fear, poverty, etc.), she would most certainly be sent to jail.

eta: Aren't there already laws in some states where a person can be charged for killing a child in the womb (for example, if they kill the mother while she is carrying the child)?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1345415' date='Jul 31 2007, 01:36 PM']I don't know, I think there has to be some legal consequence. Otherwise there is no real deterrent to having an abortion. I understand the anguish that often goes along with abortion, but an innocent person is being killed. If a mother were to kill her child after he is born, for the same reasons that some women have abortions (fear, poverty, etc.), she would most certainly be sent to jail.

eta: Aren't there already laws in some states where a person can be charged for killing a child in the womb (for example, if they kill the mother while she is carrying the child)?[/quote]
There are such laws, yes ... in almost all states.

I understand your argument ... and perhaps you are correct. It does seem wrong, for example, to punish Andrea Yates but not a woman who has an abortion. But I also feel like there is a difference, although I can't quite put my finger on it. Let me think about it.

[adt6247]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1345410' date='Jul 31 2007, 03:26 PM']My opinion: Too bad those documentary folks didn't interview me -- I would have had no problem answering a question about penalties for women who have abortions. As you suggested, I think the most reasonable course of action is regulating providers rather than criminalizing women seeking abortions. There are plenty of reasons women shouldn't be criminalized for seeking abortions, not the least of which is that abortion is in many cases a last resort for women who see no feasible way of bearing and raising a child ... it's almost a "necessity" defense.[/quote]
Abortion should simply be reclassified as first-degree murder. All penalties that apply to murder should also apply to abortion. Everyone involved should be charged with the crime -- the doctor, the assistants, the patient, etc. If someone specifically drove the woman to have the abortion knowingly, they should be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. If someone else finances it, they should be treated as if they had contracted a hit.

Abortion is murder of the worst kind. It should be prosecuted as such. Treating women contracting abortions any differently would lessen the dignity of the children we are trying to protect. Just because they are potentially in dire financial need does not excuse them. What would you say if they killed a 1-year-old child because they were too poor? Murder! They should be jailed! To do otherwise is horrendously uncharitable.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1345410' date='Jul 31 2007, 01:26 PM'][url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010696/site/newsweek/"]Anna Quindlen poses this question to pro-lifers in her Newsweek column. [/url]

My opinion: Too bad those documentary folks didn't interview me -- I would have had no problem answering a question about penalties for women who have abortions. As you suggested, I think the most reasonable course of action is regulating providers rather than criminalizing women seeking abortions. There are plenty of reasons women shouldn't be criminalized for seeking abortions, not the least of which is that abortion is in many cases a last resort for women who see no feasible way of bearing and raising a child ... it's almost a "necessity" defense.

No one is arguing that women seeking abortions do so because it's fun, or because it's something they want to do. In many cases, they see it as the best of the available solutions to a very difficult situation -- and none of the alternative solutions are very palatable. Friends I've known who have had abortions did so because they were scared of the life-changing consequences of bearing children and uncertain of their ability to raise and provide for these children, and didn't have (or didn't think they had) the necessary support systems to be able to adequately care for and support a child. When our answer to these fears is to kill the child rather than find ways to assist in building adequate long-term support, we've failed not only the children but also their mothers.[/quote]
I realize my reply here will likely raise all Hades and the Seven Furies on this board, but if we pro-life Catholics were really serious about abortion being the murder of an innocent human being, we'd be pushing for abortion to be tried as first-degree murder, and any woman who procurs an abortion of her own free will should be prosecuted accordingly.
The penalty ideally should not be different than if she kills one of her own born children under similar circumstances.
If one hires a hitman to whack somebody, he should not be legally off the hook because he did not pull the trigger himself - it should be the same for going to an abortionist and paying for his "services."
Of course, if a woman is forced or coerced against her will to get an abortion, then those who coerced her should pay the penalty instead.

While it may be chivalrous to see women as being only victims in need of help, when dealing with legal justice, people must face their responsibility for their crimes.
And it's ironic that many who would otherwise defend women as being able to freely make their own choices, here consider women all to be mere victims of circumstance, completely unaccountable for their own behavior.

Do you not think that many persons who commit murder do not also do so under difficult circumstances, and under mental duress? However, this does not excuse them from willfully taking a human life.
(Yes, I know circumstances and motivation matter legally, but willfully taking an innocent life should never be without any legal penalty, unless truly done in self-defense.)

And in many cases, abortion is not truly a last resort, much less "necessity," but merely more convenient than other options (such as adoption, etc.) And the truth is that reasons for abortion range from the truly desperate (rape or dire poverty), to the absurdly frivolous (keeping a flat tummy at the beach) to the truly diabolical (abortion as a feminist "sacrament of empowerment").
Should the fact that many abortions are committed under very difficult circumstances mean that all women who seek out abortions for any reason whatever should get off scot-free??
Afterall, as the pro-aborts love to point out, abortion is a choice, and those who choose to kill should pay for choice.

Sadly, your argument here seems to substitute emotion for justice, and also seems tinged with the whole liberal "victim-mentality" which downplays personal responsiblity for one's actions and ignores justice by regarding everyone instead as merely helpless victims of socio-economic "root causes" (usually to be dealt with by tax-and-spend gov't programs).

Edited August 1, 2007 by Socrates

[Norseman82]

Pre-Roe, didn't they just prosecute the doctors?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1345485' date='Jul 31 2007, 04:08 PM']Abortion should simply be reclassified as first-degree murder. All penalties that apply to murder should also apply to abortion. Everyone involved should be charged with the crime -- the doctor, the assistants, the patient, etc. If someone specifically drove the woman to have the abortion knowingly, they should be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. If someone else finances it, they should be treated as if they had contracted a hit.

Abortion is murder of the worst kind. It should be prosecuted as such. Treating women contracting abortions any differently would lessen the dignity of the children we are trying to protect. Just because they are potentially in dire financial need does not excuse them. What would you say if they killed a 1-year-old child because they were too poor? Murder! They should be jailed! To do otherwise is horrendously uncharitable.[/quote]

I agree, except I don't think that first-degree murder should be handled by jail time. I think it should be handled by capital punishment.

[Mercy me]

As someone who has know people who had abortions, I completely agree with Terra. These women do it out of fear. The pro-death people prey upon that fear and offer them an easy answer. That is how the evil one works. He offers us easy and attractive solutions to our problems. It is the pro-death people that need to be penalized for victimizing these women.

For us on this side, we need to reach out to these women not condemn them. We need to support them and give them options. Most of all we must let them know that they are not alone.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1345962' date='Aug 1 2007, 01:39 AM']I agree, except I don't think that first-degree murder should be handled by jail time. I think it should be handled by capital punishment.[/quote]

This seems like an odd stance for you to be taking, since the Catholic church is against capital punishment...talk about your ultimate condemnation

[kateri05]

[quote]since the Catholic church is against capital punishment...talk about your ultimate condemnation[/quote]

no its not. the Catechism recognizes the state's right to execute criminals who pose a threat to society.

that being said, JPII was personally against it as part of his push to promote a culture of life that seemed to value death.

[track2004]

Before abortion was legal we had punishments for doctors and for women who were looking to get one, but rarely did the state punish a women who had gotten one. It was illegal to preform an abortion and illegal to solicit an abortion, but the rest was rather gray. It, to me, sounds like how prostitution is now. They can't ever really catch you 'in the act' so the punishments have to come from the before and after.

The legal questions of abortion are hard to answer, which is why the laws surrounding it have changed so much (IMO). I understand the need that some people feel to make abortion illegal again. I understand that abortion sends the wrong message about life. But I understand why and how it became legal in the US. I think that right now the fight should be within the communities, not the law, to make others understand why it is a wrong choice. There will always be things that are legal that The Church, and people in general, disagree with, and I think that while morally opposed to such things, we can live rightly in the society.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' post='1346024' date='Aug 1 2007, 01:03 AM']This seems like an odd stance for you to be taking, since the Catholic church is against capital punishment...talk about your ultimate condemnation[/quote]

You're incorrect.

[quote][b]The Catechism of the Council of Trent:[/b]
EXECUTION OF CRIMINALS

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I Put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.6
[url="http://catecheticsonline.com/Trent3.php"]http://catecheticsonline.com/Trent3.php[/url][/quote]

[quote][b]The Catechism of the Catholic Church:[/b]
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."
[url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2267"]http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2267[/url][/quote]

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1346030' date='Aug 1 2007, 02:11 AM']no its not. the Catechism recognizes the state's right to execute criminals who pose a threat to society.[/quote]

Well, I would hardly classify women who have had an abortion a threat to society at large...

In this made-up scenario of prosecuting women who've had abortions, I don't think capital punishment fits STM's quote from the CCC that it is the "only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor."

[adt6247]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1345962' date='Aug 1 2007, 01:39 AM']I agree, except I don't think that first-degree murder should be handled by jail time. I think it should be handled by capital punishment.[/quote]
I'd leave that to the state in question to decide. My point is that it should be handled no differently than murder. If the state has capital punishment as a penalty for first-degree murder, then that should apply as well.

Reasonable Catholics can disagree about whether or not it is prudent to apply capital punishment in a given society. A believing Catholic cannot, however disagree as to whether the state has the right to do so; Catholic doctrine clearly states that it does.