Question : Pro-lifers, Exactly How Would You End Elective Abortion?

Well you and I differ. I would as we do now and prosecute the abortionist and not the woman. I see no need to change that.

 

Why wouldn't you prosecute the person who wanted the murder., who ordered someone to commit the murder, who was an accessory... ???

If a person hires a hit man to do their murder for them, they ARE prosecuted.....why are you trying to squirm away from prosecuting, imprisoning, and possibly even killing women for the same thing men do???

 

Quite a few states had laws which were actually supposed to protect WOMEN. I'm sure you are aware that none of those laws prevented women from obtaining abortions, so were totally futile as far as protecting the "unborn." Anti-abortion laws were passed in the various states for 3 purported reasons:

1. Doctors wanted a monopoly on performing abortions because midwives were cutting into their income.
2. It was believed that the western lands needed populating, so women were seen as cattle to be used to increase that population.
3. Abortion in those days was dangerous for women.

Another less publicized reason for criminalizing abortion was that immigrants were seen as threats to citizens by outnumbering them. Again, women were seen as cattle used to increase the population.

Your article emphasizes that women were not prosecuted. So women would still be free to get abortions by ordering medications over the internet from out of the country, traveling out of the country, or making use of off-shore based abortion services, right?

 

Ummm no. She wasn't indicted and sentenced for a "miscarriage".

 

Because I don't think it beneficial. Perhaps you think it best to prosecute the woman when an abortionist is conducting the procedure, but I don't.

 

A person can leave their state or country and be under another set of laws. They can move to another state that best suits their needs and ideology. Yes. But evidently they can't legally order abortion pills online and kill their unborn 30 week gestation baby in a state where killing a 30 week gestation baby is illegal.

 

So you believe that a woman who has an abortion is forced to do it and so is not responsible?

What is beneficial about not prosecuting "murderers" ?

You believe you can hire a hit man to murder someone for you and you won't be prosecuted? You're wrong.

 

Of course not. She was indicted and sentenced for "feticide." She said it was a miscarriage, and...

and also "child neglect." Don't you find the charges feticide and child neglect contradictory??

This is what happens when over-zealous state officials are in charge.

 

I've read the case---all of it. Not just part of it. She's a cold blooded killer. But if you feel comfortable telling people a woman was charged because of a "miscarriage" then, well I don't know what to think really. Its such a falsehood.

- - - Updated - - -

I do hold the woman at a different standard then the abortionist. Its makes for a more beneficial more simplistic law that is easier to prosecute and keeps abortionists from looking at killing babies as a nice living.

 

How can you make that judgment when the toxicologist report said "no trace of abortion-causing drugs was found in her bloodstream"? And you find that both feticide and child neglect charges make sense?

 

Why? (trust me, I know why but it would be brave of you to admit why)



Unanswered: So you believe that a woman who has an abortion is forced to do it and so is not responsible?

What is beneficial about not prosecuting "murderers" ?

You believe you can hire a hit man to murder someone for you and you won't be prosecuted? You're wrong.

 

You see a cold blooded killer. I see a very confused frightened woman whose culture warped her perception .... as your perception is warped if you still see abortion as "killing babies".

 

The toxicologist said “he wasn’t aware of any standardized tests for the drugs or their metabolized remnants in blood at the time.” Which means he couldn't test for it. That is much different then the quote that flying across the web as propaganda.

The evidence they did have--her own texts and admissions were enough. Plus the baby was born alive. And she wrapped it up in a plastic bag and "cleaned up" and shortly after texted her friend that the baby was out and she cleaned up.

How you can defend this woman is beyond me really.

 

We give sympathy to the woman (the mother) because her baby has been murdered.

Even when the parents (both the fathers and the mothers) are too immature or too barbaric to feel the loss, then we as a society must still give them our rightful pity and compassion.

We are not going to prosecute a mother who lost her baby by an abortionist-murderer no matter how despicable the mother might be.

There are many reasons (justifications) for a mother to seek an abortion, but the abortionist (the so called Doctor) does not have any of those reasons or justifications.

The mother has her problems, but the abortion Industry is just profiting from those problems by giving that immoral remedy of baby murder.

Hiring a hit-man to kill another person is a far different crime and it is NOT the same sort of scenario.

 

Yes we only prosecute the murderer - the so called Doctor and NOT the mothers.

Link = Life in Prison for the killer.

 

IF you had sympathy for women you would want them to have access to safe affordable abortions and not be at the mercy of someone who performs abortions.

IF you had sympathy for the woman you wouldn't be calling her despicable , immature.


Prosecuting anyone for abortion will never and has never stopped abortion and only Really Stupid People would believe it could. The ONLY reason they want abortion illegal is to make women suffer and punish them for having sex.

Yes, hiring a hitman is exactly the same as hiring an abortionist to commit your "murder".....there is NO difference.



No baby has been murdered and you repeating the lie won't change that....you have NEVER provided proof that a fetus is a baby .....




If you had sympathy for women, you'd mind your own imperfect life and your own business.

PS: They don't need nor want YOUR sympathy....

 

And not one Anti-Choicer has explained how an abortion is suspected, reported, investigated.....

 

No, her text said, "Just lost the baby," and the lung floating test has been long discredited:

But now we know. Your response to this case tells us you think that women convicted of illegal abortion would be cold blooded murderers and should receive the maximum sentence, even on the basis of questionable evidence and discredited science.

 

No, they can't, because abortion pills only work up to 8 weeks gestation. Women who are able to obtain RU-486 by whatever methods could never be prosecuted because there would be no evidence. I suspect there would be a distribution highway from Mexico to every state with anti-abortion laws.

Women do not choose to abort 30 week gestation fetuses. Those abortions are for medical reasons.

 

If you look to actual articles with actual information--you can see why the jury convicted her.

An overview

http://m.southbendtribune.com/news/...863-2d6a-5088-873e-c56e2f732515.html?mode=jqm

Her texts
http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/first-day-of-testimony-in-trial-over-granger-newborns-death/30919216
On June 10, Patel text messaged her friend about ordering abortion pills from an “international pharmacy,” and when the friend asked Patel three more times to see a doctor, she replied, “I’d rather not even go to a doc. I just want to get this over with,” Herring said.
According to text messages, the pills arrived at Moe’s Southwest Grill in Mishawaka – a restaurant Patel’s family owns – in early July. But Patel waited to take those pills until July 10, continuing to provide a detailed account of her situation to her friend, Herring told the jury.
“BTW, these pills taste like sh**. If these pills don’t work…I’m gonna be mad,” the text messages allegedly said.
Then on July 13, Patel text messaged her friend, “Just lost the baby. I’m gonna clean up the bathroom and then go to Moe’s.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...thologist_use_the_discredited_lung_float.html
Prahlow supplemented the evidence from the float test with other findings, testifying that the lungs looked full of air when he removed the fetus’s chest plate during the autopsy, that the air sacs in the lung tissue looked expanded when he looked at them under a microscope, and that the weight of the lungs—approximately 21 grams—was consistent with a live birth. Prahlow also testified that, according to his analysis, blood had started flowing to the lungs, which would have only happened after the baby had taken a breath.

This wasn't a "miscarriage". This was a woman who according to the evidence the jurors saw--meant to kill her late gestation baby, delivered the baby alive and wrapped it up in plastic and threw it away.

How you can defend someone who does that---I dunno. Do you think its ok to give an early birth and wrap the baby up and throw it a way?? Should the baby die after its born? Because she wanted it dead before it was born? I just don't get it.

 

Pick a charge. They convicted her on conflicting charges. Feticide requires a dead fetus. Child neglect requires a live birth. The charge of child neglect carried the harshest penalty, (30 years with 10 years suspended, feticide sentence was 6 years), discredited science was used to determine the baby was alive:

 

there's PLENTY that's detrimental about unmarried pregnancy. It normally means the lack of a father for the kid, and sooner rather than later, too! it also means a very high % of public dependence by that "family". What the world needs is to skip an entire generation, all of the women ligated, and then, by lottery, the next generation be allowed, 10% of them, to have kids, so that the ability to raise kids is not completely lost. Do that for 3 generations, and then women could again all have (2 only) kids. NO need of the mass death that Nature IS going to visit upon us if we don't voluntarily limit our numbers.

 

some of these mothers should be prosecuted - not in all cases, but some of them. Especially the repeat offenders that unabashedly abort repeatedly, almost as if it were some form of birth control

 

So you think abortion is murder and people should get a certain number "free" .....