IMO, this issue should be resolved more simply.
The unborn should be recognized as living human beings, just as the born, with all the same rights and protections.
End of story. If that’s done, then murdering one becomes what it should be, murder.
I have two suggestions, there hits a time limit when the abortion should not be performed.
Second, you have accountability for everyone except the woman. Men who commit sexually deviant crimes are held accountable for their actions, often through forced sterilization. At what point should a woman who receives abortion treatment also receive some accountability for the killing of unborn children? If you want any abortion policy taken serious by the general public, there needs to be some accountability for women when they use abortion as a form of birth control. I think that should include incarceration and forced sterilization. If they can do it to men for being sexual deviants, so too should women who are repeatedly impregnated and then choose to murder their unborn child.
Your idea isn’t simple because it’s not politically feasible and Trump said NO.
I respect your attempt, I think if we’re going to draft policy your recommendation should be considered. Other posts that I won’t get into miss critics components that pertain to custody issues.
Regardless of where the dust settles, the most important thing to keep in mind is the well being of the child. If we focus on that target, and then consider parental considerations, then societal, we at least know what we’re aiming for.
Children are our greatest blessing. That’s why I respect your approach to such a controversial subject. If we keep them in mind, then we can figure this out: in its current form though, I would not recommend your bill pass, but I do think we should all discuss it further.
1 Like
Thanks for your consideration.
FYI I wrote a detailed response to you, in defense of the one of my stipulations, but it’s currently hidden/awaiting approval.
The only thing I would change is to mothers under 18. The reason for this being is someone in high school should not be in charge of making decisions for another life. They’re still growing up learning and maturing and shouldn’t be in charge of raising a baby. I understand some states say 16 is no longer a minor however we know the brain doesn’t fully develop until 25. I agree that care for pregnant women needs to change and they shouldn’t have to wait until they’re on their deathbed to possibly receive care, it’s inhumane. Abortion isn’t wrong, if someone ends up pregnant but knows they shouldn’t be in charge of raising a baby then they make the choice that’s right for them. We also have seen how the adoption and foster system works and it’s just as inhuman to give birth to then leave a baby up to the system knowing the kind of people that live in this world and the horrible things they do to children. This is a fantastic proposal
Well, it’s still simple. “The unborn are human beings with the same rights as born human beings.” That’s all it takes.
Trump doesn’t have the last word. He’s not king.
It is politically feasible. But it’s an incredible battle with so many leftists in office, on both sides of the aisle.
1 Like
The general public opposes prosecuting/targeting women for abortion, while letting men who involuntarily impregnated her off the hook, in a situation in which she was likely coerced either by the father, or by our society, as well as a situation in which the abortion clinic likely violated her Informed consent by with-holding all information about the baby’s fetal development as well as the risks of abortion. Every exploitative or coercive person who contributed to the consequence of abortion should be held responsible, but legislating that is not that simple, and not without unintended consequences or implications.
Also, threatening abortive women with prosecution will be a death sentence for those women who experience complications, the complications that the abortion industry repeatedly lies about. Abortive women will be too scared to seek care at the hospital and die.
Additionally, threatening abortive women will stop them from cooperating with investigations into illegal abortions. Ironically, this will allow predatory abortion providers to use that fear to commit more abortions, and threaten patients if they say they will tell. It gives abortion providers more power over women.
The pro-life laws in place don’t even threaten prosecuting against women for illegal abortions for nonviable babies, yet the Democrat fear-mongering and misinformation was enough to get at least two women in Georgia killed from abortion pill complications, and refusals to get immediate care for complications.
If there was a way to criminalize women for abortion, without causing unintended risks to her life, and without undermining the political feasibility/strength of a pro-life law, it should be considered. But that’s extremely unrealistic.
So it’s the idea of punishing women for abortion that the American public “doesn’t take seriously.” Only people who illegally provide/perform abortions, or commit fraud, should be prosecuted for abortions. Otherwise, it’s literally just killing exploited, coerced women, who probably turned to abortion because they were scared, and also killing all chances of any further pro-life laws being passed at all.
I read your response.
I’m disengaging from your thread. The correct answer was 3, with subsequent decisions made by a jury of one’s peers. If RFK is serious about enacting meaningful change, he has my real email. He can reach out to me.
If you want to be obtuse with me and push this, The problem with your post is you fail to understand custody laws, support payments, medical diagnosises, and morality: I’m sorry if I’m being offensive, it’s not my intent. I commended you in a previous response for your courageous ness for your attempt to address this difficult question, but directly, you need to understand custody rights, child support obligations, definition of living organisms by the scientific community, and more. Further research these topics, then determine a threshold for which women should concede their involvement in this process and their responsibility; and their culpability if you want me to back your legislation:
We’re all here because we’ve suffered, I want to help you, but we have to have something more concrete or the evil attorneys who work against pick our suggestions apart. Or DM me and I can fix it in a week.
We live in a constitutional republic, and most state electorates are not comfortable with Heartbeat bills. If your goal is a heartbeat bill (you go, girl!), you need to persuade those electorates of the force of the moral argument. Pro-lifers all agree with you, but we cannot wave our wand and poof! – Law of the Land. All those voters have a say, and if you want the heartbeat bill, you must persuade them.
1 Like
Not exactly. If you want a heartbeat bill, you have to persuade the legislature and the governor. Some pro-abortion people say that we should be able to abort any baby before a heartbeat can be detected. They suggest that we might be able to prohibit abortion after that. Hold them to it.
-
Your continued responses, and requests to DM you, does not equal an attempt at “disengaging” yourself from the discussion.
-
This has nothing to do with “custody laws, support payments,” “morality” or being “offensive.” The topic at hand is that women are dying or suffering injury as a result of medical malpractice and pro-abortion misinformation, and people are blaming pro-life laws, fearmongering and exploiting these stories as part of their, so far very successful campaign to pass abortion-until-birth laws in every U.S. state.
-
I’m not personally aware of ANY state pro-life laws that prosecute women for illegal abortions, against nonviable babies, performed by someone else, at least not for the states that I have read about (like Texas or Georgia).
-
Trump already said NO to abortion bans. Lila Rose has already pleaded her case as much as she could to support restrictions, and Trump said no.
-
Federal legislature is not going to go further right on this issue and criminalize women for an abortion that someone else performed.
-
Feel free to convince Trump and the federal legislators yourself about determining a “threshold”. You’re beating a dead horse.
-
If you refuse to acknowledge all the factors and forces causing abortions, and the current weaknesses of some of the pro-life and pro-abortion state laws, then you will not be able to identify the best solutions to address those factors and weaknesses.
-
Additionally, the dumbest thing you can do with a women’s issue is to waste the opportunity to use it just to attack women (i.e. hyper-focusing on your need to punish abortive women in spite of all the risks). As explained to you in my previous post, that would only backfire spectacularly against Trump and the GOP. The GOP cannot afford to disenfranchise women even further or cede any more ground than they have already done on this issue. You will not move the needle with women voters on a women’s issues by trying to burn us at the stake. You will only drive more women away. You will also drive some pro-lifers away because some of us are damn sick of people not putting enough careful thought into the pro-life laws and messing things up.
Let’s work on stealing more women voters away from the Democrats, by addressing their top concerns, while simultaneously working within the confines that Trump set up, to protect and save as many babies as we can, and keep a pathway open so that in 2-4 years, legislators still have a chance to pass and maintain pro-life laws.
Thank your for your support, but also I have some quick responses to your feedback:
-
I disagree with the idea that a full grown woman’s high school status makes her unqualified to make decisions about her child’s life or that her high school status gives her a need to abort her child, and I’m sure that the GOP trifecta would agree. If people are so concerned about teenagers having sex/getting pregnant, or if someone’s high school status is SO dangerous, then they should either separate high schools by gender, or offer teenagers a diploma at age 16 or earlier.
-
And even if you feel she isn’t “old enough” to make decisions about a child’s life, then how is she “old enough” to make decisions about violently ending her child’s life. I spoke with someone who was coerced to abortion as a teenager, and she says the coerced abortion “ruined” her life.
-
To be clear, no pro-life law demands that the woman be “on her deathbed” to receive care. It is inhumane though, for some of these doctors to endanger/betray their patients like that, though; so inhumane that there’s a name for that: medical malpractice. OTOH, a federal law can be written in such a clear way so that we don’t leave any room for misinformation or fearmongering about it, or uncovered “gray” areas. Pro-lifers and pro-choice activists alike have pushed state medical boards and professional agencies (like ACOG) to offer clarifying guidelines, but aren’t receiving much of a response. The powers that be simply are not doing what it takes to offset the harms happening to women.
-
Placing your baby for adoption is NOT “putting your baby in the system” and has NOTHING to do with foster care, so those things should not be conflated. There are years of waiting lists of solid, loving middle class families who want to adopt babies as their own child. Any pregnant woman who knows she can’t care for her own child can choose to place her baby for adoption.
-
BTW, it is quite hateful and offensive of you to call birthmothers “inhumane” for choosing life/adoption for their child, and comparing that choice to dismembering your child alive or having them chemically ripped from their mother’s womb.
We are in agreement that abortion is the murder of human life. We live in a constitutional republic, however, and those who disagree with us have political rights equal to ours. We must therefore make the moral argument persuasively. In some states, the electorate will be more receptive to the moral argument and therefore more restrictive on abortion. In other states, the electorate will be less receptive and therefore less restrictive on abortion. Incrementalism in our fallen world is not selling out. Pro-life advocates should not let the perfect be the enemy of the best-we-can-get in a particular time and place. When they do, they only damage their own cause.
1 Like
Not that it matters to you but I’m quite pregnant right now so I very much understand constantly thinking of someone’s life over your own. I have nothing against adoption especially if there’s family’s already lined up and ready to take care of the baby I think it’s wonderful for someone to help another family out at having children. It’s not quite talked about or uncovered as much but theirs is a bigger issue of child trafficking at hand that is currently still going on in the US, they typically take children that have been put up for adoption and left to the system and that specifically is what I meant is inhumane and that’s not for the birth mother to feel guilty about but that part of the system needs to get fixed. Let’s also not forget how traumatizing giving birth can really be, it takes a huge toll on your body and you will never be the same, some women come close to dying during childbirth and in some cases some women do. On top of that being pregnant changes your body completely and it comes with a giant list of symptoms no one tells you about. As someone who has extreme nausea and can’t eat without medication I would not wish upon anyone who doesn’t want to be pregnant, who physically can’t handle it anymore, or doesn’t want to go through the 9 months of pregnancy then giving birth just because they couldn’t receive an abortion. I understand pro life but I also know that women should be able to choose what do to with their bodies especially on something that is quite literally life changing.
Incrementalism WHICH WE INITIATE is selling out. Let them initiate. We should propose protection for all tiny human beings. Let them force us into a lesser restriction. If we do that, we’re not letting the perfect be the enemy of the best. You need to keep in mind that their goal is unfettered abortion and infanticide. Every time we propose an increment, we’re moving toward THEIR goal. Let them move toward ours.
I’ve been in the fight against abortion for 60 years. I have a pretty good idea of what we need to do.
1 Like
Obviously, we need to make sure no adoptable baby gets trafficked. But the fact some are is not an argument against adoption. And hard cases make bad law.
Birth is a significant event in a mother’s life. It should not be traumatizing. Our modern medical system MAKES it traumatizing for both mother and baby. Any toll it takes on the bodies of most mothers is due to malnutrition and medical malpractice. We were designed to be pregnant and give birth. It is rare for a woman to come close to dying giving birth these days in spite of all the malpractice. As for nausea, this is yet another indication of how our modern medical system engages in malpractice. Proper nutrition plus ginger should ease most nausea. It hasn’t been tried, has it? Abortion is far more harmful to a mother than pregnancy and birth, but they’re hiding that fact. If your argument is that we need to do what is best for mothers, you undermine it by supporting abortion, because abortion is far more harmful. If you want to support legalized abortion, you’ll have to do better than that. I repeat: our bodies were DESIGNED to be pregnant and give birth. Protection for our babies is part of that design. YOU HAVE TO HARM THE MOTHER’S BODY TO DO AN ABORTION. ANY ABORTION. And if you don’t know that, you are the victim of fraud: lies about the safety of abortion versus carrying and bearing children. And pregnancy and birth also protects a mother from future disease, particularly breast cancer, while abortion sets a woman up for triple negative breast cancer. Giving birth has other effects for longevity as well. So don’t try selling abortion on the grounds it is better for a woman’s body. We’re not buying it. Sorry.
I wasn’t saying abortion is better on the woman’s body in saying it should be THEIR CHOICE, if it’s done right it’s just as traumatizing on the body as giving birth. You think they ginger and home remedies helps nausea? You can have all the proper nutrition do everything right and still need medication for nausea. There have been lots of mothers including myself that need prescriptions medication to be able to eat because nothing else gets rid of the nausea and not everyone has access to that or the ability to get it. A woman should have a choice of what to do with their body if they don’t want to go through with a pregnancy if it’s too much on them physically or they just can’t handle the responsibility they should be allowed to choose and not have to go through giving birth. If you’re really pro life be pro all life including a mothers. Telling a mother to give birth on the premise the baby will get adopted is a lie and a horrible selling point there’s tons of kids still waiting to get adopted.
FALSE on Lettie’s last sentence. No adoptable babies, are just sitting there “still waiting to be adopted.”
Older children who are put in the Foster care system, yes, but full legal access to abortion has existed for decades and yet that didn’t solve the Foster care crisis, and pregnant women do not birth ten year old children.
In addition, regarding your claim that placing a baby with an adoptive family puts the baby at risk for “child-trafficking”? Again, you are conflating the CPS/Foster Care system with the act of a loving, pre-screened family adopting a child since birth.
Feel free to provide the statistics with the rate of abuse or negative outcomes for babies raised by middle class, two parent, adoptive families, versus the outcome for babies raised by the typical unmarried mothers with financially/emotionally unstable environments who would have prefered adoption over the keeping the child.
Either way, please be more sensitive to families touched by adoption. Us single mothers, women with unplanned pregnancies and protective mothers, we take enough crap from society and we don’t need more pile on. We’re just doing our best. And since you are pregnant, you know darn well the difference in harm between abortion and adoption. If someone gave you a choice, to either dismember your baby without any pain relief/anesthesia/fetal digoxin shot, or choose adoption, you are NOT going to claim that both options are equally “inhumane” or harmful. The last time I heard someone say that those two choices made no difference to them, it was in the bible when King Solomon determined that only a fake person would say that.
1 Like
I thought so. A purist. Anyone who isn’t as committed as you are is a sell-out. You know, the Left uses that exact same logic. So do jihadists. So, you testify you’ve been “in the fight” for 60 years. In all that time, you haven’t figured out how to gain allies, but you’re an expert on pushing away anyone who might make common cause with you on part of your goals. Brilliant. Your methods should be made doctrine in textbooks on political warfare.