The republican establishment and Trumps stance on abortion.

[JimL]

Why are republicans all up in arms about Trumps comments on abortion and that women having them should be criminally charged. If republicans honestly believe that abortion is murder, then why the uproar over Trumps comments? What do you conservatives actually think? Should women and their doctors be charged with murder in abortion cases, or not? Trump was asked what the punishment should be and couldn't give an answer, then walked it back saying that only the doctor should be charged? What do you think, and which republican canidates position do you support in this regard?

[Spartacus]

http://www.aul.org/2010/04/why-the-s...re-roe-v-wade/

There is a long record of states treating women as the second victim of abortion in the law that can be found and read. To state the policy in legal terms, the states prosecuted the principal (the abortionist) and did not prosecute someone who might be considered an accomplice (the woman) in order to more effectively enforce the law against the principal. And that will most certainly be the state policy if the abortion issue is returned to the states.

Why did the states target abortionists and treat women as a victim of the abortionist?

It was based on three policy judgments: the point of abortion law is effective enforcement against abortionists, the woman is the second victim of the abortionist, and prosecuting women is counterproductive to the goal of effective enforcement of the law against abortionists.

The irony is that, instead of states prosecuting women, the exact opposite is true. To protect their own hide, it was abortionists (like the cult hero and abortionist Ruth Barnett when Oregon last prosecuted her in 1968), who, when they were prosecuted, sought to haul the women they aborted into court. As a matter of criminal evidentiary law, if the court treated the woman as an accomplice, she could not testify against the abortionist, and the case against the abortionist would be thrown out.

If this link is not sufficient to demonstrate that wanting abortion to be illegal does NOT necessitate wanting legal punishments for women who abort, we might consider Sweden's approach to dealing with prostitution-- not by prosecuting the prostitutes, who are assumed to be in some sense victims and offered job training, etc-- but by prosecuting brothel operators and their clients.

[Littlejoe]

If Abortion were illegal, and a woman were to actively seek out and obtain one, then I don't see the issue with legal punishment. However, if it can be proven they were coerced or forced by someone, (i.e. husband, boyfriend pimp, etc.) then that person would be the one charged. I don't have a problem with it TBH, and I'm not a Trump supporter.

[Adam]

In days of yore when abortions were illegal, I recall it as involving punishment only of the abortion mill.

[JimL]

In days of yore when abortions were illegal, I recall it as involving punishment only of the abortion mill.

But why should that be, if a person is complicit in murder, and murder is illegal, why shouldn't they be charged?

[Spartacus]

But why should that be, if a person is complicit in murder, and murder is illegal, why shouldn't they be charged?

From the quote in my post above:"the point of abortion law is effective enforcement against abortionists, the woman is the second victim of the abortionist, and prosecuting women is counterproductive to the goal of effective enforcement of the law against abortionists."

[JimL]

From the quote in my post above:"the point of abortion law is effective enforcement against abortionists, the woman is the second victim of the abortionist, and prosecuting women is counterproductive to the goal of effective enforcement of the law against abortionists."

If it is indeed murder then the woman is not in fact a victim, she is complicit in the murder. I think that history has also shown that making it illegal only in the case of the abortionist is not effective enforcement.

[Spartacus]

If it is indeed murder then the woman is not in fact a victim, she is complicit in the murder. I think that history has also shown that making it illegal only in the case of the abortionist is not effective enforcement.

This is the second time you've made it clear that you have not read my first post here or the article to which I linked.

[JimL]

This is the second time you've made it clear that you have not read my first post here or the article to which I linked.

The link doesn't matter because it is false, the law is against abortion, aka murder according to anti-abortionist, and the woman is not a victim, she is complicit in that act no matter how states may try to parse the language. Explain to me how the woman is a victim and not an accomplice in the act and I'll concede your point. Also, your alternative, as history has shown, is not effective enforcement.

[Spartacus]

The link doesn't matter because it is false, the law is against abortion, aka murder according to anti-abortionist, and the woman is not a victim, she is complicit in that act no matter how states may try to parse the language. Explain to me how the woman is a victim and not an accomplice in the act and I'll concede your point.

There were 3 points of logic, each of which is potentially persuasive. One is that the primary goal of those who made and those who enforced the policy was to prosecute the abortionists themselves. Another is that, if you prosecute women as accomplices, they cannot, under the 5th Amendment, be used as witnesses in prosecuting the abortionist: it would be self-incrimination. Finally, the women seeking abortions were regarded as being in difficult or desperate situations, which the abortionists were exploiting for profit. Perhaps that they should be regarded as second victims evades your understanding, but for a number of the states documented in the link (which is not ot say all of them), it seems to have been common sense.

Also, your alternative, as history has shown, is not effective enforcement.

You have asserted this, but could you explain in more detail? What history are you referencing? That abortion happened while it was illegal does not mean that the enforcement was ineffective: that the law is broken does not necessarily mean it is being enforced badly, unless you can demonstrate that another form of enforcement would be more effective and not simply more convenient for your arguments against pro-lifers.

[Bill the Cat]

Why are republicans all up in arms about Trumps comments on abortion and that women having them should be criminally charged.

TBH, I agree with Trump.

If republicans honestly believe that abortion is murder, then why the uproar over Trumps comments?

Political expediency

What do you conservatives actually think? Should women and their doctors be charged with murder in abortion cases, or not?

Yes. If a woman can be charged with murdering her 1 hour old child, then she should be charged with the same crime against that self-contained member of our species 3 months earlier.

Trump was asked what the punishment should be and couldn't give an answer, then walked it back saying that only the doctor should be charged? What do you think, and which republican canidates position do you support in this regard?

No idea. I don't think many agree because their political career would be over. And it's a damned shame that is the case on both fronts.

[Mountain Man]

Why are republicans all up in arms about Trumps comments on abortion and that women having them should be criminally charged.

Are Republicans up in arms about it? I've seen a mostly positive response to Trump's comments.

[JimL]

There were 3 points of logic, each of which is potentially persuasive. One is that the primary goal of those who made and those who enforced the policy was to prosecute the abortionists themselves.

That may be true, but the primary goal of those who made and those who enforce the law against murder was to prosecute those involved in the murder. It isn't as though the one law negates the validity of the other.

Another is that, if you prosecute women as accomplices, they cannot, under the 5th Amendment, be used as witnesses in prosecuting the abortionist: it would be self-incrimination. Finally, the women seeking abortions were regarded as being in difficult or desperate situations, which the abortionists were exploiting for profit. Perhaps that they should be regarded as second victims evades your understanding, but for a number of the states documented in the link (which is not ot say all of them), it seems to have been common sense.

I see, so a woman involved in a murder can avoid prosecution because she has a constitutional right? Thats nonsense. And please stop calling woman getting abortions as victims, they are fully engaged in the process.

[JimL]

Are Republicans up in arms about it? I've seen a mostly positive response to Trump's comments.

Your republican polititions and canidates for president are, which is what I referenced in the last sentence. Ask any one of them if they agree with Trump and they will either lie or tell the truth, but in either case their answer will be no, they do not agree that a woman should be criminally charged for having an abortion.

[JimL]

TBH, I agree with Trump.



Political expediency



Yes. If a woman can be charged with murdering her 1 hour old child, then she should be charged with the same crime against that self-contained member of our species 3 months earlier.



No idea. I don't think many agree because their political career would be over. And it's a damned shame that is the case on both fronts.

Good for you, a principled answer. Now, what do you think the punishment should be for a woman who knowingly violates this law and has her baby murdered?