Women To Prison For Their Abortions

I have written this several times in the past that the logical outcome of laws prohibition all abortions are women going to prison. Several have argued here that, no, that would never happen.

I have pointed out there are places in the U. S. where local law enforcement has, in fact, arrested women for having abortions. And, why not? If the fertilized egg is a human being how could the woman not be included in the murder charges that result?

Both in the U. S. and Europe, there is a faction of the anti abortion zealots who seek prison for women who get abortions. The latest is in Poland. A bill has been introduced that would imprison for five years a woman who has had an abortion. The bill has not yet passed, but the point is there are those who want it. Included in those who support this bill is the Catholic Church.

That the Catholic Church of Poland support imprisoning women and the Vatican does not object tells us volumes. It tells us the logic of imprisoning women flows seamlessly from the religious view that a fertilized egg is a human being. They go together like a hand in a glove.

The only remaining question remaining is why do so many Catholic and Protestant right to lifers claim women who get abortions will not face imprisonment? The answer I am certain is they know prison sentences await these women, but to get anti abortion laws to pass, it must not be discussed.

35 Responses

    1. Henry 6:18 Absolutely. Send those women abort administrators and dockters to jail.

      The bill in Poland and the experiences in the U. S. was women receiving abortions going to jail. You are part of the cover-up denial.

      1. Henry

        I am not covering up anything. What you do not want to address in any conversation about homicidal abortion is the element of mens rea. This is what determines homicide or not, not a 35 year-old retiree down in Des Moines.

    2. pqbd

      Henry @ 6:18 pm

      Typically there are men involved in some way whether initiating the pregnancy sexually, or as an active participant supporting the decision to abort, or by providing financial support for the procedure. Should they be jailed also?

      1. Henry

        Men are not Germaine to Jon’s topic heading. Hence, I was silent concerning men. Please re-read and talk to Jon about his missteps.

        1. pqbd

          Henry @ 11:19

          Don’t be a snot Henry. Germaine is a good girl. You are the prince of posts that are irrelevant or unrelated to the topic at hand. Jon calls it humor. Maybe twitting is more appropriate.

          Concerning culpability in pregnancy and abortion – it still takes two to tango. We are not talking immaculate conception here. I am only suggesting that men often influence the decision in one way or another to abort a fetus and if you are going to cook the goose you should apply some of your ‘justice’ to the gander.

          1. entech

            Henry is so annoying and even though we know we shouldn’t it is sometimes difficult not to respond. We only encourage him. His wording is so cunning on occasion, note here that if you point out that administrators and doctors are not in the topic heading he can point out that he said Send those women abort administrators and dockters to jail not actually referring to men. It is never possible to know what Henry says and what Henry means it is only possible to know that he does it to score points and play his little ego games.

          2. Henry

            5:22 and 6:18 – Both posts that distract away from the subject while complaining someone else is doing the distracting. They never address the post, only engaging in name calling, personal attacks, and projection. These tactics are so atheist. They have become a hallmark of atheism.

    3. Matt Noah

      First, there would be a trial. Those who were culpable would obviously be the abortionist, any assistants he had, possibly the pregnant woman or girl and possibly the man involved, if she even knew who the “father” was. Murder is the operative word and it is a serious crime.

      1. Matt 9:28 Murder is the operative word and it is a serious crime.

        A serious crime, murder, to remove part of a woman’s flesh the size of a marble. That’s where you folks go over the edge.

          1. entech

            If it is not part of a woman it must be an independent entity. So why not simply remove it and keep it warm until it can be independent.

          2. entech 6:40 If it is not part of a woman it must be an independent entity. So why not simply remove it and keep it warm until it can be independent.

            According to Matt, science can do this and we must not be science deniers. If anyone denies science, it is Matt. He does not deny religion no matter how outrageous its claims.

          3. Matt 5:24 Don’t be a science denier.

            You love to call other people liars. Then you tell whoopers yourself. No referred academic journal in science has ever said the few weeks old fetus is not part of the mother’s body or that new DNA makes it not part of the mother’s body. The notion that fetus is an independent human being, independent from the mother comes from religion. Your last sentence in that post should have read, “Don’t be a religion denier.”

          4. Matt Noah

            A woman is given a unique role in the development of a child from conception until birth. Putting rape and incest aside for the time being, she willingly and knowingly has sex and accepts the consequences of the act. If you don’t believe that then you think women are mentally inferior; something we on the right don’t accept. Pregnancy is one of the consequences of the act. A separate, living human being is created. Their first 9 months will be in the womb of their mother. This is basic biology. For each pregnancy, separate DNA, a head, a heart, 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. are present. It is called the miracle of life. It is a scientific fact. You can’t dance your way around scientific fact.

          5. Matt 9:02 . It is called the miracle of life. It is a scientific fact. You can’t dance your way around scientific fact.

            That is one of the funniest things you have written, that a miracle is science.

            You are a stickler for demanding sources. When someone brings up an aspect of the Catholic Church you go to the source of official Catholic doctrine. But, in the arguments around abortion you dance step around sources. There is no source that falls into the category of university based science calls the early fetus a human being. You have made up a definition and then call it “science”. I hope one day you will discovery honesty is the best policy.

          6. entech

            if she even knew who the “father” was
            your @ 9:02 am seems to be a bit conflicted here Matt. After the above you wax lyrical about willingly and knowingly, willingly and knowingly with someone she doesn’t know? Make up your mind.

          7. entech

            Incidentally, your 9:02 wouldn’t be such an example of your desire for control if the woman was permitted to take precautions against the consequences of the act. Far from being “mentally Inferior” woman are at least the equal of men and in many cases actually superior. @ 8:51 am you talk about the woman choosing to have an abortion while saying the man has no part in it. Yet it is men like you that play a major part in preventing her from ‘choosing’ to take contraceptive measures.

            Does it ever occur to you that preventative measures would be an effective way to prevent abortion, so obvious really simply prevent contraception. Sharon is right men could prevent every abortion, are in some ways responsible for every abortion – the action required would be to make sure effective means of contraception were used or the method advocated by Evangelical/Catholic groups: abstinence. Or to put it plainly keep it in you pants. I am sure that for consistency you yourself have never had sex simply for mutual pleasure, only ever, ever with the goal of having offspring.

          8. Matt Noah

            Besides being a denier of basic science, you are simply the Tin Man and the Scarecrow. Once the baby is born, if you just “leave it alone” see how long it survives. Your whole flawed, inhumane argument is based on viability (ability to live on one’s own, in your definition) which rules out infants, toddlers, those with debilitating diseases or conditions, etc.

            It is too bad you have evolved to not having a heart or a brain. Perhaps a trip to Oz would do you good.

          9. Matt 11:51 Perhaps a trip to Oz would do you good.

            You are welcome to make stuff up about religion, there is a god, people have a soul, etc. But, making stuff up about science is an entirely different matter. You have made up out of thin air that science proves the one fertilized cell is a human being. When you come up with a scientific study from a reputable science publication that proves this, please post it here. When you are posting you opinion about when a human being first exists, please note it is you opinion and not based on science.

          10. Matt Noah

            Jon, you would not know what reputable science was it if came up behind you and bit you in the arse. Your denial of basic, basic biology is profound. Your minions are just as bad.

          11. Matt 7:38 Jon, you would not know what reputable science was it if came up behind you and bit you in the arse. Your denial of basic, basic biology is profound. Your minions are just as bad.

            I hope you feel better for having told me that, Matt. I’m always here for you.

          12. entech

            Jon @ 10:44 pm I do hope that you have inherited the backside from the tin man, all this science that Matt is throwing at you to bite you on the butt, perhaps backbiting is a better description.

            Matt seems to move away from Catholic thought in so many ways, especially when he talks about science, the modern Church has a very high standing in much of modern science – Father George Coyne (again); pity it lets itself down on dogmatic grounds by opposing much research that would be of great value to those of Gods creatures who are in existence and could use the results to preserve existing life. The whole process of creating a new human being is so hit and mass, from the number of sperm going for a swim when only one (and frequently not even one) reaching an egg, to the number of those that actually fertilise an egg, the perils for the next nine months from failure to implant to spontaneous abortion (sorry miscarriage). if one is fortunate enough to reach the end of this hazardous journey but has some genetic or other defect which could be corrected using stem cells or from stem cell research this is not to be permitted as it may affect the beginning of another cycle of potentiality.

    1. Roger 7:07 Welcome to the forum.

      The legislation that follows jailing of women who had abortions is law enforcement investigation of every miscarriage. Any pregnancy that ended outside a licensed medical person would require a visit from the local sheriff or PD. The visit would include a look at the woman’s computer to see if she had visited any websites that gave instructions on home abortions. Essentially, pregnant women would be on parole.

        1. entech

          I thought if I left it for a while someone local would point out that the song was written by Willy Nelson.
          I guess as Matt is so wrong about so many things nobody noticed. Of course it is not important just a slip in knowledge that wouldn’t matter if he wasn’t such an ass about abusing everybody except his good Lutheran buddy Henry, strange bedfellows 🙂

      1. Matt Noah

        By your logic EVERYONE is on parole and under investigation by police. You are a lunatic. Even before Roe v. Wade, woman who miscarried were not treated by the police in the manner you describe. The police were never involved. You have created a straw man in your imagination and want us all to join in your fantasy. By your logic, everyone who has a child of any age would “be on parole”.

  1. entech

    Once again Matt demonstrates his lying nature when he pretends to be loving and tolerant. A very intolerant and snide remark about knowing who the “father”, it is possible that the “Father” is well known, for his penchant for underage girls (or boys, probably both).

Comments are closed.