UKC

Lord knows I don't understand US abortion politics, but can someone explain to me why Trump's comments that women who have illegal abortions ought to be punished is controversial? If it's an offence in the first place (and leaving aside the question of whether it should be), then presumably there ought to be some punishment for doing it, shouldn't there? Indeed I don't understand why there isn't already.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It depends whether the illegal act would be that of performing an abortion or that of seeking to have one performed.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Because punishing them serves no purpose? Because the law is not actually about punishment for its own sakes. It uses punishment for various reasons. What will those reasons achieve here?

For public safety - not an issue here
To prevent repeat offending - arguably not an issue?
To set an example for others - unlikely to work?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Bit surprised you aren't aware of the situation in El Salvador- thought you were an AI member ?

Anyway the consequences there of trying to punish women who have illegal abortions - up to 15 years in prison I believe - is that women who suffer miscarriages or still births get accused and frequently convicted of the offence. As such pregnant women are reluctant to seek medical help. Pretty terrible stuff, but it's based on the dogma that the life of an unborn child is more worthy than any woman, particularly one who is sexually active.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

More info

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/11/el-salvador-s-total-abortion...

In reply to Chris the Tall:

That's interesting. But is that really the concern that Republican pro-abortionists have? I wouldn't have thought the US is likely to prosecute people who have miscarriages even under Trump.

And the dogma you mention is the whole point of making abortion illegal at all, isn't it? Presumably all Republicans subscribe to it, or at least don't regard it as a resigning issue, since it's their party policy (isn't it?).

jcm

In reply to wintertree:

>Because punishing them serves no purpose?

Doesn't it? I mean, if you think abortion ought to be a crime in the first place, why is it any different from any other crime? Presumably the whole point of making it illegal is to deter and reduce it, and punishment is presumably part of what's supposed to achieve that. I don't really understand the notion of an illegal act that attracts no punishment.

jcm

In reply to john arran:

Yes, I see that, I suppose. What is the illegal act, I wonder?

It would be a rather beautiful illustration of the foolishness of the US position on this if the prime mover in this were not committing an offence but the accessory was. So that it was perfectly legal to have a go at yourself with a knitting needle and murder your unborn child (to drop into Republican thinking for a moment as best I can), but not OK to help someone else who was determined to do it to manage it in a safe way.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I wouldn't have thought any democratic government would do that, but such is the power of the anti abortion movement, so harsh the clampdown, that such unintended consequences are very possible. Not sure whether Trump has backed down on this rhetoric - who knows what he'll actually try and do should he get elected - but it's not exactly his most radical idea so far.

Of course there is a much better way to reduce abortion rates, if that was truely your aim. Better sex ed and making contraception freely available is far more effective, but that contradicts their religious views, so they do the opposite.


No such thing as party policy in the US, other than oppose the other side. Each presidential candidate pretty much writes their own manifesto- how much of it they can get implemented (usually very little) is another matter - all depends on how good they are at building ad-hoc cross party support, often nothing to do with ideology.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


It is slightly different because to the protagonists this isn't an issue of criminality. It is an act of immorality. I imagine the harsher punishments are reserved for those who carry out illegal abortions in the US rather than the women who I imagine are seen more as victims in the whole scenario.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I can only assume you're playing devil's advocate here. It'd be quite possible for one half of the transaction to be illegal but not the other as is relatively common with drug and sex crime.
jk

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Yeah it was a silly question but he was an idiot for falling for it.

He should have a tried and tested response... about punishing the Dr's if it was illegal, but its currently legal in most cases. They are trying to repeal Roe V Wade, Kasich is very open about that.

The standard response is even if it is illegal you don't punish the mother, within reason. Some are prosecuted for infanticide I think. It depends on how far through.

But he was very naive to be caught out by such a leading question.

A state has now made it illegal for an abortion to be carried out for a single medical reason, say downs syndrome, and I think sex. Indiana? It's still a massive issue which divides a party and the public. Pro-Choice V Pro-life. I always worry when we are at party's and this comes up as my wife is militant pro-choice and having worked in planned parenthood clinics has a lot of experience in this field.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Sex Ed in the US has been largely abstinence only as the standard method. That's about all that was taught. Obama has shifted that finally.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


I don't think that's true in general. If I'm not mistaken education curricula are fine-tuned by each state government - thus socially progressive states such as California/Washington have functional sex-ed, while abstinence only is an option in say rural Oklahoma. I haven't researched it now to verify, so worth checking to be sure.

In reply to SenzuBean:

http://www.peoplesworld.org/obama-administration-ends-bush-abstinence-only-...


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jul/20/george-bush...

I think it was that the federal government only funded abstinence only sex Ed programs. See the links above.

I was warned about teaching seniors about rape reporting, drunken consent.. As the students generally don't get taught about anything other than total abstinence from sex and drink..

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Your post title could be a little scary for any pregnant UKCers.

In reply to ByEek:

>It is slightly different because to the protagonists this isn't an issue of criminality. It is an act of immorality

I don't follow you. It's illegal in at least some places, no? That makes it criminality, doesn't it? I don't understand your point.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




I don't think it is. Not in the US. They have curbs, 20 weeks is typical, not outright bans.

In reply to jkarran:

Sure it would be possible. It just doesn't make much sense to me. Obviously if you believe abortion ought to be illegal you must also believe that the mother is in effect choosing to murder her unborn child. Presumably it also follows that there should be some sanction just as there is for infanticide.

As I said, it's pretty curious if a self-induced abortion is legal, but helping someone determined to do it is not. Of course that sort of thing doesn't bother the religious right, so maybe that is the position (or would be if abortion weren't a constitutional right).

Well, a glance at wikipedia seems to suggest that some states have passed legislation making abortion itself illegal, others the provision of abortion (dependent in every case on Roe -v- Wade being overturned).

Another thing I really don't understand is how exactly presidential candidates think they might be able to overturn Roe -v- Wade. What exactly does it matter what they think? (other than appointing judges with the appropriate views to the Supreme Court if they get a chance)

jcm

In reply to Roadrunner5:
Yes, you're right, of course. What was I thinking? Only the most famous case in the history of US jurisprudence.

My point stands though - if it is in the future made illegal as Trump would like, I don't understand the notion of making it illegal but not imposing any penalty.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Yeah, as I said it was a silly question and a silly answer. It really depends on how far through.. before 24 or so weeks and typically the Dr would be tried, after that I think both probably would.

Trump fell for a leading question.. The journalist was rubbing his hands with Glee when Trump said that. He really isn't that smart.

Also Kasich has said he will try to repeal Roe Vs Wade, which got less press than Trumps clumsy answer to a silly question.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Yeah, I knew Kasich was big on that. But how in hell is he going to try and do that? Or is he just dishonestly spouting off so voters know he's one of them, even though he knows he can't do anything.

Silly question, actually. Forget I said it.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

My personal view is that middle aged men should not get involved in arguments on how women manage their own bodies.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Yeah, but look at his record on hidden gag laws and rape counselors. He's far from the moderate he and the press make him out to be..

http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/dear-john-kasich-im-pro-life-does...

You can google for more..

He's no chance on that, I think he's posturing and knows he has no chance on that. At most it will be state by state, by limits, which is the conservative ideal. Federal judgements on such things are (well should be) against the conservatives values.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Again.. a lovely dislike..

Please explain what you dislike?

Is Kasich not Posturing?

Is Kasich a moderate?

Do you disagree Abortion will at most be a state issue?

Go on, have some spine..

In reply to Removed User:


That's the nub of it. I can understand disliking abortion and providing options, even some degree of education, but invasive scans and disturbing images are too much. It's also a vote killer. So let the GOP continue this desire to advocate for a minority government yet being able to tell women what to do...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/today-in-the-uk-a-woman-was-sentenced-f...

It does happen here. This was yesterday in NI.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


My understanding is that the SC could overturn Roe vs Ward - especially if the GOP gets to decide Scalia's replacement - but that they haven't had the opportunity to do so as yet. What they have done is uphold the state laws that have steadily eroded to right to choose by making it increasingly difficult for abortion clinics to function

Coming back to your original point - it's politics. As much as they despise the wanton hussies who've gotten themselves into trouble, there is a still a small vestige of compassion at their plight and vulnerability (and female votes to be lost). The medical staff make a much easier target.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


It makes sense to me if society views one party in an illegal transaction as also being a victim, either of the other party or of their circumstances.

None of this makes much sense to me in the case of abortion to my mind it's a medical matter not a religious or a political one and the American obsession with it I find as distasteful as it is baffling.

The argument makes more sense when applied to drugs. What good is served by criminalising the addict rather than treating their addiction? The dealer on the other hand can at least be portrayed as preying on the vulnerable.


They can say what they like at this stage in the game, it doesn't have to be deliverable and in the case of Trump, it apparently doesn't even need to be remotely credible!
jk

In reply to jkarran:

Much to the Republicans displeasure Obama has been releasing prisoners who only had drug convictions. 290 under him, compared to 3 under GWB.

They laugh at his weakness.. also the weakness of countries like Norway which have cushy prisons.. yet ignore the re-offending rate Norway Vs the USA...

In reply to Gills:


Appalling story, pretty disgusting that NI can ignore the ECHR

Good article - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/05/abortion-northern-irel...

In reply to Removed User:


C'mon, that's silly. For one thing, looking on life as a team game played between competing teams of men and women is seldom useful. For another, if you think that then it's presumably on the basis that you feel that that collection of cells in the womb is merely part of the woman's own body, in which case it's difficult to see what business old men, young men, other women or indeed anyone have debating it. I mean, what are you saying - that it's OK for Hillary to have a view on abortion law if she wins but not Trump if he wins?!

jcm

In reply to Gills:


Well, no, that's not 'it', in the sense of women being prosecuted for having miscarriages, which is what I was talking about after CTT's link suggesting that was happening in El Salvador.

None of this really goes to my question - if abortion is going to be illegal (a ludicrous idea in my view for all sorts of reasons, but put that on one side), how can it possibly make sense to make it illegal but impose no punishment on the woman who does it? In other words, what is Trump saying on this topic that's any different from what Kasich or Cruz or any other Republican politician says?

jcm

In reply to jkarran:

>It makes sense to me if society views one party in an illegal transaction as also being a victim, either of the other party or of their circumstances.

It's pretty strange to view a woman as a "victim" of pregnancy, but also as a murderer of the unborn child (lapsing into Republican-speak again for a moment). I'd have thought the main victim was the latter.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



I think he's probably saying that it's up to the individual themselves to decide on what's best?

In reply to Timmd:


I think having a view is fine.. after all many of us are or will be fathers. That's different from forcing through a view into law.

In reply to Timmd:


Well, sure, but the main question is whether abortion is or is not in effect infanticide. It's strange to suppose that that's a question for women only, or that if answered in the affirmative men shouldn't have a say in what the resulting legislation should be. You wouldn't hear that said about infanticide itself.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
It's not something I've given lot of thought to, but my immediate thought is there are needy children in need of foster homes or adoption who already exist, who are in need of care and love, and if a woman doesn't want to put her body through bearing a child and bringing one into the world and becomming a mother, for whatever reason, I think it's fair enough, and that people's time would be best spent fostering and adopting children and doing helpful things for the children who are already born, rather than picketing abortion clinics, though I dare say some already do. My brain is currently fried, so I'm sure there's holes in my reasoning, but I think that's what I think when I see the pickets outside the clinics. It might help stop some of the children from going to jail when they're older (with children who grow up in care being more likely to).

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Strange to consider someone a victim of pregnancy perhaps. As a victim of circumstance, it doesn't seem strange at all; consider perhaps the starkest scenario, pregnancy resulting from rape.

I see where you're trying to go with this but I really can't get into the mindset of conservative bible thumper. I suspect you're not doing much better. They're probably rather more nuanced and empathetic than our crude sterotypes.
jk

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Im not very good at the whole debate thing but this is the part of ur OP I was replying to. You say you don't understand why there isn't punishment for having abortion if it illegal. I was only trying, (badly obviously) to show that there is punishment for it and it's happening a lot closer to home than America.

I'll go back to being quiet now......

In reply to Timmd:


Well put. Every woman should have the right to choose. There are already too many very disadvantaged people in the world who have terrible lives and there is no justification to make people go through with an unwanted pregnancy. The more abortions the better.

In reply to I like climbing:

I probably wouldn't put it like that, I guess the children already here just strike me as less 'abstract'. Other opinions are valid though.

I don't mind if people don't agree.