NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2009
- 117,063
- 13,888
I did not see where koshergrl called for the prosecution of the mother. Was that in another topic somewhere, or are you making an assumption?Prior to Roe v. Wade, women were not prosecuted for getting an abortion. Abortionists were.Exactly.Abortion is a 'safe procedure'- but like any medical procedure it can go wrong. And yes- legal abortions reduce abortion deaths, and yes, the medical providers who provide abortion services are legitimate health providers- your lies notwithstanding.
I am all for reducing abortion- even eliminating abortion by eliminating any demand for abortion.
So- what is your position on contraception to reduce abortion?
And what is the OP's solution to ending abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law.
Criminalizing women by denying them their rights and charging doctors with murder.
The same is true in Poland today.
So I would stop building straw men and putting words in koshergrl's mouth.
I was speaking about the net effect of KG's position on the Law of the Land, not her actual words.
Yes, it is easier to prosecute the providers than those who "willingly aided and abetted them". (Legal terminology only.)
But if KG's will did become the Law of the Land a lawyer is going to bring in a destitute mother with 3 children and no ability to support another to portray the provider as someone who was helping the poor and downtrodden and ask the jury if they are willing to try her as the accused's accomplice?
Hence what KG wants is never going to happen.
How can you not prosecute a woman for having an abortion if abortion is murder?
The two cannot be rationally reconciled.