Reproductive policy group asks anti-abortion protesters: jail-time for abortions?
Tue, 2007-07-31 11:56
#1
Reproductive policy group asks anti-abortion protesters: jail-time for abortions?
Tue, 2007-07-31 11:56
#2
Newsweek columnist Anna Quindlen has a [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010696/site/newsweek/]fascinating column[/url] this week about a reproductive public policy group that brought the following question to anti-abortion protesters: if abortion was made illegal, how much jail time should women who have abortions serve?
quote:
Buried among prairie dogs and amateur animation shorts on YouTube is a curious little mini-documentary shot in front of an abortion clinic in Libertyville, Ill. The man behind the camera is asking demonstrators who want abortion criminalized what the penalty should be for a woman who has one nonetheless. You have rarely seen people look more gobsmacked. It's as though the guy has asked them to solve quadratic equations. Here are a range of responses: "I've never really thought about it." "I don't have an answer for that." "I don't know." "Just pray for them."You have to hand it to the questioner; he struggles manfully. "Usually when things are illegal there's a penalty attached," he explains patiently. But he can't get a single person to be decisive about the crux of a matter they have been approaching with absolute certainty.
A new public-policy group called the National Institute for Reproductive Health wants to take this contradiction and make it the centerpiece of a national conversation, along with a slogan that stops people in their tracks: how much time should she do?
YouTube clip can be seen [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo]here[/url]
[ 01 August 2007: Message edited by: M.Gregus ]
Tue, 2007-07-31 12:08
#3
Sven
If determining the amount of jail time a woman who gets an abortion should get becomes “the centerpiece of a national conversation”, that question could legitimize the position that abortion should be criminalized in the first place. The question of jail time is only relevant to discuss if the conduct in question merits [i]any[/i] jail time. Pro-choice advocates who would be asking that question would, of course, be doing so rhetorically. But, that kind of nuance would be lost on way too many people who would take the question seriously and literally.
Tue, 2007-07-31 12:08
#4
Ooh. I'm totally on board with that. Love the idea.
Tue, 2007-07-31 12:21
#5
They'd be even more gobsmacked if they were asked how much of their tax dollars they want to contribute to mothers who can't afford to raise another kid never mind the ones they do have and are living anywhere below the poverty line.
Tue, 2007-07-31 12:42
#6
In Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua they've settled on a sentence of up to six years in prison.
Tue, 2007-07-31 13:27
#7
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Free_Radical:
[b]In Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua they've settled on a sentence of up to six years in prison.[/b]
Are you kidding???
Tue, 2007-07-31 13:38
#8
No
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Nicaragua]http://en.wikipedia.o...
quote:
The law prior to November 2006 held that anyone who performed an abortion upon a woman without her permission would be subject to a prison term of three to six years. If the woman consented, both she and the person who performed the abortion faced a sentence of one to four years, and if she attempted a self-induced abortion, the term of imprisonment was one to two years. A person who performed, or attempted to perform, an abortion, and, as a result, caused injury to the pregnant woman would be jailed for four to 10 years, or six to 10 years if it caused her death. [2]In October 2006, right before the general elections on 5 November 2006, the National Assembly passed a bill further restricting abortion 52-0 (9 abstaining, 29 absent). The European Union and the United Nations had urged for the vote to be delayed until after the presidential elections. The new law outlawed abortion in all circumstances, making Nicaragua the fifth country in the world to do so, after Chile, El Salvador, Malta, and Vatican City. The Assembly rejected a proposal which would have increased the penalty for performing an illegal abortion to 10 to 30 years in prison. President Enrique Bolaсos supported this measure, but signed the bill into law on 17 November 2006. Pro-choice groups in Nicaragua have criticized the change to the country's abortion law, and one, the Women's Autonomous Movement, were prepared to file an injunction to prevent it from being enacted.
Tue, 2007-07-31 13:52
#9
quote:
Originally posted by Free_Radical:
[b]In Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua they've settled on a sentence of up to six years in prison.[/b]
It's six to 12 years in El Salvador, one of several thirdworld capitalist shitholes where children rummage through landfill sites strewn with medical waste and human excrement for trinkets to sell for food.
Meanwhile, Cuban children are in school all day where they belong. And Cuba now donates literacy workers and aid teams to Nicaragua to help that country's poor catch up since the failed neo-Liberal reform ideology of the 1990's.
Tue, 2007-07-31 17:28
#10
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]If determining the amount of jail time a woman who gets an abortion should get becomes “the centerpiece of a national conversation”, that question could legitimize the position that abortion should be criminalized in the first place. The question of jail time is only relevant to discuss if the conduct in question merits [i]any[/i] jail time. Pro-choice advocates who would be asking that question would, of course, be doing so rhetorically. But, that kind of nuance would be lost on way too many people who would take the question seriously and literally.[/b]
I agree completely and would not be supportive of any dialogue based upon those lines, not even for a moment.
Tue, 2007-07-31 19:36
#11
Not that difficult a question. The way things used to be done in the olden days is they would use the women who had illegal abortions to secure testimony against the abortion doctors.
Given that so many here ought to be familiar with their history, I'm surprised that they would be at a loss to answer this rather simple question. If the policy were to change, it seems relatively obvious that women would not be charged for abortions, but the doctors who perform them would be charged.
Or I guess if abortion was illegal, all the women would shove a coathanger up themselves, so no doctors could be implicated.
Tue, 2007-07-31 19:38
#12
good one Lena.Coat hangers for sale.50 cents each.LOL.
Tue, 2007-07-31 20:20
#13
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Tory_canuck:
[b]good one Lena.Coat hangers for sale.50 cents each.LOL.[/b]
That is not mildly fucking funny!!!
Wed, 2007-08-01 04:41
#14
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tory_canuck:
good one Lena.Coat hangers for sale.50 cents each.LOL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------That is not mildly fucking funny!!!
Are you kidding me? This is NOT tolerated in this forum, or anywhere on babble.
Wed, 2007-08-01 05:22
#15
never mind.
[ 01 August 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Wed, 2007-08-01 05:35
#16
To return to the topic at hand, initially the approach taken by this group struck me as a potentially useful rhetorical device to encourage (those against abortion) to think through the tangible implications for the women they're targeting. Assuming of course that this is a consideration that hasn't been made. The question certainly seemed to jolt some of the people featured in the mini-doc. But holy crap, if the end result is taking seriously jail-time for women then it may not be the most productive "national conversation" to have.
Wed, 2007-08-01 06:04
#17
To say the least. Of course, if it were a part of a national conversation, then vasectomies and masturbation would and should be thrown in for debate as well, just for good measure. Every time sperm is wasted, a baby dies (according to the far right nuts).
Wed, 2007-08-01 06:22
#18
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Every time sperm is wasted, a baby dies (according to the far right nuts).[/b]
Admittedly off-topic, but could you please source this for me? I've heard it and read it before, but I'd like to get it "from the horse's mouth". Thanks!
Wed, 2007-08-01 06:53
#19
Well, I think that's probably our impression from the joking "Every sperm is sacred" song we all know an love. I don't think that they think sperm on its own is a baby and that dispensing with sperm is dispensing with a baby.
It's more of a belief in sex being only used for procreation purposes, and that therefore any kind of sex not used for those purposes is a mortal sin. Which, of course, those of us who think that's total bullshit have taken to its furthest conclusion in saying that "every sperm is sacred". Basically, it's a joke, hyperbole based on very real religious prudery.
But you knew that, didn't you?
Wed, 2007-08-01 06:58
#20
remind
quote:
Originally posted by M.Gregus:
[b] Assuming of course that this is a consideration that hasn't been made. The question certainly seemed to jolt some of the people featured in the mini-doc. But holy crap, if the end result is taking seriously jail-time for women then it may not be the most productive "national conversation" to have.[/b]
Of course the consideration has been made. I have heard and read of such considerations of premeditated murder, or infantcide, including retroactive charging by allowing access to medical record history for such a purpose. One just needs to google it and you will find about half a million results.
Wed, 2007-08-01 07:36
#21
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Of course the consideration has been made. I have heard and read of such considerations of premeditated murder, or infantcide, including retroactive charging by allowing access to medical record history for such a purpose. One just needs to google it and you will find about half a million results.[/b]
It certainly looks that way in the arguments made on the anti-abortion side, and most definitely in the case of pro-choice who recognize this consideration as part of what's at stake for women. That's why the answers given by anti-abortion protesters in this video clip are such a surprise, suggesting that at least some people are not making the connection. I guess the partial argument there is, if these people do consider some of the harder consequences of their stance, such as jail for women who have had abortions, there is a minor possibility that they will re-consider it. Or at least engage in a further struggle about it.
Wed, 2007-08-01 08:24
#22
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]
Of course the consideration has been made. I have heard and read of such considerations of premeditated murder, or infantcide, including retroactive charging by allowing access to medical record history for such a purpose. One just needs to google it and you will find about half a million results.[/b]
This whole thread seems based on a level of debate which exists in medieval countries like the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. I honestly can't see what purpose is served even mentioning it in Canada, other than as a museum curiosity about how barbaric certain regions of the world can be. If there is any Canadian forum or organization promoting such barbaric views, does anyone have a link?
Wed, 2007-08-01 10:29
#23
I suspect some of our 'friends' from the dark side support putting women in jail but I'm not going there. I already showered thanks.
Wed, 2007-08-01 10:54
#24
remind
unionist, in Canada they are more nuanced about it in public, as they understand advocating for women to be charged with murder or infanticide, would definitely put a damper on their anti-choice campaign. They keep it in terms of giving a fetus human rights from conception forward which means that if anything happens to it of the course the persons would be charged.
Hbut here is a link where other links and comments flow from.
[url=http://bluewavecanada.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_archive.html]http://bluewa...
Wed, 2007-08-01 11:09
#25
remind, I agree with you about the dangers of the anti-choice movement, but I think it is also ill-advised to portray it in an unsubtle fashion (such as "Jail those who have abortions" - a position I have honestly never even heard of before this thread opened and I doubt anyone even whispers such horrors in our country).
By painting a caricature as if it is real, we risk missing the real dangers: those who want to use administrative and funding decisions of provinces or hospitals to make abortions [i]de facto[/i] unavailable; those (like Elizabeth May, unless she has changed her position another 75 times in the past couple months) who want mandatory pre-abortaion "counselling"; those (like Margaret Somerville) who present slimy homophobic and misogynistic theories under the guise of "medical ethics" and "concern for children"; and so on.
IMHO, this is where the battleground is in this country. To shift the debate onto a U.S. plane is dangerous.
That's why I was so completely opposed to participating in the CBC Facebook fraud. Regardless of the outcome, it was no-win for the pro-choice forces - even if we had won 2 or 3 to 1 - because the very fact of so many people getting involved created the illusion that [b]this was a legitimate unresolved question facing Canadians[/b]. The only correct response IMO was: "This debate is over in Canada, and has been for 15 years. Now let's talk about strengthening the rights of women and the universality of health services."
Wed, 2007-08-01 11:22
#26
Religious anti-choicers DO want to see abortion become illegal in Canada, and they DO call it "murder" because they believe that fetuses are "babies".
So it stands to reason that when you see them protesting and claiming that abortion is murder and that it should be illegal, that when something is made illegal, especially something as bad as "murder", that there is some penalty attached to it.
I don't think there's anything wrong with asking anti-choicers in Canada to define not only the nature of the "crime" if abortion becomes illegal, but what penalty a woman should pay for "murdering" her "baby".
Wed, 2007-08-01 11:29
#27
remind
Well, all I can say unionist is that I have heard it, and very much louder than a whisper.
The pro-choice are not moving this onto a USian framework dialogue, it is the religious right, who are being funded by Focus on the Family and other such Usian anti-choice networks. I guess you need to hang out around the evangelicals and Catholics to hear it.
I agree with your point below, as any dialogue gives the appearance it is still open for debate when it is not.
quote:
"This debate is over in Canada, and has been for 15 years. Now let's talk about strengthening the rights of women and the universality of health services."
Asking anti-choicers what type of punishments should a woman have "if abortion becomes illegal" is a double edged sword, and serves no useful purpose. In fact, quite the opposite.
Wed, 2007-08-01 12:39
#28
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Asking anti-choicers what type of punishments should a woman have "if abortion becomes illegal" is a double edged sword, and serves no useful purpose. In fact, quite the opposite.[/b]
I worry then, what direction discussion will take if this policy group succeeds in making its question national, both in the U.S. and in Canada due to spill-over effects. The campaign (if you want to call it that) by way of their video clip is making the rounds on several feminist media blogs. One site I saw it on today was Shameless, a progressive magazine for girls and young women in Canada.
I do take Michelle's point that for those protesting abortion, it is as seen de facto as something that should be illegal, which comes with a penalty attached. Asking about that penalty is in effect asking them to take account of their ugly position on the women whose actions they're protesting. I'm left unsure though, after what's been said here, whether it's possible to raise that question without validating the reopening of a debate that is ostensibly over in Canada.
Wed, 2007-08-01 12:50
#29
I return to the CBC Facebook fiasco.
Whose interest is served by any discussion as to whether abortion should be re-criminalized?
Would we get involved in a debate that asked: "If capital punishment is restored, what crimes should merit it? What forms of execution should be used?"
The diversionary aspect of this seems so clear. If someone is spreading this crap in Canada, why not just mobilize people to tell them to shut the fuck up, but meanwhile raise positive issues about how to push the movement further?
Wed, 2007-08-01 13:59
#30
Pogo
I agree and well said. I think the "what should be the punishment" tact is useful only as comedy clips material not as a debating tool.
Wed, 2007-08-01 14:19
#31
remind
Comedy clips? WTF?
Wed, 2007-08-01 14:21
#32
remind
Actually, I am not one who likes to quibble about thread titles, but really this thread title sucks and is not indicative of the topic at all, and makes it seem like jail times are being discussed even.
Wed, 2007-08-01 14:48
#33
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Would we get involved in a debate that asked: "If capital punishment is restored, what crimes should merit it? What forms of execution should be used?"[/b]
Or, "What should be the penalty for sodomy, a fine, jail time, or both?"
Wed, 2007-08-01 14:53
#34
Sven
Bottom Line: I think the scant benefits of posing this rhetorical question are vastly outweighed by the danger of appearing to accede that the legality of abortion is even something subject to debate.
Wed, 2007-08-01 14:59
#35
Pogo
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Comedy clips? WTF?[/b]
I was just thinking about the original post that noted that it was funny watching the protesters stumble over the question.
Wed, 2007-08-01 16:28
#36
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Actually, I am not one who likes to quibble about thread titles, but really this thread title sucks and is not indicative of the topic at all, and makes it seem like jail times are being discussed even.[/b]
I worried about that after posting the thread title hastily, and agree with you that it was inappropriately named. It wasn't my intent to create an offensive title and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I'm changing it to be better descriptive of the topic so that the thread makes sense.
Wed, 2007-08-01 16:58
#37
remind
Thanks MGregus, I had just realized it wasn't descriptive after seeing it on TAT a couple of times.
---------------------------------------
Pogo, I do not believe they stumbled so much from their not thinking of jail terms prior, but from lack of scripted replies to that. As they fully realize if they start discussing jail terms for women, especially retroactive ones, their support would drop dramatically.
People are naive, if they believe anti-choice peoples have not formulated what they want women charged with who have had an abortion.
----------------------------------
Sven, I agree there are scant, if no benefits, to posing such a rhetorical question. The subject is not up for debate, period.