Posted on 05/13/2022 8:15:50 AM PDT by Coronal
A bill in the Louisiana legislature aiming to charge women and their doctors with murder for obtaining or providing abortion services was withdrawn from consideration on Thursday amid outrage and a successful effort to amend it.
The measure by state Representative Danny McCormick would have would have abolished abortion in the state, granted constitutional rights to "all unborn children from the moment of fertilization" and classified abortion as a homicide crime.
The measure drew international attention and was criticized by people on both sides of the abortion debate.
It was removed from discussion by McCormick late Thursday after opponents amended it to say that women could not be charged with murder for seeking or obtaining an abortion and by inserting an exception to the state's abortion ban for the life of the mother, the state's legislative information website showed.
After the amendments, the measure was "returned to the calendar," the website showed. McCormick did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Why the withdrawal?
Abortion IS homicide and infanticide.
Abortion is MURDER again an innocents.
Cowards.
This has the feel of an Alinsky move. It could have been specifically designed to influence a judge to back down from tossing RVW.
Bear in mind that the original bill called for women who get abortions to be prosecuted for homicide. Do you really thank that’s a good idea? Wouldn’t that be likely to backfire badly?
I’d be okay with it.
Murder is murder.
Your questions are valid. It was a stupid move to charge murder. We don’t lock up gang banger murderers. It was a bridge too far that bolsters the lefts position.
Abortion is murder unless like self defense doing so saves the life of the mother.
Enough of this political hand-wringing at the expense of the lives of unborn infants.
Sometimes you’ve gotta say and do what you’ve gotta say and do and damn the naysayers and the “what-if” worry warts.
Sometimes doing the right thing outweighs whatever the “backfire” might be. This is one of those times, IMO.
Had it right the first time except:
-Should use the term "preborn" instead of "unborn".
-Should have a provision to allow abortion in order to protect the life of the mother.
Ok, its not homicide, but then neither does killing a pregnant woman count as more than one homicide. Can’t have it both ways.
The "amendment" that was successfully attached to it effectively gutted it. It would have served no purpose.
“Abortion IS homicide and infanticide.”
What punishment would you then want for a woman committing abortion? The death penalty?
Nope. I don’t believe in the death penalty. Jesus took all the punishments for our crimes 2000 years ago on the cross. The death penalty is unjust double jeopardy.
It should be conspiracy to commit murder with those that performed the abortion. A just penalty should be imposed that deters others. Maybe those who actually kill the baby should be held to a greater penalty than the woman who consented to the murder, even though that is not usually how conspiracy works - usually all get the the same penalty.
If its murder, its murder.
The same “conservatives” who will support prosecuting a drug using mom who’s kid is born with birth defects...run crying when people say moms to be who murder their unborn need to be prosecuted.
By that logic, there should be no penalties for any crimes at all. Jesus paid the penalty for those that accept it, yes, but he didn’t do away with allowing peopl,e to,suffer the ck sequences of their actions. If someone steals and gets caught, they lay or go to jail. If they murder, they go,to prison or die depending on the circumstances and what the state allows for consequences for committing crimes. Saying that the death penalty is done away with because christ covers all sins, is to throw justice put the door. If,you throw out a consequence such as death penalty claimingmthat christ already paid the price, then you must throw,out penalties for all crimes. That is not ehat is taught In The bible- my Bible c,early tells me that there are indeed consequences for all my actions, even though christ died for my sins.
“A just penalty should be imposed that deters others.”
And what would that be?
Not a backwards-looking punishment because that would be double jeopardy. But a forward-looking penalty that would deter like behavior from the perp and others in the future.
Forward-looking penalties are not double jeopardy because it would not be for the purpose of “paying” for the crime (backwards-looking punishment already taken care of by Jesus) but for the purpose of reasonably preventing future occurrences (forward-looking deterrent).
Society needs to protect its own, and that can be justly and rationally.
Dunno, but you'd be on the right track.
You see, that is the question that the pro-aborts use to put the pro-lifer on the spot.
If abortion is murder of the most innocent of lives, then, to be consistent, shouldn’t the penalty be death or life imprisonment, as it is for all other premeditated murder?
And if not why not? Aren’t you then being inconsistent?
I have never heard a good answer to that by pro-lifers.
What is your answer, what should the punishment be?
It,is peefexrly,justmto take,the life of a murderer if the evidence is clear znd the crime warrants it. Again, if you claim this one crime/ penalty is unjust, then all penalties for crimes are unjust’- you can’t pi k and choose .which ones aren’t. The law is based o objective, not subjective conclusions. The punishment needs to fit the crime. Eye for eye. There can be exceptions, but the death penalty is perfectly just and objective judgement
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.