The consequences of your beliefs.

The consequence of your belief is millions of dead babies!

The consequence of your belief is millions more unborn and orphaned babies as these law-abiding women and current or future mothers flood our jail cells.

We don't want the mothers jailed. We want abortionists jailed. The ones actually committing the murder. Mothers who have abortions are often pressured into it by society or relatives. Pro-life does not mean wanting to punish the mothers. It simply means wanting to protect the innocent children.

Let's kill babies because they might become an orphan or go to jail!

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that re-defining abortion as murder and, as a logical consequence, jailing millions of women and mothers will result in millions of orphaned children.

"re-defining abortion as murder" If I claim it is murderer, then I'm not re-defining it.

The law would only apply to those who committed MURDER after abortion is declared murder. So, your "logic" doesn't make any sense. Abortion is at the moment legal.

News flash: Abortion will still happen even if it's made illegal. It will instead take place under risky and unsafe conditions, and you'll still be prosecuting many otherwise law-abiding women and mothers and throwing them in jail.

More to the point: Regardless of the ex post facto law issue, you think these millions of women belong in jail already if abortion were already defined as murder, and that is insane.

Rape will still happen and it is made illegal. That, too , does not make sense. It will happen to those committing the crime of murder once abortion is declared to be murder. It will happen a whole lot less than it is happening now that is for sure! You are saying a few babies will be murdered by their mothers anyway and they could die in the process, so we should kill millios to prevent that. NOPE

I should be clear that I don't view abortion as a "necessary evil" or even a crime at all, akin to rape. Abortion is not murder, or indeed a killing of any sort, because personhood is defined at the moment of birth.

I debated this at length yesterday so rather than reprint all my arguments here, I'll just link. imgflip.com/i/3iy833#com3827919

"...because personhood is defined at the moment of birth."???

instead of citing your own opinions, please cite a source for this definition.

This issue transcends politics, imo, and even the law, but has to be decided through politics and the law. It should not be an easy thing to take a human life, or what will become a human life. Once you or your family loses a very young child, or an infant, I think it can change your thinking. I know it did for me. Nobody cares, but personally I am now against abortion, while politically I think it has to be allowed. The legal structure would follow.

An interesting take on this issue came from Carl Sagan, in of all publications, Parade magazine. Not sure of the year, but here are some quotes from what I believe to be a transcript of the article. My memory of the article is that he suggests the fetus becomes human once brain activity takes place.

http://2think.org/abortion.shtml

If we do not oppose abortion at some stage of pregnancy, is there not a danger of dismissing an entire category of human beings as unworthy of our protection and respect?

There is no right to life in any society on Earth today, nor has there been at any former time…

Those who assert a "right to life" are for (at most) not just any kind of life, but for--particularly and uniquely—human life. So they too, like pro-choicers, must decide what distinguishes a human being from other animals and when, during gestation, the uniquely human qualities--whatever they are--emerge.

But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy--near the beginning of the third trimester.

The woman's guarantee of privacy and the fetus's right to life must be weighed--and when the court did the weighing' priority was given to privacy in the first trimester and to life in the third.

Since, on average, fetal thinking occurs even later than fetal lung development, we find Roe v. Wade to be a good and prudent decision addressing a complex and difficult issue. With prohibitions on abortion in the last trimester--except in cases of grave medical necessity--it strikes a fair balance between the conflicting claims of freedom and life.

Well, gee. I don’t think I need to provide a source. You’ve cited Carl Sagan for the proposition that a fetus becomes human at the moment of first brain activity, but brain activity is just one issue at play here, and he is just one guy.

So I guess as a source for the “personhood is defined at birth” argument, I would cite the attitudes of the U.S. government itself, which provides you with all of the following essential things when you are born: 1. Recognition of your full legal name given by your parents; 2. Automatic birthright citizenship status; 3. A birth certificate; 4. A Social Security Number. All essential things to be a person in society.

Some jurisdictions ban abortion in the last trimester, but I don’t think that means those jurisdictions necessarily take the view that the fetus is already a person. I think it’s more accurate to say that those jurisdictions believe that the fetus at that point has a claim to life which overcomes the mother’s own wishes on the matter.

Wow, with some governmental changes I can see how you could accept slavery or genocide. "The government doesn't recognize you".

Nothing changes the fact that a fetus is human. You want to kill them, do your thing but don't sugarcoat it. You were a fetus, I was a fetus. Everyone was.

I think the U.S. government is a superior source on this matter than Carl Sagan because it represents the expressed will of the people and the cumulative effort of hundreds of legislative decisions and untold numbers of court cases. Carl Sagan is just one guy: a smart guy and a scientist at that, but he’s never held elected office or had to be responsible for real decisions that impact people and the tough compromises they entail.

I don’t buy that essentially repeating the U.S. government’s own approach to the personhood issue makes me a closet Nazi or slaver waiting to happen. You know I’m not a go along to get along kind of guy, and you’ve probably seen me rail harder against things like fascism and the Confederacy than almost anyone here.

You guys are the ones seeking radical change to our country’s laws around abortion; not me.

Ahhh, so you're cool with late term abortion. Cause an 8 month old baby is muh clump'o cells.

Not necessarily, as I stated in the comments on my other meme which I know you read.

For me, between fetal viability and birth, it's a gray area. But at the moment of birth, personhood certainly vests.

Abortion has developed into a way to control the population by death. It is also unfairly balanced leading to far more minority and low income babies being aborted. We have come a long way since Roe Vs. Wade in our many ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies. It is cruel and humane to continue the mass execution of tiny human beings that were created by no fault of their own, but by careless and selfish individuals. Slavery was and will forever be a mar on our history. And, it was once very legal. Abortion will be soon be seen more barbaric than that! We have to evolve to become better human beings. Women may have the right to do it legally, but the truly brave and just women would choose not to, unless for the most extreme reasons that threatened her life.

inhumane