No Pro-Life American Advocates Punishment for Abortion


March 30, 2016
CONTACT: Ryan Hughes
Shirley & Banister Public Affairs

Those Who Choose Abortion Can Consider Paths to Healing, Not Punishment

Washington, D.C. – Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, who just last night confirmed that he had “evolved” on the issue of abortion and is now pro-life, managed to upset both pro-lifers and abortion supporters with his comments that women who have abortions should face “some form of punishment” if abortion were to be banned in the United States.

“Mr. Trump’s comment today is completely out of touch with the pro-life movement and even more with women who have chosen such a sad thing as abortion,” said Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund. “Being pro-life means wanting what is best for the mother and the baby. Women who choose abortion often do so in desperation and then deeply regret such a decision. No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion. This is against the very nature of what we are about. We invite a woman who has gone down this route to consider paths to healing, not punishment.”

The March for Life in Washington, D.C., began as a small demonstration on January 22, 1974, the first anniversary of the now-infamous Supreme Court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton and rapidly grew to be the largest pro-life event in the world.  The peaceful demonstration that has followed on this somber anniversary every year since is a witness to the truth concerning the greatest human rights violation of our time, abortion.

Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life Education & Defense Fund is available for commentary. For more information, please contact Ryan Hughes at or (703) 739-5920.


  • Kc Caldwell

    Either the fetus is a human life or it isn’t.

    You cannot run around with signs proclaiming that “Abortion is murder,” “Abortion is America’s Holocaust,” yelling at women outside abortion clinics “don’t kill your baby” and then say we can’t punish a woman for having an abortion.

    If a woman was to kill a baby 12 weeks after it was born, I am sure you would want that death investigated as a potential homicide. According to the pro-life position, a 12 week old fetus is a human being. It seems morally inconsistent to claim that the death of that 12 week old fetus doesn’t need to be treated as a homicide in the same manner you would treat the death of a human born 12 weeks earlier.

    • Eagle_Eyed

      Both the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” lobbies are feminist-leaning and heavily female-dominated, thus are devoid of logic and consistent moral reasoning. Although I would classify myself as philosophically pro-life, the movement that such a position has spawned is useless and counterproductive toward the goal of reducing/eliminating abortion.

      If Roe v Wade were overturned and abortion criminalized in all 50 states, what would the broads at March for life do?

  • John

    The masks just keep falling. They were fake all along. Anyone recall March for Life asking a GOP Pres and GOP congress in 2005 to stop funding Planned Parenthood?? Me either. Controlled opposition.

  • Mary Pallotrix

    Hypocrites and liars the whole lot of you. If abortion is murder, the woman is RESPONSIBLE for murder. END OF SENTENCE. FULL STOP.

    • Kenny

      Hypocrites and liars the whole lot of you. You cannot claim to be pro-life and anti food stamps and anti affordable care act. You cannot claim to be pro-life and pro-guns and pro-death penalty. And definitely cannot be pro-life and turn your backs on poor suffering Muslim children in Syria trying to find safety and refuge in our country. You’re a lying conniving hypocrite!

      • Contritus

        If you haven’t bothered to learn, before attaining physical maturity enough to afford internet access or at least attaining typing skills, the difference between murder (like the murder of a child in the womb simply because its temporary residence is inconvenient or its inception disagreeable) and killing (including capital punishment by the state),

        nor attained reason enough to see the bad line of reasoning in telling someone to drop their concern for one issue and instead engage in digging wells because the two are speciously linked in your own thoughts – then you epitomize George Will’s maxim:

        “Today, for some reason indignation is the default position of certain people in civic
        discourse. They go from a standing start to fury in about 30 seconds. I
        think it has something to do with the internet… it erased the barriers
        of entry to public discourse — that’s a good thing. Unfortunately, the
        downside is that, among the
        barriers of entry that have been reduced, is you don’t have to be able
        to read, write, or think. You can just come in and shout and call names
        and carry on.”

        • Kenny

          Contrary to what you have been led to believe abortions are legal in the United States of America. The first amendment does not give right-wing conservative Christians the right to legislate vaginas, marriages or what consenting adults can or cannot do in their bedrooms.

          • Jonathan Daniel Grandt

            You’re outta your damn mind.

          • Kenny

            Abortions are legal in the United States of America. The United States Constitution does not give right-wing conservative Christians the right to legislate women’s vaginas, marriages and what consenting adults do in their bedrooms. You’re absolutely nuts!

        • Gerald K Ford

          I think people always get mad fast but correct the Internet social media created by people for people not the Internet has made it look worse. the Internet just series electronic signals connected to a zillion other devises that connect in a web or net like fashion. People haven’t changed the technology has I bet people seemed nicer before cars or before textile
          Mills or heck I bet the nicest folks where ones who didn’t know how to start a fire with sticks or flint and tinder and lived in caves. I’m sure they where the nicest people. Maybe people where mean then Jesus rose from the grave and everyone became nice and the dam internet made everyone mean again…

          Abortion is sad and it obviously a lot people get hurt physically or emotionally and I suggest compassion is needed a d understanding the laws are made to protect the individual it kinda hard to think of abortion as seperate from the human who has a fertilized egg.
          It’s a grey area where the laws of human are lacking in this area and perhaps we should side with the human who has a feel used egg inside them as far as legislation here since its kind a draw ….

          Name calling and anger been around since I don’t know when’s once maybe that snake told eve to eat The fruit. I always wondered why the words thoughts of humans hurt but they do and are powerful that has not changed.

          I think personally abortion is a bad choice. I think it’s a hard descion as well too, and it hard for humans to understand why. I wish any person the best going thru it and I hope others can including my self show compassion for a human or family going thru that journey…

        • Sean

          The only difference between a killing and a murder is legality. Capital punishment and abortion are both legal killings (and that is without the secondary debate on if a fetus is actually a person).

          So maybe you need to learn and understand the definition of the terms you are using before lecturing others.

  • renatastar

    Well, Trump’s position is the obvious outcome of your “pro-life” views. If the “pro-fetus” movement supported women and their children, they wouldn’t feel the need to have the procedure. Millions of living, breathing children are living in abject poverty throughout the country while groups like yours spend piles of money in propaganda. You are all hypocrites, the entire lot. You don’t care about women and their children while supporting equally morally bankrupted politicians cutting food stamps, medicaid, school funding, refusing to help struggling families put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. Being pro-life means from conception to death. Unfortunately, you don’t care after the fetus is born.

    • Eagle_Eyed

      Yes, no doubt your sympathy toward poor women and children is such that you donate countless hours and dollars to remedying their plight. If you donate anything at all, it’s likely to PP or pro-abortion groups.

      Many women who get abortions are poor, scared, pressured, etc.–although many are not and get them out of convenience. Either way, no sane moral philosophy can excuse their behavior. They murdered their own child. As punishment they should lose their fertility, so that the potential for future abortion is zero.

      • Sean

        Not trying to start an argument, but the moral philosophy generally employed for pro-abortion is “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Thompson. Would provide a link, but links are generally banned on these forums or take forever to review.

        I recommend giving it a read.

        • Dr. Judith Thomson clearly never lived on a farm or had any contact with where food comes from, to be so stupid as to not realize that an acorn is the same species as an oak tree.

          • Sean

            If you actually read her work (or my short blurb I posted) she says at the very beginning that a fetus has the right to life. Never does she say that an unborn child is not a human.

            In the thought experiment the violinist has a right to life. However, she argues that the violinist does not have the right to use the woman’s body. By “unplugging” him the woman is depriving him the use of her body, which is distinct and different than depriving him of his right to life.

            In the thought experiment do you think it is OK or not OK for the woman to unplug the violinist?

          • I would not unplug the violinist, and would consider it the highest honor to be used in such a way.

            But yes, I realize these modernist people do not understand the meaning of the word sacrifice- or why such an act would be sacred and heroic. That is why I say that the modern intellectual is a worse human being than the average person in the dark ages.

          • Sean

            And if someone else chose to unplug the violinist you would consider it murder?

            Not sure what honor or sacrifice has to do with a debate about abortion. We are discussing if this is murder or not.

          • Yes, I would.

            And I understand why you can’t figure out what honor and sacrifice has to do with a debate about abortion. We’ve cheated 3 generations of Americans out of understanding the duties and responsibilities of parenthood, and created all sorts of methods to avoid it instead. Abortion is just one of many ways in which the United States has abandoned its duty to the next generation.

          • Sean

            I know very few people who are willing to be honorable or sacrifice for anyone but themselves. This is unfortunate, but is true across race, religion, and economic status. And is shown by the 3/10 women who get an abortion even though the majority of these women find abortion to be morally wrong and feel guilty about their decision.

            Ultimately those are the values that America is built on and has come to exemplify – individualism, capitalism, pragmatism, self-reliance, and survival of the fittest.

            But my point was that even if carrying a child to term is an act of sacrifice or honor that doesn’t mean we have the right to force people to do it. Just like we do not force people to fight in our armies like many countries do.

            If you think abortion is murder that is a whole other argument and a worthwhile one. But don’t try to talk about honor and sacrifice and think it has any bearing on the abortion debate.

          • We used to have the draft. We were a stronger people then.

            Survival of the fittest? not bloodly likely. Survival of the weak willed perhaps. I can’t call most Americans fit anymore.

          • Gerald K Ford

            When did forcing people to die in a war show strength?

            We where stronger due to less technology which has made life easier thus people are weaker and less people to do things for you. it just a fact of emerging race of humans will have to deal with , and why would any one send there son or daughter to war but oh it’s not ok to get a abortion?

            I ask if we draft people to fight isn’t that unconstintiional not strength nothing personal just trying to follow your logic

            What does your statement have to do with abortion trying to understand and apologize nothing personnel just trying to understand…

          • Maybe when we had to go through those struggles, we were more willing to sacrifice for the next generation?

          • Gerald K Ford

            Thanks for response I understand it better now. Wouldn’t the same logic apply to today the struggles we go thru with and advanced technology so future generations could benefit from the issues we have wouldn’t make sense that we are sacrificing by eating worse food breathing worse air and hopefully the sacrifice we make future generations can adapt social practices th benefit the planet? And that the we want it with out violence and death?

          • We are the most overfed, laziest generation ever. We could easily solve our environmental issues by stopping the use of fossil fuel technology, and returning to an agarian lifestyle, but we do not.

          • Gerald K Ford

            Thanks for response I agree with you we need to change and it getting bad. I would think that each generation got lazier.
            Also the previous generation created ,oil refineries, pharmaceuticals, necluear fuel pesticides and the atom bomb all the technological break thrus that allowed the current generation to live this way. We are all I this together her past present future no matter race or creed. I suggest that we work towards goals of peace harmony and growth…

          • pepjrp

            Buzz off Obama.

          • pepjrp

            That’s good as we understand that you are a total wuss and loser. Probably a pedophile too.

          • Interesting- I just ran across this same argument in a commentary on the Supreme Court and the Texas law improving safety in abortion clinics. It does indeed claim that out of 70,000 abortions in 2014, only 200 resulted in deaths. A Supreme Court justice actually suggested that those 200 lives are not worth saving.

            If only one woman commits suicide over the guilt of abortion, that’s too much. If only one woman is killed as a result of this procedure, that’s too much. We should concentrate on preserving life, not killing people that society determines to be non-persons.


          • Sean

            My figures were from the CDC, who I trust more than a random biased blog…


            “In 2010, the most recent year for which data were available, 10 women were identified to have died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortions.”

          • 2010 is their most recent year available? Texas State has newer numbers than that.

          • Sean

            Where are these numbers then? Again I am sorry if I don’t trust some blog some guy posted with no references or links to sources.

            Looking at the Texas Department of State Health Services website the latest numbers for abortions are from 2013. They report zero deaths from induced abortions.


            Survived 61,226

            Did Not Survive 0

            Not Stated** 686

            **Includes induced terminations of pregnancy performed outside of Texas among Texas residents.”

            Zero deaths are also reported for 2012, 2011, and 2010.

            Also in 2013 they only report 30 complications due to these 61,000 pregnancies.


          • The 2014 and 2015 numbers from Texas are from the Supreme Court Testimony in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which was argued before the Supreme Court in February- and show a MUCH higher death toll than the CDC numbers. Maybe the CDC numbers were faked for political purposes, like the Department of Labor does with unemployment numbers?

          • Sean

            So I re-read the article you posted.

            It says this random guy heard that there were 200 BOTCHED ABORTIONS (not deaths). A botched abortion can mean many different things depending on the context. Anything from a minor infection, permanent damage to the baby or mother, unable to complete the abortion, sterilization (occurs in 3 – 5% of abortions), etc.

            So no there were not 200 deaths – sorry to rain on your conspiracy theories about the CDC lying to us. If you can’t trust the information from a reputable government agency dedicated to protecting your health and safety by collecting data then I ask again – provide me the data proving your case.

            If you disagree with something and then you cannot provide evidence to back up your claims then I don’t know what to say… you haven’t posted a single article or study to prove any of your statistics.

          • Sean

            This doesn’t prove anything you have asserted.

            Yes, post-abortive women have higher rates of suicide. And over 50% of women feel guilty about their choice to abort their baby. There is a compelling link between increased rates of suicide and abortion.

            Having said that the suicide rate in America is only around 12 : 100,000. Your article lists multiple competing statistics – post abortion suicide rates are 6x (600%) higher, 154% higher, or 3x higher.

            Even if we use the largest figure of 6x the death rate is at 72 : 100,000 (0.2 : 300) + deaths from US abortions themselves at 1 : 100,000 (0.003 : 300) as indicated from the evidence in my other post.

          • Was Karnamaya Mongar one of those 10?

          • Sean

            Pretty tired of the Gosnell case being brought up during every abortion discussion.

            Gosnell violated every law, safeguard, and statue in the book. He operated clinics that did not meet basic standards, used untrained staff, and had multiple complaints against him for years. You can blame the state government and medical association for allowing him to continue to operate.

            Is this really the only defense or story people have to cling to? Yes there are terrible people in the world who do unspeakable and illegal things. Am I supposed to be surprised or alarmed?

          • And yet the State Government licensed him. How many other Gosnells are out there? Probably a ton, because the pro-choice side won’t even allow clinics to be inspected. Any law like the Texas case, they cover up the murders in an attempt to avoid it, just like it’s clear that the CDC numbers have been faked.

            But of course, the genocidal maniacs never want anybody to know the truth: that when you take into account suicides and the utter lack of after-abortion care, 1:300 women will end up dead after an abortion. It’s all just a big coverup in an attempt to pretend that abortion is safe when it really isn’t.

          • Sean

            There are plenty of medical professionals that do terrible and illegal things. Such as the nurses who intentionally kill their patients against their will, elderly abuse in nursing homes, performing unsafe procedures, etc. That is why we have a medical licensing process and ways to find and punish these individuals. If you think this is limited to abortion providers then you are only deluding yourself.

            All abortion clinics are inspected like any other medical facility (including Gosnell’s clinic which was found to not meet standards multiple times). They have some of the strictest standards of any facility, approaching hospital levels with new laws such as those in Texas.

            Murders are not being covered up.. numbers are not being faked. Again please provide any evidence of this. You can’t.. because there isn’t any. These are wild conspiracy theorist allegations.

            Abortion is safe compared to almost all other medical procedures. You haven’t provided any evidence or statistics to prove any of your claims.

      • Sean

        Here is the thought experiment I mentioned.

        “You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

        Thomson takes it that you may now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: the right to life, Thomson says, does not include the right to use another person’s body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right.”

      • renatastar

        As a matter of fact, I do work a lot helping poor families. A LOT. I have put children who are not my own through school and college. I have tutored and mentored children and adults. I have worked in reservations, in the inner city and rural communities. I have lobbied politicians, written letters. I have been doing everything I can. What have you been doing besides sitting pretty while passing judgement on the poor? God bless your heart.

    • Freethinker02

      Millions of elderly people live in abject poverty, too.

      Shall we legalize terminated unwanted, unproductive old people in order to reduce their numbers and make society a better place? Not to mention the reduced burden on old peoples’ children.

      You see, renatastar, bad things happening in a fallible society after a child is born is NEVER justification for killing an innocent human being.

      • renatastar

        When you don’t have a leg to stand on, you change the subject, Typical.

  • KSGirl1

    I have set up a not for profit to help women and their babies. we are in need of funding and donations would be appreciated. Put your action into works:
    go to!contact/cln9

  • IntelliWriter

    If you encouraged laws making women endure waiting periods, ultrasounds, clinic closures, false scripts on breast cancer, etc. etc., then you have already endorsed plenty of punishment for women. This statement is as phony as they come.

    • except of course, such things are not false, and are attempting to prevent women from being wounded by the abortionist, who is only in it for money.

      • IntelliWriter

        You’ll be hard-pressed to find any “reputable” doctors to back that up. And by that I mean doctors without an anti-choice agenda.

        • I do not consider pro-choice doctors to be reputable. They are genocidal maniacs who practice fraud and have zero respect for human life. They are as close to being doctors as any executioner.

          • IntelliWriter

            They have “zero respect for human life,” except for maybe women—which I suspect you don’t actually consider full human beings with agency and autonomy.

          • 1:300 women going in for an abortion die. That number has been steady since we started using antibiotics on a regular basis, and has not changed because of legality. It is a dangerous and unnecessary attack on women, thus my “zero respect for human life” stands.

            We don’t let people have full agency and autonomy in anything else, in fact, the universe doesn’t (go try to eat a radio wave if you doubt me). So why demand it in this?

          • Sean

            Your figures are incorrect. I can understand and respect that you are against abortion, but don’t go around spewing mis-information.

            Legal abortions undertaken by a medical professional in the US are very safe – much safer then surgery.

            From the CDC – “In 2010, the most recent year for which data were available, 10 women were identified to have died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortions.”

            There were 765k abortions in 2010 so the death rate is nearly 1 : 100,000.

            There were only 2 deaths related to legal abortions in 2011 in the US. Rate is obviously much lower for this year.

            If you are including deaths due to unsafe abortions that are not performed by a medical professional or without proper equipment then of course the numbers will be higher. 98% of these abortions occur in third world countries and account for roughly 47,000 deaths a year. It is estimated there are 40 – 50 million abortions a year according to WHO. Using 40 million this translates to around 1 death : 1,000 unsafe abortions.

          • I include all abortion, but clearly my numbers need updating, they came from Dr. Bernard Nathanson, and he died a few years back.

          • Sean

            Lumping safe abortions performed under medical supervision with unsafe abortions in third world countries that are often performed at home with no supervision is disingenuous at best.

            I will also mention that child birth is nearly 10x more likely to result in death than medical assisted abortion in the United States.

          • If that was true, there would not be a human race- the entire species would have died out in prehistory.

          • Dottie Derewicz

            You are wrong.. about abortions truly being safe..No women may not die on the table, but the after effects can be huge as far as health is concerned.. A large number of women become infertile after an abortion. They may suffer from infection and many end up with cancer.. Abortions are wrong and we need to become a more civil society. in realizing this is life.

          • Sean

            Abortion is a very safe medical procedure. It is much safer than a surgery. Also, the risk is much lower in the first trimester then in later trimesters.

            Yes, abortion is tied to higher suicide rates and psychological problems. Abortion also leaves around 3 – 5 % of women infertile. This risk (and the others) is made very clear when you are getting an abortion.

            Abortion is NOT tied to higher cancer risks. In fact – getting pregnant actually increases cancer risk.

          • Perhaps in Texas they are just a lot worse, or I am wondering where YOU are getting your statistics, since I think Texas is in the United States:

            Interesting- I just ran across this same argument in a commentary on the Supreme Court and the Texas law improving safety in abortion clinics. It does indeed claim that out of 70,000 abortions in 2014, only 200 resulted in deaths. A Supreme Court justice actually suggested that those 200 lives are not worth saving.

            That is 1:350, not very far from the 1:300 number I was claiming before.

            If only one woman commits suicide over the guilt of abortion, that’s too much. If only one woman is killed as a result of this procedure, that’s too much. We should concentrate on preserving life, not killing people that society determines to be non-persons.

            Not to mention, Gosnell’s clinic in Philadelphia was legal…..

          • pepjrp

            UnintelliWriter You are the one who has zero respect for life. You love, relish and get turned on at the chance to push a spike through a skull or snip a spine. Auschwitz is your second home.

          • Sean

            By your logic a person who has an abortion is also a murderer. Why should they not be punished for their crime?

          • Dottie Derewicz

            Many doctors refuse to perform abortions..they take the oath to do all they can to save life..not to murder. If that was the case..doctors would all be doing euthanasia..

          • In my state, far too many so-called doctors practice euthanasia at the behest of insurance companies wanting to save money on treatment.

      • GG Selon

        That’s a lie, since the same people want to completely end abortion. You’re a bad liar.

        • Abortionists, who are only in it for the money, want to end abortion? Since when?

          • Dottie Derewicz

            If they wanted to end they wouldn’t be doing it and taking money for it.. that is bs.

          • renatastar

            Logic and rational thinking is not the forte of some commenters here.

    • Jodie

      No that’s saving a baby’s life

      • MasterRiderHaddockIV

        More like improving the impact of Rapists.

    • Dottie Derewicz

      Not really phony…NO.. It is murder…But the ramifications of trying to try someone who is probably not exactly thinking rationally anyway would be a totally unrealistic trial. Unless the women did it herself which has been done and women have been brought to trial for doing their own botched abortions and they have faced jail time. I think that some women should face some type of punishment if that baby is fully developed.. as in after limbs..heart.. brain are fully functioning..First degree NO.. but some form of punishment should happen in these case of self abortion.
      The problem with penalty for abortions performed by clinics..doctors, etc.. is that everyone would have to be charged..the mom..the dad..if he is involved..the doctors..the clinics.. the funding agency.. the taxpayer.. think about how many are accomplices.. It would be a total impossible job to implicate and charge everyone in an abortion case performed through something like PP.This is the reason why we need more education.. letting women know what could happen to them as a result of an abortion and what that human life looks like inside the womb.. how the abortion rips the baby apart..limbs and all and thrown in a trash can..seriously…thrown in a trash can. We are doubt about it. We as taxpayers, should refuse our tax dollars until PP stops funding abortions.. Have we done our part not to be accomplices to abortion..NO we have not.

      Women need to know, first, what that fetus looks like inside her.. she needs to know that it is human..she needs to know that because of the abortion she may suffer infertility.. cancer and severe emotional scars.. Give her options.. and make it easy not difficult..such as with the raising of the child through agencies that can do so. Take away the stigma and shame.. it is still there. and make that man who was a part of this responsible as well. There are thousands of abortions done every single day and we are all responsible..should we all be punished and put in jail???

      • We try irrational women who kill their born children all the time. Your argument is phony. Admit it, pro-life groups do not have the stomach to punish women who choose to get abortions (they are not tricked) as murderers because in your heart you know it is not murder.

        • pepjrp

          WE know in your heart that are for murdering. So sucks to be you.

        • Richard A. Selby Jr

          That’s not heart that you’re referring to it’s an executioners mindset, people with a heart don’t harm defenseless people!
          The bigger problem is nobody is punished for much of anything they do these days, even when it’s malicious.

          • MasterRiderHaddockIV

            Of course people with “heart” harm innocent people. They’re just Foreigners.

          • Rodger Chappelle

            two and a half million people in prison with the average sentence twice what it was 40 years ago and several million more on parole and probation? I think people are held accountable, unless they work on wallstreet.

        • Agonizing Truth

          See my comment above. The anti-abortion folks who claim that they don’t think the women who initiate the process by seeking out an abortion doctor to have their unborn child killed should be punished have one reason and one reason only for saying this (and it is certainly not because they don’t think it’s murder): It is because they’re terrified that it will scare away the fence-sitters who can’t make up their mind if having unborn children butchered is fine and dandy or if it is an abomination so in order to avoid scaring these indecisive nitwits into the arms of the pro-abortion crowd they will give lip service to the woman initiating the process as the “victim” b.s. and pretend like they believe that for P.R. reasons. Pretty simple.

          No, it clearly is murder. Ask yourself: what is murder really? Deliberate homicide without the exculpatory factors of self-defense or defense of the lives of those around you. Let’s see…
          1. deliberate? Yes, nobody accidentally walks into an abortion clinic and gets their unborn human killed thinking they’re going into a deli getting a reuben sandwich.

          2. homicide? Yes, as the unborn is an unborn human, not an unborn squirrel, rabbit or chipmunk etc.

          3. without exculpatory factors of self-defense or defense of the lives of those around you? Yes, unless in the approximately 1% of abortions that are done because the life of the mother is literally at stake, which could be construed as “self-defense” as she would die unless she has an abortion. Aside from those 1% of cases, yes, it is entirely without those exculpatory factors.

          So in order to NOT consider it to be murder you’d really have to twist logic into a pretzel.

          • Well you are right that anti-abortion people have to twist themselves in knots to avoid punishing the woman. However, abortion is not murder because a fetus is not a person with the rights of a person. It is potential person who is entitled to limited protection based on the fact it might be born one day and gain full legal status as a person.

            Your reasoning is that murder is killing a human being but it is not. For example, here is Penal Code section 187 in California: “a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.”

            If a fetus was a human being it would be redundant to list fetus separately. Of course, the part of 187 prohibiting killing a fetus is mostly unconstitutional after Roe v. Wade.

          • Christine Hartloff

            I believe your interpretation is incorrect. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, “At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy (“any state of gestation,” “conception,” “fertilization” or “post-fertilization”.

            The very fact that California Penal Code has included the word “fetus” in the description means they are saying that this is a murder of a person, at that stage of life, or later, and they were killed with malice aforethought.

            If California Penal Code did not want to recognize a fetus as a human being then they would not have included that wording in the description.

            This means that if a pregnant woman is killed then she is not the only victim, the fetus is a victim too.
            Definition of fetus. : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.
            California itself does not include gestation before the fetal stage but this doesn’t mean that the fetal stage itself isn’t considered a human being.

            Penal code does not need to follow any abortion laws because this is concerning homicides. The judges are allowed to use recent biological, scientific findings to determine how far along gestation the law will consider as an act against a person, unlike in abortion cases.

            An example of wording accepted in other states penal codes for homicides: Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1102, § 13-1103, § 13-1104 and § 13-1105 define negligent homicide, manslaughter and first and second degree murder. The law specifies that the offenses apply to an unborn child at any stage in its development.
            Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann § 13-701, § 13-704, § 13-705 and § 13-751 define aggravated circumstances in the sentence of death or life imprisonment. The law specifies that the defendant shall not be released until the completion of 35 years if the murdered person was under 15 years of age or was an unborn child. The law states that for the purposes of punishment, an unborn child shall be treated like a minor under 12 years of age.

          • You are missing the point. If a fetus was a human being, the Legislature would not have added the word “fetus.” It would just say that murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. But the Legislature recognized that at common law a fetus was not a human being or a person. So the word fetus was added to criminalize the killed of a fetus EVEN IF IT IS NOT A HUMAN BEING.

            So yes the California legislature wanted to recognize a “fetus” as something worthy of protection albeit not equivalent to a human being.

            Some women absolutely want to get an abortion. They are not being exploited or in a vulnerable state of mind. They just do not think a fetus is anything more than a clump of cells. Are you saying you would let those women kill their fetus by getting but the women would receive no punishment? So if the woman got the abortion done in Mexico and came back to the USA, it would not be possible to punish the doctor, so no one would be punished?

          • Christine Hartloff

            I will concede that the state of California legislature itself has written language to convey that a fetus is not a human being. I should not assume that “The very fact that California Penal Code has included the word “fetus” in the description means they are saying that this is a murder of a person, at that stage of life, or later, and they were killed with malice aforethought.” is true from their viewpoint.

            However, by including the wording from the state of Arizona penal code I have tried to prove that the penal codes for states are not all portrayed that way. It is not a concluded fact that a fetus is something besides a human being or person. This is why I believe that you cannot use penal code law to express this idea. There are 23 states where the majority of people believe that a human being starts from the moment of conception and that is reflected in the wording.

            Abortion language only affects those instances where a woman has decided to abort. It should not affect other aspects of loss of pregnancy or laws regarding unborn offspring/progeny (homicide, murder, trusts, wills). In these instances a fetus is allowed to be treated as a person and human being. They do not affect whether or not a woman has an abortion.

            I think there needs to be talk generated further as to why there is such a big division on the subject of person hood and “being”.

            As to your questions, I can’t understand the first question you listed, some words missing perhaps, which makes it hard to answer your second question as well.

          • Are you saying you would let all women kill their fetus by getting an abortion but
            the women would receive no punishment? Only the doctor would be punished? So if a woman got the
            abortion done in Mexico and came back to the USA, it would not be
            possible to punish the doctor, so no one would be punished?

          • Christine Hartloff

            I’m sorry, the response that I “posted” to you on the day you asked your questions has been set to pending…

          • No, it clearly is murder. Ask yourself: what is murder really?

          • joem789

            Wilens. You are hiding behind the status quo. Where are your morals? You really have to hide behind man-made book logic? Regardless of what man made laws state. A murderer doesn’t have to fit the crime drama stereotype. They don’t have to know they are murderers to be murderers. And a judge doesn’t have to know it either. Shamefully. Judges don’t know it. They should. There should be consequences for killing a living human organism that would otherwise be destined to advance to a stage in life that is recognizable as a person. Just because it isn’t walking around right now doesn’t mean it isn’t a human.

          • Rodger Chappelle

            Portraying the woman who decides, researches and arranges a clinic and has talked it over with others as a victim is wrong. This is nothing more than the tired old scenario of the innocent woman who needs protection against the predatory male. In fact the right to procure a safe abortion has been driven principally by women so how can they be deluded victims? Pro-life advocates propound this chauvinistic ruse because they know that murder carries serious punishment and unless the women having an abortion were duped in some way the woman there could be no logical reason to exempt her as a murderess deserving of severe justice. If one does not want to punish this woman for murder then why punish the provider who is no more culpable then the woman? Why punish any murderer?

            Since the grounds for immunity are groundless, there is no reason not to prosecute a woman who has an abortion for murder. If pro-life advocates want to claim that abortion is a singular kind of crime whereby the usual procedures against murder should be dropped then why can’t it be claimed that abortion is a special case where human life can terminated as per the mother’s decision?

            There is no other conclusion than pro-life proponents contradict themselves in calling abortion murder. There can be no doubt that they cannot easily conceive that the mother is the murderer so they turn their wrath against the provider. Even then. most pro-life advocates seem loathe to impose decades of incarceration on abortion surgeons.

            Using terms like murder, genocide, infanticide, may satisfy to express their outrage, and such strong rhetoric serves a demogogic purpose.
            But it is clear that murder cannot be labeled as simple immorality, it is crime. With nearly no-one intersted in regarding as a punishable crime, abortion cannot be murder.

          • naksuthin

            It’s the pregnant woman who…

            1. Hires a “hit man” (an abortionist) to kill a human being (her fetus ),
            2. Sets the date of the execution,
            3. Takes the victim to the place of execution
            4. Pays the hit man money to kill the human being
            5. Signs a document saying she take full responsibility for the murder,
            6. Then sits back and watches the hit man kill the victim..right before
            right before her eyes…and doesn’t leave until she is sure the victim
            is dead.

            You could put all the “abortion providers” in jail….and shut down their clinics.
            And the pregnant woman would still be looking for a way to “kill” her fetus

      • Mara

        “There, there, little girl. Don’t you be worrying your pretty little head. Let the big men do all the thinking for you” Seriously, this has to be, single handedly the most insulting argument of the abortion debate. Plenty of people, both men and women, make irrational, emotional decisions and yet are still perfectly rational and able, to face any consequences. I actually appreciate those who say we should go to prison. They’re ironically treating us with “resspect” and “equality” under the criminal justice system.

      • naksuthin

        A pregnant woman who chooses to have an abortion is a murderer
        And the law requires that all murderers should face punishment

        It’s the pregnant woman who…

        1. Hires a “hit man” (an abortionist) to kill a human being (her fetus ),
        2. Sets the date of the execution,
        3. Takes the victim to the place of execution
        4. Pays the hit man money to kill the human being
        5. Signs a document saying she take full responsibility for the murder,
        6. Then sits back and watches the hit man kill the victim..right before
        right before her eyes…and doesn’t leave until she is sure the victim
        is dead.

        By any definition it’s the mother who is the “murderer”. The abortion
        doctor is an accessory to murder. He is acting under her instructions

        You could put all the “abortion providers” in jail….and shut down their clinics.
        And the pregnant woman would still be looking for a way to “kill” her fetus

      • noname anonymous

        Abortion of a two second old embryo is murder. This is what people need to understand. It is just as barbaric to abort a two second old embryo, as it is to abort an 8 month old foetus or to kill a 3yr old child. I think first degree murder is an appropriate charge.

    • diogenes

      A “waiting period” is a punishment? Pretty sure you have the meaning of the word mixed up.

      Do you consider a mandatory waiting period to purchase a gun, which is a right that is actually explicitly stated in the Constitution to be a “punishment,” too?

      • IntelliWriter

        So, let’s think this through logically. State after state is passing regulations that are shutting down clinics. In a big state, like Texas, some women have to drive for hours for their appointments (and this isn’t just for abortion, but well care also). If there is a waiting period of 48 hours, a low-income woman has to arrange to make two long trips to the clinic. She has to get time off from work. She has to arrange for childcare if she has other children. She has to do all of this and come up with cash for the abortion.

        If you’re a woman of means, you can simply hop a flight to New York and go to any of the many, many clinics in the city. You can arrange for a driver and a hotel. You can bring along a friend or family.

        These laws are carried out on the backs of the poor. So, yes, it is a punishment to make low-income women make long trips to exercise their rights because, like it or not, the Supreme Court has determined that women have the right to an abortion.

        As far as your question re gun rights. When they start shutting down gun shops in droves and people have to drive for hours to get a gun, get back to me. Otherwise, having a waiting period to weed out criminals, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill seems like the very least we can do to try and protect the public.

        • diogenes

          Again, that isn’t a punishment. Waiting periods for both guns and abortions are designed to do the exact same thing: protect people from decisions made in the heat of the moment.

          As for abortion clinics being closed, if they can’t meet the guidelines the states impose in order to carry out surgical procedures then they aren’t safe for the women they are supposed to be serving. Why would anyone want to allow medical facilities perform out patient surgical procedures when they aren’t safe? If the abortion clinics cared for those women they’d change their facilities to meet standards, even if it meant a drop in their profits.

          • Waiting periods for gun purchases are to give time for background check to be done. Waiting periods for abortion are to make it more difficult to get the abortion by having to make a return trip, which could be quite far if the number of clinics is limited by other measures.

          • diogenes

            Incorrect. Waiting periods are to prevent people from doing something they regret. The background check in the case of guns is an obvious example of this since those prevented from purchasing a weapon would most likely use it in a crime.

            FWIW, only 28 states have mandatory waiting periods to procure an abortion and the longest wait is 72 hours. That can hardly be seen as making things difficult. It is also the same length of time as the shortest waiting period there is to buy a hand gun (Illinois has a 24 hour waiting period to buy long guns). Can you imagine the uproar if someone had to wait 14 days before procuring an abortion, the same amount of time you have to wait to purchase a gun in Hawaii?

            I find it most illuminating, however, that no one has yet addressed the issue of an abortion facility having to meet safety standards (including doctors having admitting rights at hospitals). That makes it seem like people don’t care if the facilities are unsafe because they don’t care about women’s safety and are just obsessed with abortion.

            But that can’t be right…

          • Waiting periods to buy guns are not to prevent someone from doing something they regret. With guns there is a need for a background check. Also with guns, timing is usually not a critical issue so the buyer can wait. Finally, with guns there are many gun shops and travel is usually not an issue

            With abortion, the purpose for the waiting period is to discourage abortion as there is no need for any kind of time-consuming background check to be done. With abortion timing is obviously critical, especially for women approaching the end of the first trimester. And there are many more gun shops/markets than abortion clinics (especially in Southern states) so travel distance is an issue.

            A 72 hour waiting period for abortion means a return trip and due to other laws (since unreasonable requirements that abortion doctors have admitting privileges) the woman may have to travel considerable distances. The women most likely to be affected by these limits are poor and in the worst position to have an unwanted baby or care for it properly. Great idea there.

            I suggest you read the recent Supreme Court decision which explains why “safety” was not the reason for the Texas restrictions on clinics.

            It does not matter, technology moves on. Soon there will be a safe pill or group of pills that can be taken in the first trimester at your home in order to abort the fetus. At that point, it will be impossible to ban abortions. And even if you wanted to do, there would be no way not to punish the woman also.

            People who oppose abortion as a matter of conscience should concentrate on 1) moral persuasion, 2) helping women make the “right” decision by providing them financial and other assistance, 3) encourage better birth control methods (unless you don’t even believe in birth control).

          • diogenes

            You are incorrect in nearly every point.

            Waiting periods do prevent people from doing things they regret with guns since it gives them a period of time to cool down if they were planning on committing a crime of passion. The need for a background check for gun owners is only because convicted felons cannot own a gun. Which also prevents them from doing something they would regret, viz. committing another crime. In both cases the waiting period is to discourage (not absolutely prevent) behavior.

            The same is true for a waiting period for an abortion. It is meant to discourage behavior that would later be regretted. But it does not itself prevent such behavior.

            There are many more abortion clinics in areas of the country such as the northeast than there are gun shops so you saying there are more gun shops in the south than abortion clinics is interesting but irrelevant since the same difficulty would be experienced by someone wanting to find a gun shop in the northeast as someone wanting to procure an abortion in the south.

            Waiting periods for guns also mean a return trip for people purchasing guns, sometimes considerable distances must be traveled just so they can exercise a right that is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

            I suggest you read the actual Texas law which lays out the reasons for the law. The courts can mind read all the want but ESP is a bad precedent for writing legal opinions.

            If you are so happy that human pesticides are being developed then you shouldn’t be so disingenuous about your opposition to waiting periods for surgical abortions.

            People who believe in abortion should concentrate on not telling people who are pro-life what to concentrate on since it’s the same as a slave owner telling an abolitionist what they should concentrate on. In other words, their opinion is null and void given their moral bankruptcy.

          • Uh no. According to the abortion opponents at the end of 2014, there were only 739 abortion clinics in the entire USA.

            Meanwhile, in 2012 there were 51,438 gun shops in the USA and 129,000 gun dealers.

            There is nowhere in the USA where there are more abortion clinics than places to buy guns (that is not even counting Joe can sell a gun to Bill but Mary cannot give an abortion to Sally).

            Your facts are all wrong and even your “religious” belief is not based on anything but custom. I have looked and found nothing in the Bible that prohibits abortion. The Catholic church once took the position a fetus was not a person until it drew its first breath. I’m not here to debate abortion as an issue, but Trump was right that internal consistency requires you to punish the women as murderers and you are probably too chicken to say it.

          • diogenes

            My apologies for not being clear enough. My point was that in particular areas of the country, such as the NE, abortion clinics outnumber gun stores (in reply to your comment about abortions being difficult to procure in the south). If you want to be concerned about people’s rights you should be concerned about how difficult it is to buy a gun in many parts of the country.

            It is great that there are fewer abortion clinics than gun stores, of course, since Liberals want abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare.” Abortion clinics closing can only mean that the demand for such a barbaric procedure has lessened. But with over 700 abortion clinics we can see that we have a long way to go to make that dream a reality! I’m sure you join me in hoping that even more abortion clinics are closed so abortion becomes even rarer.

          • I doubt there is anywhere where abortion clinics outnumber gun shops or other places to buy guns.

            I don’t know what liberals really want via-a-vie abortions. I don’t think they will ever be rare, depending on what you mean by that. Eventually most abortions will occur at home using pills so the number of clinics could continue to decline without meaning you can declare victory.

            I don’t particularly care if abortion declines or not. I suspect until there is full-proof birth control methods, abortion will always be needed.

          • naksuthin

            Everyone should live by their own rules
            That’s the best rule of thumb

            Despite general agreement that caging a living breathing animal in a
            confined space for its short life… and then slitting it’s throat…or
            shooting a deer or lion for sport and watching it slowly die causes
            pain, distress and suffering for the animal…most people (even many Pro
            Lifers)… are OK with the practice and don’t give a second thought when
            they kill a fish or shoot a deer or roast a dead animal’s body over
            hot coals to eat their burned flesh.

            -You think children are being killed by abortion and we ought to make a law
            -Others think animals are being stalked, tortured and killed for sheer sport or pleasure..and we ought to make a law
            -Others think that children of parents who smoke in their homes are being killed by 2nd hand smoke…and we ought to make a law
            others think that children are being killed by auto emissions, unsafe
            toys ,junk food etc etc.….and we ought to make more and more laws.

            Pretty soon we are living under the weight of laws we don’t like, passed by others who don’t agree with

            is why, even though I feel strongly that people who kill animals for
            pleasure or for food …are WRONG to kill, cook and eat the flesh of
            innocent living breathing animals …I’m not going to try to make a law
            outlawing YOU from shooting elephants or lions for sport or eating a
            chicken or matter how cruel and inhumane I think the killing of
            living breathing animals, ripping off it’s skin, slicing up it’s muscles, roasting it over burning fire and then eating their dead flesh is.

            You wouldn’t let anyone do that to your pet dog or cat, would you?
            So why are you doing it to innocent animals?

            Of course. It’s none of my business what YOU eat. And you would be quick to tell me to mind my own business.

            So…..instead of me trying to force you to NOT KILL ANIMALS FOR FOOD OR PLEASURE…..I save
            innocent creatures by refusing to hunt them, refusing to buy meat at
            butcher shops, refusing to eat meat at restaurants and refusing
            patronize zoos or “Marine world”…..

            …NOT by making it
            difficult for YOU hunt, buy meat, eat at a steakhouse or take your kids
            to the zoo.

            I respect your right to believe as you believe.

            I understand how you feel for a fetus… I feel the same way about living animals.

            But I think you will agree…. it’s not my right to force you feel or do as I do.

          • naksuthin

            If “regret” is a good reason to impose waiting periods…….should the government impose waiting periods for people who want to buy a car or a house or have brain surgery … give them a chance to back out just in case they have second thoughts?

          • diogenes

            If you think you can walk right into a hospital and get brain surgery immediately (without being in an emergency state) then you’re kidding yourself. Your “examples” are so different from the waiting period to buy a gun that it’s obvious your question is completely disingenuous.

          • naksuthin

            . Based on your logic:
            “Waiting periods are to prevent people from doing something they regret.”

            1.Should there be a waiting period before you are allowed to buy something (for those who may be prone to impulse shopping)??
            2. Should there be a waiting period when you order fast food (for those with eating problems)??
            3.Should there be a waiting period before you say “I do” at the alter??
            4. Should there be a waiting period before you decide to have your hair dyed??

            YOU SAY “FWIW, only 28 states have mandatory waiting periods to procure an abortion and the longest wait is 72 hours. That can hardly be seen as making things difficult.

            I thought the purpose of a waiting period is
            to prevent people from doing something they regret.
            Now you are saying it’s “to make things difficult” for them

            There’s no need to lie and make it sound like you have real concern for the Pregnant woman. Just be honest.
            Say “I don’t think she should be allowed to have an abortion and I want to make things difficult for her”
            Be honest.

  • TFB

    Beautiful statement by March for Life.
    And SAD, as always, to see all the bitter hatred that is thrown up at anyone who dares stand against the popular Culture of Death, and stand in support of the dignity of human life.

    • Damon

      But if the pro-life movement believes that abortion is murder, then doesn’t it stand to reason that a woman who has an illegal abortion is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, and therefore, should be punished for doing so?

      • txtea

        I agree.

    • rndmletters

      These people aren’t standing up to the culture of death… they’re part of it by encouraging it. Pro life means you do not support the killing or the killers in any way, shape or form.

  • vcfmama

    Abortion is wrong, and it needs to end, absolutely. The babies go through unimaginable pain, and no human should ever have to go through what millions of human beings experience every year. Yet, as Jeanne Mancini says, punishment for the women having abortions is not the way to address this. Many women choose abortion because they have been lied to and were not presented with real options in the face of a crisis pregnancies.
    The abortion survivors whose stories we hear OVERWHELMINGLY talk about forgiveness and redemption for the mothers. If abortion survivors can offer forgiveness and compassion, can not the rest of society?
    There is a cultural structure that enables abortion to be be accepted, and there are huge financial incentives for unscrupulous people to exploit women in crisis pregnancies. These things are what must be torn down – not their victims. The mothers are almost as much victims of this structure as their babies.
    Do we punish the victims of human trafficking, or do we work to punish the traffickers and free the victims? Abortion is very similar.
    Pro-life and Pro-woman – this is the theme of the March for Life this year. It is a good one. BOTH lives matter. BOTH are victims. BOTH deserve love and compassion.
    Thank you, Jeanne Mancini.

    Terri LaPoint

    • Sean

      If abortion is murder and someone has an abortion why should they not be punished for that crime?

      Most people that commit crimes are the victims of persuasion, circumstance, or their emotions. But this does not give them a free pass and protection from prosecution.

      I am asking honestly. This seems like a huge contradiction. Someone who is a victim of human trafficking did not have a choice in that matter – that is the difference between the situations.

      • vcfmama

        Far more women than I ever realized were forced or coerced into abortion. I have a friend who was literally taken at gunpoint to have an abortion. Many others were coerced. Figures are as high as 60% who are not making that “choice” of their own free will.

        We can change the cultural paradigm and punish the abortionists themselves. When we do that, abortion numbers will plummet.

        • Sean

          I would be very interested in seeing an actual figure or statistic that showed 60% of women did not make the choice to have an abortion. If you cannot show me this then it is a lie.

          Even if the figure is true (which would surprise me), I say again that most crimes are committed by people who were coerced, persuaded, or forced (did not do it on their own free will). Are you also advocating to not punish those individuals for their crimes?

          • Carla

            Concealing relevant information should be recognized as coercion. Deceptive information presented as fact also acts coercively. If abortion providers ignore evidence of force being applied, they are complicit in forced abortion.

            — Melinda Tankard Reist, Giving Sorrow Words

            > 64% of American women felt pressured by others

            > Over 50% felt rushed or uncertain, yet 67% received no


            > 79% were not told about available alternatives

            > 84% said they were not fully informed

            > 65% suffer symptoms of trauma

            > Coercion can escalate to violence, putting women & children at risk

            > Coerced abortion is an internationally recognized and illegal human

            rights abuse

            > Homicide is the leading killer of pregnant women

            > After abortion, maternal death rates are 4 times higher

            > Post-abortion suicide rates are 6 times higher within the first year


          • Sean

            None of the figures you posted show that a majority of women are coerced into abortion. As I mentioned there are basically no studies on this.

            Feeling pressure to do something and being coerced are completely different things. The definition of coercion is “the practice of persuading someone using force or threats”.

            If my parents say they strongly want me to go to college and I feel pressure from that it does not mean I was coerced into that decision.

            Further if someone comes seeking out a medical procedure, hasn’t done their research, doesn’t ask questions, and doesn’t ask about alternatives for one of the most important medical procedures in their life… I don’t see how that is coercion either. Every person is responsible for their health and asking questions – no matter what medical setting you are in.

            Abortion providers do not ignore evidence of force (as with all medical procedures). It is the law in most states as well as the policy of the centers to not give an abortion to someone under duress. They always ask the woman if they are being forced and if they are sure they want the procedure.

          • Carla

            Tell my post abortive friends that were forced that they weren’t forced. Tell my post abortive friends that they were coerced that they weren’t.
            Go ahead.
            As if abortionists follow the letter of the law. Good one.
            As a sidewalk counselor I have witnessed girls being dragged in by their hair.

            There is no informed consent with abortion. They lie by omission to make the sale. “clump of cells” “ball of tissue” No explaining of the very real physical, emotional and psychological risks of abortion. Those interested in PROFIT hide the truth from those who need help, support and compassion. Not abortion. They prey on women in a time of great need.

            As if anything I post would be believed by you, Sean. I can never get these 6 minutes back.

            Get well soon.

          • Sean

            I never said that no one is coerced. I said “feeling pressured” is not coercion. You can’t say that the majority of women are coerced into abortions if you have no facts or figures to back it up. And I could care less about your anecdotes.

            There IS informed consent for an abortion. The law of EVERY state requires this (same for any medical procedure). You have to sign a form saying you are not under duress and you consent to the procedure.

            Many states have laws that go above and beyond this as well. Such as requirements to provide certain information, talk to counselors, waiting periods, etc. If you are truly a “sidewalk counselor” you should know these basic facts.

            If you truly watched a girl being dragged in by their hair to a clinic you should have immediately called the police. If not you are as implicit in that abortion as the doctor.

          • Sean

            I will also mention that I fully support reasonable efforts to get more information into the hands of a woman that is considering abortion. It is one of the most important decisions she will make in her life.

            Information is often lacking in all medical procedures and the better informed people are the better decisions they will make.

            Having said that I have no pity for people who do not seek out this information on their own and make rash decisions without taking the time to research and understand their choice. This again applies to any medical decision. I have learned early that you have to be your own advocate in medical matters – almost never will a doctor or nurse give you full information for any medical procedure.

        • rndmletters

          Horsehockey. No one is forced to have an abortion. No doctor would perform one under such duress. A simple call to 911 when they walk in the door would end any such coercion. They CHOOSE to hop up on that table and thus they need to face the consequences.

        • Sean

          Basically there appears to be almost no research about coerced abortions. Most people who run domestic violence clinics cannot name a single case.

          The few studies that do exist talk about the number of women who “felt pressured” to have an abortion.

          There is a huge difference between pressure and coercion. The definition of coercion is that it involves the use of threats or force.

          If my parents tell me they strongly want me to go to college and pressure me that is NOT coercion.

          Still interested to see a study to back up your wild claims…

  • the rein man

    Well, I am American, I am pro life with 12 kids to prove it, and I think some type of punishment for abortion is a good thing. Abortion is murder. To say that no pro lifer supports punishment for murder is beyond ludicrous.

    • Kenny

      What kind of punishment are you advocating? Stoning, public flogging, prison, chopping off their heads? Please enlighten me.

      • txtea

        Obviously not retroactive punishment. Were it to be made illegal, try the case the same as any other murder, that would be appropriate..

    • Jonathan Daniel Grandt

      I agree. And I completely disagree with the statement that, “no pro-lifer supports punishment….” etc. however that woman is a big voice in a group which doesn’t support the majority of anti-abortionists. Took me a bit to realize that the so-called pro-lifers ideals are not necessarily representative of all people who consider themselves pro Life. Confusing? What she is saying about the Group Movement is technically true and therefore she is also saying that anyone who supports punishing women is NOT part of her movement. Which I’m fine with. I am not part of their group.

      If there were some little shack in the woods where women took their infants to be chopped up, no one would hesitate to form a gang with torches and pitchforks and burn it to the ground. But talk about punishing a bad mother and everyone loses their minds!

  • Whiteoak

    Tell that to the right to life people on my Facebook feed. They can’t wait to try women who have had abortions for murder. I think you at national right to life are out of touch with the rabid people who make up your organization.

  • Alfonso Bergamo

    If you break a law there is a punishment

  • lucifer_ante_portas

    What makes you think they “then deeply regret their decision”?

  • Bam Marlin

    If I may interject, I think, groups that support women survivors of abortion R OK and needed. I was talked into 2 abortions and deeply regret my decisions. I cannot bear children now thanks to a botched procedure. We need to be supported. I believe abortion should be legal in some cases, but we must continue to offer alternatives It really takes a toll on us women. It broke my heart and The grief is unbearable and this should not be about politics !!! but supporting women who have been pressured into bad decisions.The boys slap the money on the table then walk away. Thanks to that I am childless. It’s important for abortion survivors to speak up. We need a humane dialog on this subject. No right wing, no left wing, just human .I am sorry for my sisters let’s support and understand each other. It also has to do with age and cirumstances and I would never dis a woman who had one. Judge not lest you be judjed. Love one another.

  • Abortion is murder. Murder is wrong and against the law. People who commit murder are accountable for their crimes. Legal liability for committing murder is axiomatic and just plain common sense. If a pro life group can’t see this than they need to rethink what they actually believe.

    • Contritus

      What they believe, or what they are engaged in. The concatenating in the above blurb about what’s “best for woman and child” is at best a comfortable piety, having nothing to do with the law or how it’s meted out. At worst it is a useful piety, inculcated for political leverage to defeat the equally pious and equally vapid ploy of the opposition – so called ‘women’s rights’, which apparently include nothing else but a special privilege to murder humans who temporarily reside in a womb, who have committed no crime other than being inconvenient or unwanted.

  • Dave Lukach

    If it becomes illegal it would be still be murder in the eyes of prolife, and you shall not kill. Bible says to obey govement,and government procecutes people who clear can that be.

  • Kenny

    March for Life anti-woman groups created Donald Trump. No need trying to run away from him now. Birds of a feather flock together.

  • txtea

    I am a woman, I am pro-life. IF abortion were illegal, why shouldn’t there be punishment for abortion, for both the woman & doctor? Again, IF it were illegal…its murder legal or not…should a murderer not be punished? How can March for Life think this way? I no longer believe you are truly about ending abortion…probably all about the $$. I will no longer support March for Life.

    • rndmletters

      Show us the law passed by Congress that makes abortion legal. The Supreme Court does not make law. Abortion has never been legal in America since the Constitution was ratified.

      • txtea

        I have no idea about that, but people think it is legal. My point is to these people who think if it ever became illegal, that the woman who seeks out someone to murder her unborn child should not be punishable by law. I find that ludicrous.

  • Rev Donald Spitz

    Can you please explain why women that murder their children should not be punished? Would you punished them if they murdered their born children?

    • txtea


    • Contritus

      Well, not every time. As the recent incident in Northern Colorado shows, a child can be ‘born’ but if it doesn’t take the government required quota of breaths after being cut forcibly from its mother’s womb by her assailant, then it isn’t a life in eyes of the law and the only charge will be assault on the mother if the child dies.

  • feckless

    If abortion is illegal every miscarriage is a crime scene.

    You can’t have it both ways.

    • Contritus

      There must be Cause, motive, suspicion, etc. to create a corpus delecti and an investigation. Not every traffic violation turns into a breath-alizer test, but the police reserve the right to perform one (and ask for proof of residence while they’re at it) if an infraction has occurred. There is nothing wrong with this, as the ‘both ways’ implies.

      • feckless

        Yes the investigation that turns every miscarriage and still birth into a crime scene.

        • southjerseymel

          Why don’t we have funerals for miscarried fetuses?

  • Justin Time

    It seems like pro life movement has a hypocritical poll tested stance on this issue. Simple fact is Trump was right, if something is illegal, then people committing that act should be punished.

  • JPuck

    You do not speak for me and you do not speak for the vast majority of people who are pro-life. Yes, our primary goal is to prevent murder from occurring, but if someone does seek to murder they should receive some kind of penalty for doing so to ensure that they never repeat the crime.

  • John Richter

    Why ? If abortion were illegal, and the woman broke the law, why shouldn’t she be punished? Prostitution is illegal, and men are arrested for seeking a prostitutes services, even if the service was never even performed.. All this outrage is silly. Representative Franklin’s bill to set up a federal agency to investigate all miscarriages for possible human involvement did not get this much attention.

  • Eagle_Eyed

    I am one pro-life American who believes such punishment should exist. Women who abort their own flesh and blood should be stricken of their fertility so they can no longer murder another. Jails and fines are also necessary punishments for both mother and abortionist.

  • If you define a fetus as human from the moment of conception (the pro-life position) then destroying it through intentional conduct or negligence is homicide (manslaughter or murder, depending on the circumstances.) Anyone involved in that intentional act is equally guilty, just as someone who hires a hitman that succeeds is guilty of homicide exactly as is the person who does the killing, or someone who drives a person to a murder is also charged with murder. Selective enforcement of a law is ALWAYS unacceptable.

    • txtea


  • smc

    Methinks that Ms. Mancini is taking advantage of this “hypothetical” situation proposed by Chris Matthews in order to derail the Trump campaign. The Catholic Church is the single biggest promoter of a culture of life, seeking an end to all direct abortions. Although She offers post-abortive women healing programs, the Church also properly punishes those who procure an abortion, in particular the woman and her doctor, with an automatic excommunication if they are Catholic. As Trump stated, if abortion were to become illegal, then those who break the law, including mothers, would also be penalized civilly as they already are ecclesially.

    • txtea

      Well the pope just declared forgiveness for abortion…not like he even has the power to do that, that comes from God and as the Bible says Jesus is our advocate our intermediary NOT the pope…this is all some sort of political move on orders from pope francis. (false prophet?) Time to wake up and see the catholic church is not really christian…they do pretty much everything the Bible says not to do.

      • Emilianne Hackett

        Of course, people who have or perform abortions can be forgiven. Nothing is unforgivable. But just because you’re forgiven doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay the penalty for what you did. You still did the crime.

  • rndmletters

    So when a person makes the choice to rob a bank, we don’t hold them accountable and charge them with a crime?

    If you are pro life, you cannot possibly condone a woman choosing to end the life of her unborn child. She must be held to account for the death of that baby just as much as the doctor who performed the procedure. This is no different than hiring a hitman… YOU still get charged for the crime because you did the hiring.

  • Meems62

    Donald Trump was given a hypothetical question. But, IF abortion was unlawful, the logical follow-up is that there would be a consequence to those both performing an ILLEGAL procedure and those seeking an ILLEGAL procedure. It is either a human being, a baby, or not. It is either murder or not. That is why it is so important to reach out now and educate so that a mother does NOT have to choose death for her child. It is important to make sure pregnant moms know help is available and the death of their child does not need to be an option. Today it is legal and may always stay that way. Whether rich or poor, scared, pressured or hard core – the victim is always that baby!

  • Emilianne Hackett

    I’m afraid I don’t see the problem with Trump’s comments. If abortion is made illegal, having an abortion will be an illegal act. Therefore, you broke the law and will be punished. I think that Ms. Mancini is a little out of touch if she honestly believes that the majority of women who have abortions are poor, desperate, innocent little flowers who don’t know what they’re doing. Most women who have abortions know exactly what they are doing, and whether they regret it later or not is unimportant. It’s too late. You already committed murder. Murderers are punished. Of course, there are women and young girls who are coerced or forced into abortion and they should not be held responsible for their actions. But to say, “Oh, no, I don’t think women who have abortions merely because they don’t want a child should be PUNISHED!! Oh, no. Let’s all hold hands and sing. That’s the answer.” No, it’s not. Either you believe abortion is murder or not. You can ‘heal’ all you want in prison. “No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has had an abortion.” Really? I would hope they would want to do just that, just as you would anyone else who murders someone.

    • pjmul5

      They don’t want to because that would be politically untenable. Any politician who called for that would be destroyed in an election. Even in normally reliable Republican districts. That is why many social conservatives lie about whether they believe women who have an abortion should be jailed.

      • Justin Time

        As I stated below, the people in the pro life movement who are taking this stance basically are doing in on the basis of poll testing of what is attainable as opposed to using logic or their moral beliefs.

      • Joe

        Nonsense. Women (and men) are arrested by the thousands every day for drugs, prostitution, burglary, shoplifting, assault, child abuse, drunk driving, etc. ALL laws have penalties and this should be no different. People accept penalties for breaking the law. They would probably do better if they stood up, called for personal responsibility and argued for fair penalties, taking into account the mitigating circumstances of people believing that they are not committing a crime when killing an unborn child.

  • If you kill a baby, you should be punished!

    • pjmul5

      Ok. A fine? 1 year in jail? 10 years in jail? execution? What is the proper punishment? I believe people that commit murder should spend decades in jail.

      • Justin Time

        Since the pro life movement refers to abortion as murder the exact same punishment as murder

      • Whatever the current punishment is for taking the life of another human being.

  • Jerry Wimer

    Why enact laws if there is no punishment for breaking them? That would be quite stupid. Trump was right, before a bunch of idiots started persecuting him, causing him to frantically try to rescind his statement. I agree with Trump’s stance, that abortions should be illegal unless it involves rape or incest or the woman’s life is in danger. If an abortion is considered illegal, because it doesn’t involve one of those three, and a woman opts to have one anyway, she should be punished, along with the doctor and anyone else who is involved. It would be completely unfair to punish only the doctor for performing an abortion the woman has asked for

  • Lindsey Stewart

    Where is the logical consistency here? If you’re pro-life, then you should also believe women are ACCOUNTABLE for the actions they take. Thus, they are RESPONSIBLE and should be punished – like any other human being for any other crime committed – accordingly. You can take the logic of “they committed this crime in the wrong mindset” with virtually EVERY SINGLE CRIME EVER COMMITTED. That still doesn’t make it morally acceptable.

    Until women face accountability for their f*cked up decisions, nothing will ever change. And March for Life is a hypocritical joke.

  • Babies have a right to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” too!

    Abortion has always been against “rule of law” and this fact can never change.

    SCOTUS gives Opinions Not rulings. The States are the final arbitrators. The States created the federal government. We the People created the States. The federal government only serves US in a very limited capacity.

    Roe v. Wade (an evil OPINION) 1973 – Nine judges think they made it law, but a moral nation can Not even consider it law! The States can Not even consider it law! There is a higher law! There is a higher Judge! GOD!

    The God-given right of self-preservation includes the defense of babies! (including babies in their first-trimester)

    I stand with the “rule of law” and killing babies is ALWAYS against the “rule of law”.

    Even IF every State and 90% of “We the People” were to approve abortion as law it can NEVER be TRUE “rule of law”.

    “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness!” – INCLUDES babies!

    Shall not be infringed!

    If you kill a baby, of course you should be punished along with everybody involved.
    I was repulsed at Trump when he pledged allegiance to The Republican Party.

    Selective enforcement is also repulsive.


    I’m voting for Trump!

  • Jeffrey M. Kessler

    Of course there are pro-life Americans who advocate punishment of getting an abortion. I happen to be one.

  • Patsy Mertz

    I sincerely want to understand. If the woman who decides to have an abortion, doesn’t get punished, who does? What if she uses a coat hanger or takes RU486 or some other drug that causes an abortion? All on her own? How will society handle it if it is a crime? I find this perplexing. If all women should be excused for committing a crime because they were, “desperate” – why do we send woman to jail for stealing to feed her family or other crimes – aren’t a lot of crimes committed out of “desperation”? How do you NOT hold half of the human race accountable for their own actions or behavior? Isn’t that a patronizing?

  • MD

    If you make abortions illegal then it would be a crime hence the women who get abortions would be criminals. Do we not punish criminals in this country? Trump is simply saying out loud what most pro lifers believe. This is the logical end to their argument so why attack him for being honest about what they actually believe?

  • Anon Ymous

    This release states that “[n]o pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion.” In 2013 this organization wrote a post titled “75 Days of Life: No Unborn Pain No Gain?” in which it wrote favorably about legislation related to prohibiting abortion prior to 20 weeks. Idaho was mentioned as one of 24 states that have adopted gestational age limits on abortion. Idaho statute 18-606 states that “[e]very woman who … purposely terminates her own pregnancy otherwise than by a live birth, shall be deemed guilty of a felony and shall be fined not to exceed five thousand dollars and or/or imprisoned in the state prison for not less than one and not more than five years.” This law was used to charge an Idaho woman who obtained pills over the internet for the purpose of self-inducing abortion.

    At a time when pills (specifically mifepristone and misoprostol) exist, are widely used in other countries, and can be obtained on the internet without assistance from another person, how do you enforce abortion prohibitions without including a method by which to punish the woman who obtains and uses these pills for the purpose of self-inducing an abortion? If the quoted statement is accurate “no” pro-lifer would “ever” want to punish a woman who has chosen an abortion then these prohibitions should not include any punishment mechanism. In other words, to be consistent with your claim, a women who chooses abortion and uses pills to obtain it should face no punishment. But, this would render the legislation unenforceable and thus symbolic in nature. If “no” pro-lifer wants to punish women like this, then how to expect these laws to be enforced?

  • Helene Jnane

    ‘No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion’.

    If abortion were illegal, then what would the consequence be of acting in violation of the law making it illegal to have an abortion?

  • Gerald Yeung

    I agree that pro-lifers would not want to punish a woman after the fact for having an abortion but there needs to be a deterrent. After all, an abortion cannot happen without the woman’s consent (generally speaking). I’m 100% pro-life by the way.

    • Dr. Ishmael

      I’m sorry, but what are we talking about here? Because I’ve been led to believe the issue is ‘murder.’ Well, never in my life have I heard such a litany of excuses or such strained calls for leniency with respect to homicide. Almost makes it seem as if a significant subset of pro-lifers think killing a fetus is something less than murder …

      • Justin Time

        I think it’s more a case most pro lifers in organizations like this realize that saying women should be punished polls negatively so to try advance their agenda they losen their moral compass

        • Dr. Ishmael

          Sure, I get that, but there have to be limits. Like, say, MURDER. No sense in quibbling about the most serious crime you can commit.

        • IntelliWriter


  • If abortion is murder, then yes the woman should face some type of penalty.

  • Bill Heath

    A woman AFTER her infant reaches viability is a mother of a child, that is law. Acts she participates in that endanger that child without reasons of her own health to consider can and should be held against her, if they are found to be criminal than she should be charged with that crime. To believe that being a mother inoculates one against being a criminal is insane and only the far left hold that view! This isn’t a anti woman position it is an anti child abuse position.

  • Old Painty-Can Ned

    Then what is the purpose of personhood amendments that at least some pro-life activists support? If you pass a law that declares a fetus to be a person, with all of the legal rights as a person, then there is no way to prevent a woman from being guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder for terminating a pregnancy. Is there? Whether she pays a doctor or performs the procedure herself, she is either hiring someone to commit murder or committing it on her own.

  • Jodie

    OK let me get this straight. First off I’m no way a trump supporter I’m for Cruz but donald and many others look at abortion as murder so are we suppose to let mothers get away with murder? If your answer is “abortion isn’t murder” then stop comparing other children’s death to that of an unborn child. I remember after the Sandy Hook shooting a lot of y’all were comparing those kids to abortions ,which I thought was a shame, then I see some people compare that lb little boy that washed up on the beach to abortions. Make up your mind.. is it murder, death like any other child or is it not? I think it’s wrong wrong wrong. I can’t stand trump and I despise his supporters but I’m feeling a little sorry for him right now but then I see his low life supporters lying on Ted Cruz then I don’t feel sorry for him.

  • Freethinker02

    I am 100% pro-life and I believe women should face justice if they seek and/or subject their unborn child to an illegal abortion.

    Nowhere else in jurisprudence do we let someone conspire to commit premeditated murder and then walk away without consequence. Making an exception for killing an unborn human would be totally illogical.

    If the law declares that an unborn human being deserves Constitutional due process, then killing said human being is homicide. Homicide should always be subject to justice.

  • Peter Murphy

    You cannot have it both ways. Either the baby in the womb is a human life in which case there can be NO excuse for intentional and premeditated killing another human life or not. There is no half way. And I hate it when I hear people say that the woman is the victim. The baby….the HUMAN LIFE in the womb is the victim. Pregnancy is not something by which you are victimized like a tragedy like cancer…so stop treating it as such.

    Lets say that person A was abused by a neighbor growing up and has psychological damage because of it. Because he is the “victim” does that make it right for him to come back to that neighbors house years later and murder him? if we are using victimization as a valid excuse for premeditated first degree murder does that mean that anyone can murder someone else as long as they feel they were “Victimized”?

    If for example I said that stealing is a crime yet I also further stated that I do not think that anyone who steals should receive any sort of just punishment for it then I am denying the fact that stealing is really a crime because in doing so I am denying Justice. Stealing is not a victimless crime. It takes from others if I were to steal something from the store it hurts the store owner who paid something for that item in order to sell it. In the same way abortion is not a victimless crime it kills a human life to deny just punishment for either of those crimes is to deny that those two things are actually crimes because it is denying Justice for the store owner or Justice for the human life that was murdered

    Bottom line, if someone commits premeditated murder they are put in jail. If you truly believed that a child in the womb IS a human being you would not be flip flopping on the sanctity of all human life. You cannot have it both ways. If you really believe that a baby in the womb is a human being with a right to life then you would HAVE to agree that people who INTENTIONALLY and and with PREMEDITATION KILL A HUMAN BEING MUST face the consequences of their actions. Anything less than that is a denial of the baby’s right to life by making the woman more important than the life of the baby.

    • A fetus is not a human being (i.e., a person). But that does not mean it is entitled to no legal protection. We protect animals, so we can protect a human life form that will most likely mature into a person. How much protection to afford it and at what points in fetal development is where the judgment call comes in. Irrational ranting that all abortion is murder or that all abortion is completely fine and should be unregulated does not help the judgment process.

      • SecretSeminarian

        Whether you know it or not, you using discriminatory and exclusionary language. Name one time in human history when the phrase ‘legal personhood’ was used to include or protect a group of people? I will save you the trouble of answering because the answer is NO there is not.

        here is not one solitary example. So therefore I ask you… When has the concept of ‘legal personhood’ been used as a device to deprive human beings of their human rights based on some arbitrary criteria? I will save you the trouble yet again and just list the top examples; Hitler during the Holocaust, Stalin under the Soviet Union, the Tutsi genocide in Rwanda, the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, the Muslim genocide against the Armenian Christians, and the genocide against the Kurds in Iraq by Sunni Muslims.

        Every single one of these examples differs drastically, but there is one common denominator. In each case, dehumanization led to victimization. In each case, “human rights” became a meaningless term, as the right to life inherent to our humanity was instead deemed a privilege to be given by the strong to the weak, with the hated or the inconvenient often excluded. Those who commit abortions may not be dehumanizing pre-born children in the womb purposefully with evil intention, but the end result—victimization—is still the same nonetheless. Human beings have human rights. Human rights must begin when the human being begins. This would mean as you admit that personhood should begin at conception since you already said that biological humanness starts at conception.

        If we do not do this, we are only granting rights based on arbitrary criteria that will lead to the victimization of some. In a society where different religious groups and different cultures believe different things about the pre-born child in the womb, we must ensure that the rights of the youngest human beings are protected based on who they are, not how certain groups of people might feel about them. Perhaps different groups disagree about ‘legal personhood,’ or when the pre-born human gets a soul, or whether consciousness translates into value. But in order to protect all human beings in a multicultural society, we have to fall back on a scientific fact we are all forced to recognize: The human being begins his or her life at fertilization. That is the only rational point at which we must recognize their human rights

        Every pro-abortion or pro-euthenesia person I have talked to today has had a different opinion about when the pre-born child becomes valuable. Some say twelve weeks, some say eighteen weeks, some say twenty-four. They all have different reasons for their opinion, and different reasons for feeling about pre-born humans the way they do. But should pre-born humans be protected based on a scientifically knowable fact—that they are unique, unrepeatable human beings—or based on how different groups of people in our society feel about them?

        If you look at human life, there are many different points where you could say life begins, but only one makes logical and scientific sense and that is conception. I get this concept from the philosophical idea of metaphysics. In metaphysics there two definitions of defining how things come into existence and explaining changes in what we see. We get the concepts of accidental change and substantial change. An accidental change is a change that does not change the nature of what it is. For example; a person’s hair turns grey and then white as that person gets older, but it does not change the fact that it is hair. It does not change the hairness of the hair. The opposite is substantial change. This means that the change has created something completely different than what it was before. The same is true with human development. Birth…. or the process of being born is an accidental change of his/her humanness.

        • Sorry but you are trying to turn a metaphysical belief it a scientifically knowable fact. There is no scientifically knowable fact that at the moment of conception the “pre-born” are human beings. For one thing, to me, a human being requires a brain. There is no brain at the moment of conception. It is at least five weeks before the fetal brain starts to form.

          The analogy to Nazis and such is silly. People like that had no scientific basis to dehumanize Jews, Blacks, etc. My criteria is based on objective facts not mythology.

          The same applies to a human being with no brain activity. He is dead. He has not rights of personhood. That does not mean he has no rights, even animals have rights. Out of respect for what he was, he must be treated with dignity. Out of respect for what a fetus might become, it must be treated with dignity as well.

          But the woman has rights as well that must be balanced against those of the fetus. The rights of the fetus (not being a person initially) will have to yield to the rights of a person (the woman). At some stage, the rights of the fetus will get stronger and at some point they will outweigh the rights of the woman in many circumstances (but never at the expense of the woman’s life).

          The color of hair has nothing to do with personhood but a functioning brain is a necessary attribute of human existence as a person.

          There is no accidental change. An acorn is not a tree. A fertilized seed is a not a tomato. A fetus is not a person until at least it has a functioning brain.Personally I would draw the line as follows:

          The onset of life would be the time when fetal
          brain activity begins to exhibit regular wave patterns, which occurs
          fairly consistently around week 25. Previous to that time, the EEG only
          shows small bursts of activity without sustained firing of neurons.

          • SecretSeminarian

            You still have not answered my question……………..

            If what you say is true, what would stop me from tomorrow saying that another category of biological humans do not have “personhood: and rights? What if tomorrow society thought that the elderly or the mentally ill/mentally handicapped are do not have “personhood”? Is that moral? Are you actually going to tell me that you believe that?

          • SecretSeminarian

            And there is nothing wrong with using metaphysics. Science does not prove everything including the answer of human dignity. Science does prove that from the moment of conception it is a biological human. You sir have failed to show how I could not use the same specifications that you have used (biologically human but not a person with personhood) and use that to kill everyone who is mentally ill or mentally handicapped, the elderly, the physically handicapped. The example of the nazis is not a bad example. That is exactly what they did using that same argument. So if that is not a bad thing then tell me why.

          • I have answered your questions many times. The Nazi’s did not use an objective criteria for determining whether someone is a person and no rational person would say a living breathing white man, black man, Jew or whatever was not a person biologically. No race of people is “sub-human.” It is ludicrous to compare not considering a Zygote a person to not considering a living breathing person a person).

            Do blacks, Jews, Gypseys, have brain activity? If so then they are persons.

          • SecretSeminarian

            Babies in the womb also have brain activity and do feel pain so……….by your own definition……….

          • I already agreed that AT SOME POINT fetuses have brain activity and therefore deserve protection. I would draw the line at 25 weeks for the reason I stated in another post based on fetal brain development. Personally, I would only permit legal abortion if it was necessary to preserve the mother’s life. If a woman is raped that is more than enough time to get an abortion.

          • SecretSeminarian

            The only problem with that argument is that mental capacity is an accident of our humanness and personness not the substance. With your argument I could say that the mentally retarted do not deserve personhood rights because they are not cognitively aware or conscious.

          • You could say that but you would be wrong. A “mentally retarded” person has self-awareness, consciousness and higher brain activity. Of course he or she is a person.

          • SecretSeminarian

            Both are irrelevant. brain activity is an accident of humanness/personhood. Using any accident to define legal personhood will leave out a group who are equally persons.

          • Brain activity is not an “accident.” It is what makes a person. What “group” is equally a person but has no brain activity? So dead people are to be treated as persons as well?

          • SecretSeminarian

            Wrong. Dead people have no pulse. They are people with little to no brain activity are still living and breathing.

          • Wrong. If there is no brain activity they are not breathing and their heart is not beating unless some machine is doing that. You said “little to no” so that is a hedge.

          • SecretSeminarian

            Your logic is based on a misunderstanding of the clinical and legal definition of death. Organismal death is properly understood as the irreversible loss of the being’s internal self-integration. This “self-integration” is what makes an organism a whole rather than a collection of parts. As soon as an organism stops acting as a self-integrating entity, it has stopped acting as an organism at all and ceases to be one. Pro-lifers agree that death is the ending boundary of personhood, because at that moment the entity transitions from being a human organism to being a human corpse. In other words, the entity no longer meets the minimum conditions for personhood—human and organism.

            Conceptually, the distinction between declining organism and disintegrating corpse is clear enough, but how to measure exactly when that transition has taken place has changed as the understanding of biology has developed. Centuries ago, the cessation of heartbeat was the clinical measure used to establish when death had taken place. As technology and scientific knowledge increased, it became clear that cessation of brainwaves correlated much more precisely with this final loss of organismal integration in postnatal humans. While not uncontroversial, cessation of brainwaves is currently the best generally accepted correlate of death that is clinically measurable. Cessation of brainwaves is not death any more than cessation of heartbeat was death, but it is something measurable that happens at about the same time as death. Therefore, because it is difficult to measure death directly, brainwaves are used as a legal benchmark to say that death has taken place. All the while, the philosophical understanding on which the legal definition is based has remained unchanged.

            An FMRI scan of a human brain

            Given that cessation of brainwaves is not death but only a measurable proxy for death, the current legal definition of death does not imply that possession of brainwaves is a necessary condition for personhood. Rather, being an organism is a necessary condition for personhood, and this is why death—the cessation of being an organism—is the ending boundary. The analogous beginning boundary, then, is not when the entity first exhibits brainwaves but rather when the entity first becomes an organism. There is a profound difference between a living human organism with brainwaves and a disintegrating corpse without brainwaves. There is, however, no such profound difference between a living human fetus without brainwaves and a living human fetus with brainwaves.

            Thus, the case for brainwaves by analogy with death fails. The pro-choicer could still fall back on the argument that sentience is really the key criterion, with initiation of brainwaves serving as the critical threshold that makes sentience a binary variable.

            This argument is difficult to defend, however. While we have no good standard for measuring consciousness or determining when a morally meaningful level of consciousness has been attained, we can safely say that a six-week-old fetus is in no sense sentient, despite exhibiting brainwaves. While brainwaves are a necessary precursor for sentience, so are neurons, which start developing much earlier. In short, the initiation of brainwaves does not mark a transition in sentience at all, and there is no reason to claim that initiation of brainwaves marks a transition in cognition or even the ability for future consciousness that is any more significant than a multitude of other developmental landmarks. As a result, it is an arbitrary and inadequate threshold.

          • SecretSeminarian

            It would be like saying that I am no longer Human because I am missing a hand or a finger. Losing the part of the body like the hand does not mean that the rest of me ceases to be human. That is a gross misunderstanding of the parts and the whole.

          • No it is not like saying that. You remain human without limbs but without a functioning brain you are a dead human. Dead humans do not have the rights of personhood.

          • Your reasoning is circular. You just arbitrarily choose to rule that a “human organism” is a person even if it has no sentience or even no brain waves. You can make that choice but it is arbitrary. I see no reason why a clump of cells that is a “human organism” but has no brain activity is entitled to outweigh the wishes of host (mother). If we no longer give a living human being all the rights of personhood once they are brain dead, then there is no logical reason to give a pre-born organism without brain activity (and I would say higher end brain activity) all the rights of a personhood.

            We are not going to base public policy on mysticism.

      • SecretSeminarian

        In short…….If what you say is true, what would stop me from tomorrow saying that another category of biological humans do not have “personhood: and rights? What if tomorrow society thought that the elderly or the mentally ill/mentally handicapped are do not have “personhood”? Is that moral? Are you actually going to tell me that you believe that?

        • See my other response. Elderly and handicapped have brain activity so the answer is they are persons. If they are “brain dead” then they are dead. They are no longer persons, which does not mean they are treated without respect, but they do not have the rights of personhood.

          • SecretSeminarian

            define brain dead

          • Brain dead means complete and irreversible loss of brain function (including involuntary activity necessary to sustain life).

            Before there is brain function there is no person and once it is gone there is no person.

  • Peter Murphy

    I am sure plenty of murderers feel bad about what they did and had circumstances that lead to their murdering another human being. That does not mean we do not punish them. That is doublespeak.

  • Klaus von Wurstfest

    If abortion is murder, why wouldn’t there be a punishment? Not trying to cause trouble, I just don’t get it.

  • Billy Brackett

    If you believe abortion is murdering an unborn child then it makes no logical sense that a woman should not be punished for having an abortion. Punishment only for the abortion provider and not the mother is like saying you are not guilty of murder if you hire a hitman. An unborn child is either a life or it isn’t. There is no “well it is a life but if you kill it we kinda understand”. If you deny this line of reasoning you must believe that the unborn child is not a human being deserving of rights. Can’t have it both ways.

  • PaulMN

    This pro-life position on abortion is illogical. On one hand, the pro-lifers state that abortion is killing an unborn baby (and they believe unborn baby is a human life). If that’s the case, then all involved in the killing need to be punished for the killing. If a woman wanted to pay someone to kill her husband (instead of her unborn baby), both she and the person who she hired to kill her husband would go to jail.

  • D. Johnson

    Doesn’t it occur to anybody that it is healthier for a woman to give birth
    to the child .

  • EternalDamnation

    If a foetus is genuinely a human person, and thus killing it is murder, then of course there should be legal consequences for everyone involved. This indeed happens in some countries where the Catholic Church or Sharia Law dominates over civil law. However, other than a few extremists, almost no one in the US wants to see women punished in any way for an abortion. Most of the pro-lifers for example only want to help women recover from the emotional hurt that some suffer after an abortion and to provide alternatives that might encourage them not to have an abortion. But the consequence of this is that that suggests most Americans, despite what they may say, do not in fact view a foetus as a human person. The problem is that there is really no consensus on exactly what we think a foetus is, and most people are buried under a range of conflicting opinions driven by their ideologies and agendas.
    The only objective view is science. Science is quite clear that a foetus IS a human being (not a human person) albeit at an early stage of development. But science does not address the issue of personhood and its moral consequences. The closest it comes to this argument is helping us understand the degree to which a foetus has conscious awareness and defining when the foetus becomes essentially “self-sufficient” , and these pointers are not always clear.
    So the moral issues come down to how we attach values to being a human ‘person’ versus being a human ‘being’ versus being a developing lump of cells albeit with human DNA . Without a clear set of guidelines regarding these and similar issues, there is no clarity on the moral questions and there never will be. What is perhaps worse, is that most people have absolutely no consistent views on these issues, and it is questionable as to whether some are even capable of properly understanding the issues. Religion tends to try to simplify the issues so that people feel they can make a decision, whereas the secular state tends to confuse the issue further, because its primary goal is enable diverse groups of people to coexist peacefully, and this runs into problems when we have different groups with implacable differences.
    So frankly, it really doesn’t matter what people’s moral views are on abortion. There simply is no framework for establishing a moral consensus and we are already seeing the implications of that in areas like science, where some scientists are already pushing hard to see if it is possible to grow a test tube foetus all the way to self-awareness and independent existence and are keen to show the world that we can produce the first test tube human person…….lying on top of a huge pile of failed carcasses!

  • A Ved

    Anna Yocca was Charged With Attempted Murder for Coat-Hanger Abortion in Tennessee (lesser charges still pending) via @MotherJones

    Does this organization advocate for the repeal of “fetal homicide” laws for women who self-abort based on strict or repealed abortion rights? Based on statements above, it seems they would.

  • Shelton Henderson

    They tried to limit the conversation to choice and anti abortion. But if you take the next logical step of pro life movement…. abortion is banned/made illegal and a fetus is a person then the women is guilty of murder and should be punished. Donald Trump said what they don’t want to say but he was right…He exposed the end result of making abortions illegal.

  • Joe

    The bottom line is this: you MUST have some sort of fair and just penalty for mothers, fathers, criminal abortionists and others who commit the crime of killing a human being in the unborn stage. If we do not do this we CANNOT protect unborn children from being killed.

    Whether the mother is a victim or not, whether she thinks she is committing a crime or not, whether she is coerced or not, the reality is that she is a deadly threat to the life of her child and must be stopped.

    • Joe

      Pro Life Leaders:

      Please, please STOP saying that “no pro life person believes in punishing the mother for killing her unborn child” or any other words to that effect. Any time you have the urge to say that, please stop and go and check out the comments section dealing with this subject at your website or Facebook page. You will soon see there are scores, even hundreds of people (and millions across the country) who take the right and just position (and the ONLY TRUE PRO LIFE position) that mothers and fathers, in addition to criminal abortionists, should be held accountable and punished for the crimes they commit (and they ARE crimes) when they kill or attempt to kill their unborn children. Disagree with if you must (and please don’t, because we are completely right as a matter of logic, justice and morality), but do NOT claim that we do NOT exist .

    • IntelliWriter

      Just to clear things up JOE, who will never be pregnant, abortion is legal in this country. Ergo, “abortionists,” or as they’re commonly called–doctors, are not criminals.

  • Peter Murphy

    Actually No. REAL pro-lifers understand that not all women were victims. Some actively and consciously chose to commit premeditated murder without any pressure from anyone else.

    Trump is right in this case. If you truly believe that abortion is the cold blooded murder of a human being then you would be a hypocrite to then turn around and say that someone who commits premeditated murder should not be punished. Those who say that the women are also the victim forget that planned parenthood was not dragging women to their slaughterhouses against their will. Yes, somehow, the mere existence of a clinic forces her to enter its doors, even if she has to drive all day to get there, sleep in her car to fulfill a 24-, 48- or 72-hour waiting period, listen to a script full of anti-abortion propaganda and pay a month’s wages for the procedure. Even the liberals see the logical fallacy in that as demonstrated by this NY Times article.

    I wrote an article on my blog showing how the argument against punishments for women who commit murder by their own definition is illogical and actually does more harm to the pro life movement and the cause of saving the lives of the pre-born.

  • Tom Glenn

    Abortion is murder, but there should be no punishment for it? Maybe it’s really not murder.

  • Agonizing Truth

    So if a wife hires a contract killer to murder her husband and the killer is successful but the police find out about it, are the police going to say “Oh, this woman was a victim of this tragedy as much as the dead husband, let’s just prosecute the contract killer”?? Of course not. Why on earth should the murder of an unborn baby, a victim more defenseless than a grown man, be any different? When abortion is made illegal once more it will be because it is murder, i.e. deliberate homicide without exculpatory factors like self-defense or defense of the lives of those around you. If you don’t punish the principal criminal in the act of abortion, the pregnant woman who has decided that her own convenience means more to her than the life or death of another human being, the pregnant woman of course being the one who has INITIATED THE CRIME in the first place (as I don’t think you’re going to find abortion doctors standing around on a street corner going “Psssst!! Hey lady, want to get rid of an unwanted unborn baby?”), then you will be letting the one more responsible than anyone else for the crime off the hook, free and clear. She could theoretically use it as a form of birth control and have several abortions by different doctors and each of those doctors would be punished but not her?? Are you serious or is this a parody website??

    By that logic, if the above scenario that I described occurred (with the contract killer and the husband), if nobody witnesses the murder and it’s just the wife’s word against the hired killer then the legal system would routinely let the wife and the contract killer both get away free and clear. This doesn’t happen, instead she is prosecuted for being at least as responsible for the crime occurring as the actual killer himself. You seriously don’t think that convictions of abortion doctors could be secured unless you let the one who initiated the process by approaching the abortion doctor in the first place off the hook entirely? What color is the sky in your world?

    No, clearly your reasoning is nothing more than this: “If we say what everyone with common sense knows to be true, that a woman getting an abortion is at least as guilty of that abortion as the doctor performing it and she should be punished accordingly, then any women sitting on the fence who can’t decide if they really want to be anti-abortion or pro-abortion are going to be scared away and run to the arms of the pro-abortion folks because we just frightened them by telling them that if abortion is made illegal again it will be punished as what it really is, murder, and they would be prosecuted for it. So we’d better pretend that we really think the woman deliberately having her unborn human murdered is just a helpless little “victim” just like the aborted baby or else we’re going to scare away the indecisive fence sitters.”

    There, fixed that for you. You’re welcome.

  • How can you say “abortion is murder” then say that there should be no punishment for it? No, if you really think it’s murder, then you want to throw some 16 year old girl in prison after she gets an abortion.

  • naksuthin

    Donald Trump was 100% correct when he said that women should be punished for having abortions

    It’s the pregnant woman who…

    1. Hires a “hit man” (an abortionist) to kill a human being (her fetus ),
    2. Sets the date of the execution,
    3. Takes the victim to the place of execution
    4. Pays the hit man money to kill the human being
    5. Signs a document saying she take full responsibility for the murder,
    Then sits back and watches the hit man kill the victim..right before
    right before her eyes…and doesn’t leave until she is sure the victim
    is dead.

    By any definition it’s the mother who is the “murderer”. The abortion doctor is an accessory to murder. He is acting under her instructions

    So, if you are PRO LIFE
    Trying to paint the woman as a “victim” and the “abortion provider” as the
    perpetrator is tortured twisted logic that defies all reason.

    You could put all the “abortion providers” in jail.
    And the pregnant woman would still be looking for a way to “kill” her fetus

  • noname anonymous

    Abortion is murder. There should always be a punishment for murder.

  • noah

    “Women who choose abortion often do so in desperation and then deeply regret such a decision.”

    So do some people who choose to kill cops, or rob banks, or sell drugs. Let’s let them off the hook, too, on the basis that their uncoerced and voluntary action was done “under duress” or in a state of “mental confusion.”

  • Kirstin Tina

    My name is Rita Ruby. i live in Australia, and am married for 15years without conceiving or getting pregnant until the issue resolved to problem in my home, i was really worried and bothered because i don’t want to loose my husband to another woman. i have went to hospital, the doctor told me that i cant get pregnant again i thought i have lost my husband and my marriage already.i decided to check the internet for updates on healthy living and i came across a story of a man of God who PROPHET JEREMIAH Trust helped his wife(Garry Linder) to conceive a baby. i decided to put a try because this has been my greatest problem in life.i contacted PROPHET Jeremiah. Trust via email and tell him my problem and he assured me that he will help me, he told me what to do which i did and today i am a proud mom with a son and daughter. Words will not be enough to explained what this man did for me.i know there is someone in this same condition and you feel there is no way. i urge you to contact prophet Jeremiah so that him can payer for you .Tust now i have giving birth to twins a boy and a girl. and my husband now love me more than before. if you are in need to get pregnant or you need your xe back or you want to win lottery, contact him through his via email or watch him television marcylandtv com or +2347055176615 .

  • joem789

    The problem is that the world is always full of fools. Many more than there are wise people. It does not matter what year it is, or even what century it is. Fools are the majority. They exist in every area of society. Doctors, lawyers, judges. Fools are everywhere. Those fools are promoting the idea that if it doesn’t look, smell, sound, or act like a baby, then it must NOT be a baby. Therefore, killing it is no different than stepping on a spider.

    In the majority of all abortion cases, the babies were killed due to the fear inconvenience. Foolish women trying to “erase a mistake”. If people were punished for such actions, they would start thinking more deeply before making choices. Life without consequences is not what we should be promoting. And “pro choice” is exactly that.

    Giving a pro-abortion woman a hug and saying “It’ll be alright” is the most idiotic thing I ever heard. Clearly. The March For Life organization is just another group of people trying to get attention for some agenda. But it’s not really accomplishing anything good. Women and doctors both should be fined and jailed for it. Even if a pregnancy is through rape. Have the baby. Give it to someone who will take care of it. The moment GOD decided to light the spark of life into that woman is the day a living human organism we call a BABY was born. Not when it comes out of the mother. To stamp out that life force is an abomination to what this world was created for. A direct act against GOD. Death comes on its own. Not by our choices.