Bishops sink Polish anti-abortion law

From Syndey Trads:

Fourthly, the protests of the feminists forced Law and Justice to convene in a hastily and embarrassing manner an arguably illegal session of a Parliamentary committee and recommend the rejection of the popular initiative to the Sejm (the Lower House). That same day – and this must be especially emphasized – the Polish Episcopal Conference issued a surprising document, in which it opposed the pro-life reform, because it mandated the punishing of all those persons responsible for conducting an abortion, including women who allow their children to be killed.

Fifthly, the Law and Justice government rejected the popular initiative by a crushing majority in the second stage of the legislative process (in the Polish Sejm legislative process is divided into 3 stages) effectively blocking any substantive discussion concerning the Bill and the posing of questions. The authors of the bill (i.e. the Catholics in the aforementioned NGO’s) were informed that a discussion on the bill would take place just a few hours before the committee meeting and before the final vote, despite the fact that the rules of the Sejm require that this happen three days in advance. As a result, some of the representatives of the authors  of the Bill did not make on time to the Sejm.

Sixthly, throughout the duration of the controversy, certain Law and Justice politicians would declare their discomfort with the notion of punishing women, which was stipulated under the Bill. Despite having the means to simply expunge this section of the Bill and continue to work on it without the penal consequences for women who decide to kill their children, they refrained from doing this. This reflected the position of the Polish Bishops who on the same day decided to reject the Bill in its entirety. The Sejm rejected the popular initiative. Out of 460 MP’s, barely 50 voted for the bill.

Seventhly, Law and Justice MP’s who all of a sudden changed their position made references to the decision of the Bishops. Krystyna Pawłowicz wrote openly on her Facebook page that “it was the Episcopate that authorized us to do this”.

The Polish Church is one of the more conservative ones, but even for it, the Fifth Commandment (Thou Shalt Not Kill) is trumped by the Zeroth Commandment (Thou Shalt Not Criticize or Punish a Woman for Anything, Not Even for Contracting the Murder of Her Own Child).  Human beings will die because of this “women are the second victim” nonsense being propagated by a feminism-corrupted Catholic Church.

111 Responses

  1. […] the Polish Episcopal Conference issued a surprising document, in which it opposed the pro-life reform, because it mandated the punishing of all those persons […]

  2. I’ve read about this story over and over again, just hoping that the next time it will change. I’m not sure that I’ve ever been so demoralized by a piece of news, so close to an actual, real victory, only to be stabbed in the back by our supposed shepherds.

    I know this has happened time and time again, and I know more that we should not expect too much success in this world, but is it too much to ask that once, just once, the leaders of the Church pretend that they believe her teachings? That just once we get an Athanasius instead of yet another Eusebius?

  3. Regardless of the legislation, the fact is that women who procure an abortion will not be prosecuted.

    In Scotland, under the old law, prosecutions of abortionists were almost wholly confined to unqualified practitioners. Medical practitioners invariably claimed that they had performed a D & C to remove post-partum placenta after a spontaneous miscarriage and this usually proved impossible to refute.

    The rule “testis unus, testis nullus” [One witness is no witness] meant that prosecutors usually had to rely on the Moorov doctrine, under which witnesses to individual episodes of a course of criminal conduct are mutually corroborative. Thus, two women testifying that the panel had performed an abortion on each of them would provide the necessary corroboration against her on both charges, but, as their own admissions were usually uncorroborated, there was insufficient evidence on which to prosecute them and, once having testified, they were immune as socii criminis.

    I once spent a day or two checking through the Books of Adjournal and virtually all the cases were of this character.

    As for medical practitioners, I found that Alexander Aitken surgeon had been convicted at Perth September 1823, the prosecutor relying heavily on proof of payment of a grossly excessive fee (25/-) and that Dr Roderick Sutherland Ross, General Practitioner, had been convicted at Edinburgh on 24 Jan. 1967 on two charges. Ross gave the women injections, (for which he charged £100), not in a clinical setting, but in a “little bedsitting room acquired by the accused ostensibly for bagpipe practice” (!) Those were the only two instances in 150 years.

  4. A very sad development, especially as the protests surrounding the law were entirely astroturfed by OpenDemocracy (Soros outfit). Regardless however, the government should have passed it anyway. The priesthood has shown time and time again, they will not lead. It is up to the courageous to lead, and Kaczynski really let me down here.

  5. If women are victims of abortion, is Stalin the victim of genocide against Christians?

  6. In most cases girls and women are coerced or outright forced to submit to abortion. The “I have to have an abortion because pregnancy will ruin my bikini figure this summer” excuse appears to be very much the exception.
    Considerable success has been obtained where prostitutes are left alone by the criminal process with enforcement concentrated on the pimps, madams and johns. The conventional wisdom is that most prostitutes are coerced through drug addiction or forced by kidnapping pimps and would not voluntarily choose to be prostitutes.
    A similar attitude has been shown toward abortion back when the enforcement against abortion was active. Yet the prosecution and conviction of only two abortionists in 150 years demonstrates, I believe, the reluctance of prosecutors to press charges and the reluctance of jurors to convict in the rare instance of prosecution of abortionists.
    The US Supreme Court’s research was unable to find any instance of an aborting mother being prosecuted. More common is prosecuting a mother for NOT aborting, prosecuting her for exposing her unborn child to illicit drugs or alcohol. All a drug-addicted or alcoholic mother has to do to evade prosecution is to have her child killed before birth.

  7. In most cases abortion doctors are coerced or outright forced to submit to abortion. The “I have to perform abortion because not doing so will ruin my finsncial situation” excuse appears to be very much the exception.
    Considerable success has been obtained where pimps, madams, and johns are left alone by the criminal process with enforcement concentrated on the prostitutes. The conventional wisdom is that most pimps, madams, and johns are coerced through drug addiction or forced by kidnapping prostitutes and would not voluntarily choose to be pimps, madams, and johns.

  8. I struggle to think of any instances where criminally punishing the women who procure abortions has met with considerable success. Even in counter-Reformation Rome, when Sixtus V introduced the death penalty for abortion it was repealed by the succeeding pontiff due to the incredible unpopularity of the law.

  9. El Salvador seems to be doing pretty well.

  10. As you are doubtless aware, president-elect of the USA Donald Trump, when asked what should be done with women who obtained abortions, responded that if it’s illegal they should be punished.
    The “Pro-(Some)-Life” spokespeople let out a squeal, declaring that no “real” Pro-Lifer wants to punish aborting mothers.
    “Real” Pro-Lifers don’t want to punish anyone. Not only do they not want to punish aborting mothers; they don’t want to punish abortionists, either. Just pass a law and everyone will stop perpetrating abortions.

  11. As you are doubtless aware, president of the USA Donald Trump, when asked what should be done with women who obtained abortions, responded that if it’s illegal they should be punished.
    The “Pro-(Some)-Life” spokespeople let out a squeal, declaring that no “real” Pro-Lifer wants to punish aborting mothers.
    “Real” Pro-Lifers don’t want to punish anyone. Not only do they not want to punish aborting mothers; they don’t want to punish abortionists, either. Just pass a law and everyone will stop perpetrating abortions.

  12. Harry S wrote, “Just pass a law and everyone will stop perpetrating abortions.”

    Anyone who remembers France in the 1950s & 1960s, before the Veil Law of 1975 (Law No. 75-17 of 18 January 1975), will know that pretty well every village seemed to have its « faiseuse d’anges » or “angel-maker.” Everyone knew about it, nobody talked about it and the police regarded it as “women’s business” and turned a blind eye.

    Occasionally a woman died and, then, the Parquet, like Captain Renault in “Casablanca” would be shocked, shocked to discover that such things went on and there would be a brief flurry of prosecutions of unqualified women, quickly rounded up and, so, obviously known to police. Medical practitioners, doctors and midwives, were never, ever, prosecuted.

    Older people will recall « le manifeste des 343 salopes » on 5 April 1971, when 343, mostly prominent, women admitted to having had an abortion and challenging the authorities to prosecute them. This, needless to say, did not happen, as their confessions could not be corroborated.

    Perhaps even more significant was the publication of a similar manifesto on 2 February 1973 by 331 doctors, including professors of obstetrics and gynaecology in the leading teaching hospitals, admitting to performing abortions and, again, challenging the authorities to prosecute them. The Procurator of the Republic excused himself on the grounds of lack of evidence.

  13. The French feminist Benoîte Groult wrote in her autobiography that she used to practice an abortion on her sister, and her sister on her, every month when they were young, just to be sure, since they were sleeping with a lot of men. “Ce que femme veut…”

  14. Those stories say more about the level of wickedness in post-war French society than it does about the efficacy of punishing abortion.

  15. TheFirstNowell wrote, “Those stories say more about the level of wickedness in post-war French society than it does about the efficacy of punishing abortion.”

    Does anyone imagine American (or Polish) society was somehow less wicked during the same period?

    As for the efficacy of punishment, France had tried severe penalties, but to little effect. As recently as 30 July 1943, Marie-Louise Giraud had been guillotined for performing 27 abortions, a crime against the safety of the state under the Law of 15 February 1942. The special tribunal (tribunal d’exception) before which she was tried found her motive to have been “lure of gain” (Appât du gain). Had not one of her patients died of septicaemia, she would never have been prosecuted.

    After the Liberation, the Law of 27 March 1923 was restored, under which abortion was a « délit » or misdemeanour, with a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment. A higher penalty would have entitled the accused to trial by jury and juries simply refused to convict in such cases.

  16. Of course I don’t think the level of wickedness was any less in U.S. than in France then or at any time.

    The question about the efficacy of punishment for abortion in the past can be answered by looking at the data. What happened to the rate of abortions in France after legalization? Did it increase? From the estimates I’ve seen it just about tripled. In the U.S. the abortion rate increased immediately after roe v. Wade. The evidence seems to me that punishment does have some deterring effect, which makes sense that it would.

    Even in some bizzaro world where punishment had absolutely no deterring effect, there would still be a case for it. Justice demands it. It is better for the murderer that they are punished in this life than the next.

  17. MPS, should we not prosecute murder because some people get away with it?

  18. Arkansasreactionary wrote:

    “In most cases abortion doctors are coerced or outright forced to submit to abortion.”
    Where do you get such nonsense?

    “The ‘I have to perform abortion because not doing so will ruin my finsncial situation’ excuse appears to be very much the exception.”
    Bullpuckeys. Abortionists murder babies for the money. I’ve seen the cars and houses of a few of them. They know why and what they are doing.

    “Considerable success has been obtained where pimps, madams, and johns are left alone by the criminal process with enforcement concentrated on the prostitutes.”
    Give us one example of where and when this has ever been true.

    “The conventional wisdom is that most pimps, madams, and johns are coerced through drug addiction or forced by kidnapping prostitutes and would not voluntarily choose to be pimps, madams, and johns.”
    Such “wisdom” can be only the product of a damaged brain.

  19. Joseph asks, “[S]hould we not prosecute murder because some people get away with it?”

    The difference being (1) Police are willing to prioritize murder investigations and (2) Juries are willing to convict.

    HarryS wrote, “Abortionists murder babies for the money.” That is one motive, but there are others. Consider the notorious case of Sir Dugald Baird. He worked all his life in public hospitals on a fixed salary, when he could have made much more in private practice. His willingness to stretch the pre-1967 law to the limit and beyond and his advocacy for abortion did not bring him money; it did bring him the influential teaching post of Regius Professor of Midwifery at the University of Aberdeen, the esteem of his colleagues, who elected him President of the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists and, of course, his knighthood.

    In 1966, under his tenure, one pregnancy in 50 was terminated in Aberdeen, compared to 1 in 3,750 in Glasgow.

  20. Michael-Paterson-Seymour:

    The difference being (1) Police are willing to prioritize murder investigations and (2) Juries are willing to convict.

    What on earth does that have to do with what we ought to do? Is it a normative moral principle that police should decline to investigate murders of the maximally vulnerable and innocent, and that courts should decline to convict those who deliberately murder the maximally vulnerable and innocent?

    The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenceless, even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defence consisting in the poignant power of a newborn baby’s cries and tears. The unborn child is totally entrusted to the protection and care of the woman carrying him or her in the womb. — Evangelium Vitae

  21. In “The Silent Scream,” narrated by the then-atheist Jew, Bernard Nathanson, charter member of NARAL, National Abortion Rights Action League, major force for the legalization of abortion-on-demand in New York state, USA, the infant (“fetus”) appears to push away the suction tube.

  22. Harry S:

    It is often helpful, before replying to a post, to read the one immediately above it. Lest one make a fool of themselves.

    MPS:

    That’s only an argument against trial by jury and against leaving abortion investigations to ordinary detectives.

  23. ArkansasReactionary wrote, “That’s only an argument against trial by jury and against leaving abortion investigations to ordinary detectives.”
    No doubt making it a summary offence would make it easier to secure convictions. In most countries, constitutional provisions would restrict the penalty for summary offences to a trivial one.

    The difficulties I outlined in my comment of 14 October (supra) would remain. The only cases likely to come to the attention of police are those where complications lead a woman to seek medical treatment in the A & E Department of a hospital. In such cases, unqualified abortionists will be prosecuted, as they were under the old law. Medical practitioners will not; their records will show that they performed a D & C to remove post-partum placenta after a spontaneous miscarriage.

  24. Then perhaps those constitutional provisions should be changed. I’m not much of a fan of trial by jury anyway.

    In any case, the various prudential answers which could be proposed with regard to practical problems in enforcement don’t affect the main point. Though a one suggestion I would make (without much consideration) would be to perhaps require D&C’s to be performed in a hospital, on the evaluation of two physicians. That would make it considerably more difficult to perform an abortion under that cover.

    Regardless of all that though, the difficulties in prosecuting angels of death (and their conspirators, as in the case of abortion) do not change the fact that their actions should be illegal, and when they are caught they should suffer the harshest penalties.

  25. Even if, as they should be, aborting/aborted mothers are liable before the law for criminal homicide, in all but the most egregious cases they will be offered immunity in return for their testimony against abortionists and their accomplices.
    What should have priority? Punishing aborting mothers, who typically have one or two children killed, or convicting and punishing abortionists, who each typically have murdered hundreds and even thousands of children?

  26. It’s completely unreasonable to grant immunity to a murderer to testify against an accomplice.

  27. Also, just as a general matter, putting prospective aborting mothers in fear of execution or other severe punishment would save more children than doing the same to doctors, since you can’t completely eliminate abortionists, and fear (of prosecution) is a better deterrent than inconvenience (from it being harder to find a willing abortionist). Though of course the state should still prosecute both whenever caught.

  28. ArkansasReactionary wrote, “It’s completely unreasonable to grant immunity to a murderer to testify against an accomplice.”

    Why is it unreasonable to secure the conviction of one offender, rather than none?

    During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, there were dozens of such cases. Even where not wholly necessary, it had the added advantage of creating suspicion and insecurity within the paramilitary organizations themselves.

    Here in Scotland, where the rule “Testis unus, testis nullus” – One witness is no witness – is strictly applied, reliance on the evidence of a Socius Criminis is very common across the whole range of criminal cases. In fact, I cannot recall one case of the successful prosecution of a resetter, where one or more of the thieves did not give evidence. A witness’s precognition cannot be used against him and, once sworn, his complete immunity is automatic; otherwise, he could never be purged of malice and partial counsel.

    Most people will recall that, in the notorious case of Burke and Hare, who had murdered some 15 people to sell their bodies for dissection, Hare and his wife turned King’s evidence and, even with their evidence, the charges against Burke’s mistress, McDougall, were found not proven (Scottish juries were notoriously reluctant to convict a woman). It is a perfect example of the public prosecutor having to settle for half-a-loaf (and very nearly ending up with no bread)

  29. ArkansasReactionary on February 1, 2017 at 5:01 pm
    “It’s completely unreasonable to grant immunity to a murderer to testify against an accomplice.”
    Perhaps unreasonable IYO but not unreasonable IPO (In Prosecutor’s Opinion).
    Letting a little fish go in order to hook a big fish is done all the time. Often, first conspirator* to confess gets to walk or do a little time for a minor offense that is part of the major offense.
    * When two or more participate in a crime, there is a conspiracy and the participants are all conspirators.
    The aborting mother can be granted immunity in the murder in return for her truthful testimony and a plea of guilty to a minor offense that is part of the criminal act. Say, failing to timely report a felony (misdemeanor), conspiracy to commit murder (grand misdemeanor or minor felony), concealing/disposing of evidence in a felony (misdemeanor). She can be sentenced to up to a year (or 11/29) on each charge, and the sentences can run concurrently or consecutively.

    Supreme Court justice Harry Blackmun put it well in Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113
    [ Footnote 54 ] When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained [410 U.S. 113, 158] in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother’s condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment’s command?

    There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out, n. 49, supra, that in Texas the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?

    A “person” is a human being. Go back and substitute “human being” in each place where Blackmun wrote “person”:

    [ Footnote 54 ] When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a HUMAN BEING, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained [410 U.S. 113, 158] in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a HUMAN BEING who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother’s condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment’s command?

    There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out, n. 49, supra, that in Texas the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a HUMAN BEING, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a HUMAN BEING, may the penalties be different?

  30. ArkansasReactionary does allude to an interesting microeconomic-like point. Punishing hit men (abortionists) but refusing to convict and punish the murderesses who hire them reminds me a bit of Dalrock’s Gilligan post, on a related subject:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/we-are-trapped-on-slut-island-and-traditional-conservatives-are-our-gilligan/

    As long as the payoff is good enough there will always be hit men to hire. One hit man can service many murderesses, just as one cad can service many sluts. So even just from a practical standpoint you have to go after the sluts/murderesses if you want to effectively reduce promiscuity/abortion, respectively.

    Sure, hang the hit men too. I’m right there with you. But if you don’t punish the murderesses they will always be able to find a desperate/greedy enough hit man. In fact the more you reduce the number of hit men, the more profitable the murder business will be for the ones who remain (just as the fewer cads there are, the bigger the soft harems of the cads who stay in the game).

    None of this ultimately matters, because it is a matter of principle that murderers – especially of the most innocent – should face robust punishment. This is a basic duty of any sovereign, and when he creates ‘safe spaces’ for murder of the most innocent he (as Evangelium Vitae affirms) undermines the legitimacy of his own authority. Passing out parking tickets while letting murder of children proceed is a sign of a sovereign who needs to be hanged himself.

    But as in many cases the moral and the practical do have a kind of alignment here. If you want to reduce promiscuity you have to shame sluts: anything you do to cads without shaming sluts just makes things more sexually profitable for the remaining cads. And if you want to reduce abortion you have to punish the murderesses who procure them: anything you do to the abortionists without punishing the murderesses just makes the proficient hit man more valuable.

  31. Michael:

    Obviously, I was speaking about cases where the conviction of one party is already secure.

    Harry S:

    I have no idea what you think your comment has to do with anything. Suffice to say, if you have any evidence that granting immunity to convictable murderers in exchange for testimony is common, please cite it.

    Zippy:

    Exactly. There are actually lots of cases that this applies to beyond unchastity and abortion. For example, there would undoubtedly be a lot less drugs on our streets if instead of granting dealers plea deals to testify against kingpins, we simply executed dealers.

  32. The difficulties in prosecuting abortion are formidable.

    The chance of them being reported to the authorities is remote. It will usually happen if the woman suffers severe complications. In the case of unqualified abortionists, rumours that Mrs So-and-so “helps girls in trouble” make reach the police.

    To obtain a conviction, the prosecutor must prove (beyond reasonable doubt and on corroborated evidence) each of the following facts, which must be relevantly averred in the libel:

    1. That the woman was pregnant
    2. That the fetus was alive
    3. That the accused used a certain specified instrument or administered “x grains or thereby” of a certain specified drug for the purpose of causing her to abort
    4. That she was “thereby caused or procured to part in an untimely manner with the child in her womb”
    5. Of which child, she was delivered in the (say) “second, third or fourth month of her pregnancy or thereby” [a latitude of 3 months being permitted]

    Lack of specification makes the libel irrelevant and a variation between the facts libelled and the proof results in the charge being departed from.

    In the case of an unqualified abortionist, the testimony of two “patients” may suffice, for where an accused person is charged with a series of similar offences closely linked in time, character and circumstances, the evidence of one witness implicating the accused in one offence may be taken to corroborate the evidence of another witness implicating the accused in another offence, each offence being treated as if it were an element in a single course of conduct.

    Note that, whilst evidence of A that X performed an abortion on her may be corroborated by evidence of B that X performed an abortion on her too, A’s evidence would not even be admissible against B and vice versa, for there is no unity of intent, project, campaign, or adventure on their part.

    In the case of a medical practitioner, the prosecutor may rely for corroboration of a single patient on the absence of consultation with colleagues; admission to hospital or a recognised nursing home; observance of normal professional etiquette, such as a consultant being called in by the patient’s general practitioner; reasonable fees being charged, in the case of private patients; the keeping of proper records.

  33. That it is relatively easy to hide a particular crime is all the more reason for making the punishment severe.

  34. “That it is relatively easy to hide a particular crime is all the more reason for making the punishment severe.”

    All the more reason, too, to enable Socii to come forward, inform the authorities and testify with impunity.

  35. Even just from a utilitarian standpoint, enabling abortionists to testify against their clients would point the arrow in a far more effective direction. A deal with one abortionist implicates many murderesses.

    This is a pretty good example of where the alt-right “cuck” accusation hits its target.

  36. I’d be fine with one murderess implicating one abortionist, followed by that one abortionist implicating all his other clients. This would have the further salutary effect of encouraging murderesses to be the first one to come forward and admit her crime.

    But somehow the cuck way always resists the second step; because “pro life” is (which surprised me when Donald Trump accidentally got pro lifers to reveal this) really just a variant of pro choice.

  37. Abortion doesn’t have to be the only crime. Maltreatment of a corpse carries a substantial prison term, there’s no reason this shouldn’t be the case with unborn children. And all that would be required to prove that would be that the woman was pregnant, and that the pregnancy ended without any birth or death record being made.

  38. “I’d be fine with one murderess implicating one abortionist, followed by that one abortionist implicating all his other clients.”

    Testis unus testis nullus – One murderess implicating one abortionist, however credible and reliable, would result in a Not Proven verdict for lack of corroboration. Likewise, one abortionist implicating all his other clients would be one witness only – The law requires two.

    Two murderesses implicating one abortionist – They are mutually corroborative, for, as I pointed out earlier, where an accused person is charged with a series of similar offences closely linked in time, character and circumstances, the evidence of one witness implicating the accused in one offence may be taken to corroborate the evidence of another witness implicating the accused in another offence, each offence being treated as if it were an element in a single course of conduct.

  39. “All that would be required to prove that would be that the woman was pregnant, and that the pregnancy ended without any birth or death record being made.”

    A stillbirth is not a “corpse.” Likewise, no birth or death record is made and it is illegal to inter it in consecrated ground (locus religiosus)

    Also, an indictment that does not specify the tempus, locus and modus of the offence is irrelevant.

  40. Michael Paterson-Seymour:

    In addition to questionable microeconomics, you keep invoking specific positive laws which apply in particular places as if they represented universal principle.

    Don’t you see the fallacy in that?

    And you keep invoking (putative) forensic difficulties in investigation and enforcement as an excuse to expressly permit murder.

    Don’t you see the fallacy in that?

  41. Why I should care what the current law in Scotland is is beyond me.

  42. Every Western country and their former colonies has inherited from Scripture (Deut 17:6, Deut 19:15, Matt 18:16 & 2Cor 13:1) and from the Roman law (Dig. 22.5.12 Ulpianus 37 ad ed: Codex 4, 20, 9 Imp. Constantinus A. ad Iulianum; 4,20,9 Imp. Constantinus A. ad Iulianum) the principle that no one may be convicted on the testimony of a single witness. Grotius and Voȅt consider it to be part of the Natural law and it is certainly part of the ius gentium.

    Any attempt to frame a law criminalizing abortion will have to take into account this fundamental principle.

    One cannot deduce from “X is wrong” that “X ought to be investigated and punished by state officials at the public expense.” A better starting point is “Instances of X causes widespread alarm and insecurity in the community,” “Instances of X are a threat to public order.” They are certainly implicit in the practice of legislators throughout history.

  43. MPS:
    Who suggested that anyone should be convicted of anything based on nothing but the testimony of a single witness, with no other evidence?

    The principle you are asserting is that the law should expressly permit murders which are forensically difficult (taking pre-industrial technology as given) to prove, simply because they are difficult to prove. Again, can you not see the fallacy there?

    It can be difficult to prove murder of vagrants and prostitutes, for much the same reasons that it can difficult to prove abortion: few people even know they exist, bodies can be disposed of thereby eliminating physical evidence, their position makes them uniquely vulnerable to murder, etc. Should the law, then, expressly permit murdering vagrants and prostitutes based on the “golly that kind of case is forensically tricky for 18th century bobbies” principle?

  44. Those who support abortion will encourage contempt and disrespect for the law as a whole throughout society. They will use its difficulty to prove as well as its social impact (dead mothers and starving children) as rationalizations to encourage dissent in thought and deed. We’ve seen this with prohibitions of drugs&alcohol; impediments to divorce; and a variety of laws, statues and regulations. The law informs the people but the people tolerate the law. It will not take much for general disrespect to turn into contempt and then the great evil of internecine conflict and dissolution of the people and their order.

    The prosecution of murderers of vagrants and prostitutes is supported by, at least in theory, a broad consensus throughout the classes and orders which make up society. This makes the difficulty in gaining convictions in these cases irrelevant. Now, this last point may change. And I wouldn’t be surprised by such wickedness considering what we have witnessed. Terminations of life in the womb is now justifying (and normalizing) termination of lives near their end with euthanasia; and it is merely a step away of extending the thought to those who have trouble caring for themselves or lead marginalized, peripatetic lives (like prostitutes and vagrant)

  45. I am suggesting that, given the difficulties of proof, we grant immunity to women who testify against abortionists, just as we give immunity to thieves who testify against resetters, drug-dealers who testify against importers, paramilitaries who testify against bomb-makers, poachers who testify against game-dealers and other cases too numerous to specify.

    I do so on the same principle that official offers of reward often include a promise of pardon to anyone other than the principal.

    I would also wager that, whatever the letter of the law, like the old law, it will be used exclusively against back-street abortionists and not against Professors of Midwifery in university teaching hospitals or Fellows of the Royal Colleges or Harley Street Consultants (and not against women, either).

  46. MPS:

    I already agreed above that limited grants of immunity in particular cases may be used to gain convictions; though, as I also pointed out, given current technology there is more forensic leverage in granting immunity to abortionists than there is in granting immunity to murderesses. (In fact this microeconomic structure would encourage abortionists to archive the DNA of murderesses and other forensic evidence as leverage, to protect themselves from prosecution when they are caught).

    Granting immunity in particular cases as a prudential matter is entirely distinct from asserting the immunity of murderesses as a class, independent of whether a particular criminal petitioning for immunity has any concrete evidence leading to a conviction of another criminal. The normative case should be that murderesses are punished, and punished severely; particular grants of immunity (and appeals to mitigating circumstances, for that matter) only make sense at all in the context of that normative case.

    As far as the other argument goes, “the privileged can get away with murder, therefor it is unfair to prosecute murderesses” is not really worthy of a reply, since one can argue against any law on that basis. The argument proves too much, proves that every law is “unfair”, and therefore does not even rise to the level of warranting engagement.

  47. “It will not take much for general disrespect to turn into contempt”

    No, it will not and one of the most potent causes is having laws on the books that are unenforceable or only sporadically enforced.

    The criminal law and its agencies enjoy considerable popular support, for its purpose is seen as the protection of respectable members of society and their property against the underclass.

    To take one of the examples you mention, a desire not to create disaffection among their natural supporters means that police now merely issue a warning to members of the middle classes found in possession of drugs for personal use. Similarly, it is no accident that homosexual law reform was initiated by a private member’s bill in the House of Lords, introduced by the Earl of Arran (an eccentric Irish peer, worthy of P G Wodehouse’s immortal pen) where it enjoyed considerable cross-party support.

  48. MPS:

    No, it will not and one of the most potent causes is having laws on the books that are unenforceable or only sporadically enforced.

    I completely disagree. Laws against sodomy are notoriously difficult to enforce, but they serve two indispensable purposes nonetheless: 1) they express that society despises the behavior and that it is punishable; and 2) they force people who behave that way anyway to keep it in the closet.

    Relevant:

    http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2007/05/the_closet_is_your_private_place.html

  49. And just how are street dealers to be “executed” (put to death)? Police machinegun them on the street?
    Putting aggravated murderers top death is difficult and expensive. Unless government becomes very authoritarian, such as north Korea, PRChina, Myanmar, where even they have some semblance of due process of law, enforcing the death penalty is very cumbersome. People looking at being putting to death put up a tremendous fight in the courts. Anti-death penalty organizations rush to their assistance.
    In trying to draw a parallel between illegal drug sales and abortion, it’s not the street dealers that are equivalent to aborting mothers, it’s the drug buyers, the consumers, the end-users that would be the ones to be put to death in your proposal.
    Just the prospect of being assassinated by more “Paul J. Hills” inspired over forty abortionists to publicly declare that they were quitting the “business.” And the government, from local, state to the top of the federal government was on the side of the abortionists and the aborting mothers, providing police officers, sheriffs’ deputies and federal marshals in addition to private armed security guards for protection.
    Drug dealers aren’t in the business of murdering innocent children, either. They murder rival drug pushers and an occasional innocent bystander inadvertently.
    Drug users want to buy and consume “recreational” drugs to get “high.” They are willing customers. They don’t use drugs to kill anyone, including themselves.
    Aborting mothers don’t want to kill babies, either. They, or someone pressuring or forcing them, simply don’t want them to be pregnant. They don’t get high from abortion. They get no thrill. At most they are relieved at no longer being pregnant. The intent to commit murder is absent.
    While some insist on putting aborted mothers to death, rather than going after the hired professional hit-man (or hit-woman), the heart of the people isn’t there. Abortionists are loathed. Only the dregs of the medical profession are willing to be labeled “abortionist.” At best they are viewed as a “necessary evil.” Assassinated abortionists garner little to no public sympathy. The attitude toward them is, “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
    Mothers who don’t want to be mothers, on the other hand, have considerable sympathy from the public. Going after them as murderesses has no precedent in jurisprudence. For most of the ages, even if reason to suspect a woman of abortion is evident, it cannot be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” by due process of law. If a case cannot be proven, it should not be prosecuted. Prosecution is not to be used as a punishment in itself. Deliberately using legal process to harass and punish, when no reasonable chance of conviction is present, is an abuse of the criminal justice system.
    We already have that in prosecutions for rape. Approximately 95% of criminal prosecutions for rape fail, and those are cases in which probable and reasonable cause for bringing an indictment or information are present. Conviction of non-statutory rape is so difficult, the likelihood of conviction on the original charge so small, that prosecutors often take what they can get: a guilty plea to a relatively minor charge. Many innocent men have been sent to jail or prison by pleading “guilty” today a minor offense rather than go through a full criminal trial and take even a small risk of a conviction of rape, with years in prison, a felony criminal record and being compelled to register as a sex-offender, ruining job, business and housing prospects.
    The relatively small number of professional abortionists are easy to prove that they are serial killers. If being an abortionist exposed one to a serious risk of being convicted of multiple murders-for-hire (all you really have to get him(her) on is one), how many would stay in the “business?” If being imprisoned for soliciting abortion was a real danger, how many mothers, fathers, grandmothers, boyfriends, husbands would pressure pregnant mothers to have abortions, transport them to abortionists?
    Everyone connected with abortion other than the aborting mothers are “easy targets” for prosecution, conviction and punishment. The public sympathy for poor, pregnant women is considerable, but this sympathy does not extend to the accomplices. They are seen more as doing it for their convenience and comfort, not to escape difficulty.
    The Pregnancy Support Centres are in every city and in many small towns. They provide aid and assistance free of charge to pregnant mothers and their infants. Pro-abortionists persist in accusing anti-abortion activists of being interested only in unborn babies and not in their mothers or in the babies once they are born, and will keep on making this false claim when there is a PSC next door to or across the street from their local abortion mill. They used to be called “homes for unwed mothers” but as society has changed have expanded their scope.

  50. Letting one murderess, against whom a prosecution for murder would be almost certain to fail anyway, go free in order to convict the abortionist’s accomplices (let the abortionist go, too) and the rest of his(her) clients (aborted mothers) isn’t acceptable to Ark. Reactionary. It’s All Or Nothing. If all abortions can’t be prevented, why bother preventing any??

  51. Harry S:

    While some insist on putting aborted mothers to death, rather than going after the hired professional hit-man (or hit-woman), the heart of the people isn’t there.

    If only that weren’t a ridiculous false dichotomy.

    Modern people, including the entire organized pro life establishment, is dead set against any punishment at all, ever, for these special precious snowflake murderesses.

    What this demonstrates is the perversity of modern people, about which you’ll get no argument from me.

    If what ought to be the law rests on the attitudes of perverse and despicable people, then the law might as well be a donut.

  52. Zippy on February 4, 2017 at 5:26 pm

    MPS:

    “No, it will not and one of the most potent causes is having laws on the books that are unenforceable or only sporadically enforced.

    “I completely disagree. Laws against sodomy are notoriously difficult to enforce, but they serve two indispensable purposes nonetheless: 1) they express that society despises the behavior and that it is punishable; and 2) they force people who behave that way anyway to keep it in the closet.”

    Please list the “abominable and detestable” acts, “which should not be named among Christians,” that are included in the term “sodomy” (I suppose that IYO “crimes against nature” is a synonymous phrase?).
    The sodomite-infiltrated courts ruled the anti-sodomy statutes unconstitutional as void for vagueness. Previous generations of legislators and judges were reticent to “name among Christians” the “abominable and detestable” acts.
    The Bible uses broad general terms as “porneia” (immoral sexual acts generally), translated “fornication,” “sexual immorality”; “moicheia,” trans. “adultery”; “akatharsia,” tr. “uncleanness”; “asēlgēia,” tr. “lasciviousness,” “wantonness,” “filth(y).” The acts that constitute such behaviors are never named. Sexual acts are termed “know,” “knew,” as in “carnal knowledge”; “sexual intercourse,” “copulation,” “saw the nakedness of,” and other euphemisms rather than specifying exactly what acts are meant. The reader is expected to know what acts are meant without having to be spelled out. Legal and medical dictionaries don’t describe the acts or the body parts that relate to sex and reproduction. The reader is supposed to already know what is meant by “vagina” (an Etruscan word meaning “sheath,” incorporated into Latin). There are numerous vaginas, sheaths, in the human and animal body. You’re expected to know what it means when unaccompanied by adjectives.
    So, please list unmistakably what physical acts you encompass by “sodomy.”

  53. HarryS:
    I’ll let other commenters defend their own views.

    I take a dim view of grants of immunity unless the witness came forward herself when not herself under suspicion. Otherwise, plea deals should almost always be for a reduced sentence, especially for murder cases.

  54. HarryS:

    I’m not a positivist, so you shouldn’t expect demarcation criteria from me. And if you don’t know what that means, then you’ve got some work to do before conversation is even possible.

    But to indulge you a bit, completed anal sex (between any number of humans of either sex) is always sodomy. You should not infer though that not-completed-anal-sex means not-sodomy; nor should you expect pornographic indulgence of your desire for explicitness from me.

  55. Why is it that these types so often become hysterical and devolve into such bizarre (and often perverted) rants?

  56. Zippy on February 4, 2017 at 5:43 pm

    “Modern people, including the entire organized pro life establishment, is dead set against any punishment at all, ever, for these special precious snowflake murderesses.

    “What this demonstrates is the perversity of modern people, about which you’ll get no argument from me.

    “If what ought to be the law rests on the attitudes of perverse and despicable people, then the law might as well be a donut.”

    So, Zippy, because humanity is “fallen,” all laws should be repealed? Humanity on the grand scale is “perverse and despicable.” Some speak of the “law of God.” I haven’t yet seen a “Kingdom of Heaven Code of Laws” book. So all human law has to be established by us “perverse and despicable” humans.
    Welcome to Planet Asylum For the Criminally Insane. The whole world is a “Devil’s Island” in the solar system.
    Right after the preacher has just spoken on subjection to the governmental institutions of men, he passes me in my car at least 20-30 mph over the posted speed limit. And obeying the speed limit was given as an example of man’s law. We are not constitutionally capable of obeying all the law all the time. More like none of the time.
    This hardly means that we should have no laws, statutory or common. Laws help guide our behavior, making it possible to live in proximity to others.

  57. Michael,

    Actually, in the US the two-witness rule only applies to treason and perjury cases. Otherwise even a single witness is sufficient for conviction if the jury finds them credible.

    In any case though I agree with you about the two witness rule being of natural law, but that doesn’t explain the relevance of any of your other positive law based objections.

  58. Zippy,
    Re: Zippy on February 4, 2017 at 5:43 pm

    The “Pro-Most-Life Establishment” can’t see how we can jump from “snowflake” status of aborting and aborted mothers to first-degree murderesses in one leap without going after abortionists and their accomplices first. Aborted mothers have never in jurisprudence been held accountable for abortion. Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113, footnote 54
    We haven’t even gotten as far as punishing abortionists for murdering babies. About as far as has been accomplished is holding abortionists accountable for being careless or incompetent in perpetrating abortions. That is to say, if an abortionist does a competent job, pays his license fees and doesn’t send too many mothers to the hospital or morgue, he’s OK.
    Some have imagined that if Islam takes over and imposes Shariah law that abortion will be outlawed and the law enforced. But Islam allows what we know as abortion through 120 days from conception, which covers over 90% of all abortions. So much for that.

  59. Right. So perverse attitudes on the part of a perverse public doesn’t mean that murderesses should get automatic legal immunity as long as the victim is her unborn child.

  60. HarryS:

    We haven’t even gotten as far as punishing abortionists for murdering babies. About as far as has been accomplished is holding abortionists accountable for being careless or incompetent in perpetrating abortions.

    And that is no surprise at all, given the attitude of mainstream pro lifers. If you aren’t willing to punish actual murderers for committing murder, the most you can accuse their hired help of is incompetence.

  61. Prosecutors tend to prosecute based on priorities. Their superiors set priorities. Their offices do not have unlimited funds and personnel. Once all the prosecutors in a prosecution office are carrying a full load, or the court dockets are loaded full, they have to get cases out of the way to make room for new cases coming in. So, they tend to go after the easy prey in each category.
    Prosecutors are not upholders of morality. They leave morality to the legislators. They uphold the law, within the constraints of prosecutorial and lawyer ethics, which has the status of law, and the state and federal constitutions as interpreted by the highest court that has passed on the subject.

  62. “You can’t prosecute morality” is an almost cute attempt to repurpose the embarrassingly discredited “you can’t legislate morality” nonsense. Especially when the thing we aren’t supposed to prosecute is murder, in a context in which we prosecute for parking tickets.

    Many people do believe that sort of thing; but they are sociopaths.

  63. Zippy on February 4, 2017 at 7:38 pm

    HarryS:

    We haven’t even gotten as far as punishing abortionists for murdering babies. About as far as has been accomplished is holding abortionists accountable for being careless or incompetent in perpetrating abortions.

    Zippy:

    “And that is no surprise at all, given the attitude of mainstream pro lifers. If you aren’t willing to punish actual murderers for committing murder, the most you can accuse their hired help of is incompetence.”

    If I was on a jury deciding on the guilt or not-guilt of a woman on trial for being the principal in the murder by abortion of her child, born or unborn, and I was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the state (prosecution) had proven its case, I would vote “guilty.”
    If the rest of the jury voted “guilty,” and the matter of the penalty was sent to the jury, I would vote for the penalty that was appropriate within the guidelines. Any mitigating factors are considered in the sentencing phase, not at trial.

    Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113, footnote 54:

    [ Footnote 54 ] “When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained [410 U.S. 113, 158] in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother’s condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment’s command?

    There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out, n. 49, supra, that in Texas the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?”

    The meaning of “person” without adjectives such as “artificial,” “legal,” “corporate,” etc. is “human being.” Substitute “human being” for “person” in the footnote:

    [ Footnote 54 ] When Texas urges that a [HUMAN] fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a HUMAN BEING, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained [410 U.S. 113, 158] in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the HUMAN fetus is a HUMAN BEING who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother’s condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment’s command?

    There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out, n. 49, supra, that in Texas the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the [HUMAN] fetus is a HUMAN BEING, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the [HUMAN] fetus is a HUMAN BEING, may the penalties be different?

    This is all academic, as I cannot envision the murderous hearts of the people being turned to the unborn child, who they have not seen, when there isn’t much love for born children they have seen.
    Ultrasound motion videos influence pregnant mothers’ hearts toward their babies. This is why Murder, Inc. is so vehemently opposed to abortion prospects being allowed to see the ultrasounds, especially the 4D that is almost like looking right into the womb. Even professional abortionists have had their hearts changed by seeing the “fetus” within the mother.

  64. HarryS:
    If you (we) are to have any hope of changing hearts and minds and all that, you’ve/we’ve got to start by speaking and acting like we actually believe our own BS. That means treating abortion like the crime of heinous murder, on the part of the person who chooses it, that it is in fact.

    If we don’t believe that – don’t speak and act like we believe it, and are constantly making excuses for why abortion is kinda sorta murder but we shouldn’t act like it really is murder, or even as bad as a parking ticket – then why would or should anyone else be moved at all?

  65. Zippy on February 4, 2017 at 10:19 pm
    HarryS:
    If you (we) are to have any hope of changing hearts and minds and all that, you’ve/we’ve got to start by speaking and acting like we actually believe our own BS. That means treating abortion like the crime of heinous murder, on the part of the person who chooses it, that it is in fact.

    Well, Zippy, I have acted as if I believe that birth is just one event in a person’s (human being’s) life. I was tossed in jail several times for attempting to intervene in child murder. One jurisdiction is still harassing me out of murderous spite.
    They were gentle enough not to crush my skull and suck my brains out, so I guess they were the nice guys.

  66. Zippy wrote, “If what ought to be the law rests on the attitudes of perverse and despicable people, then the law might as well be a donut.”

    “The law” is an abstraction. “Law” said Holmes J, “is a prediction of what the courts will do.” The wise legislator always considers how his enactments will work out in practice, given the resources available to him, the constraints on action, and the social context.

    If the instances of the conduct penalised produces widespread public alarm and insecurity or is a threat to public order, the law will enjoy corresponding popular support.

  67. My favorite is the honey glazed law. I like it while it is still hot, dipped in coffee.

  68. ArkansasReactionary

    I suggest my objections are really two-fold: (1) the difficulty or impossibility of obtaining corroboration, unless two women testify against an abortionist; how a charge against the woman could be corroborated, even if the abortionist was allowed to testify eludes me.

    and (2) the requirements of fair notice in charging an offender (which I would suggest is also part of the natural law).

    History shows these objections are not merely theoretical; I have made a more than cursory examination of cases actually prosecuted under the old law. In not one of them was the woman prosecuted as actor or art and part.

  69. HarryS:

    You personal anecdote is admirable, but if it leads you to conclude “more of the same, because it is working so well” then I would gently suggest that you may be drawing the wrong conclusion from your own experience.

  70. HarryS wrote, “Abortionists are loathed. Only the dregs of the medical profession are willing to be labeled “abortionist.””

    The career of Sir Dugald Baird is instructive. He was a passionate eugenicist (a Galton Lecturer at the British Eugenics Society) and Neo-Malthusian – the two often go together.

    A leading advocate of abortion law reform, he notoriously stretched the existing law to the limit and beyond. As a result, he obtained the Regius Professorship of Midwifery at the University of Aberdeen (a Crown appointment), the esteem of his students and colleagues, who elected him President of the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and, of course, his knighthood.

    During his tenure, according to the Scotsman (23 December 1966), one pregnancy in 50 was terminated in Aberdeen, compared to one in 3,750 in Glasgow.

    Nowadays, medical abortions (the great majority) are performed in the Gynaecology units of district hospitals by a Consultant Physician; surgical abortions on the labour wards of university teaching hospitals by the Professor or his registrars.

  71. As stated, regulating the disposition of fetal remains would provide a way to effectively prosecute aborting mothers, even if an abortion charge could not itself be proven.

  72. If the entire objection to treating abortion as murder rests on a putative lack of reliable forensic technology to determine when one has been perpetrated, the objection hardly seems worth answering. We didn’t refuse to prosecute murder up until DNA identification was invented and introduced into court cases.

  73. “We didn’t refuse to prosecute murder up until DNA identification was invented and introduced into court cases.”

    Fingerprint and DNA evidence can furnish adminicles of proof, but juries are constantly reminded that it is opinion evidence only and that testing procedures are not infallible.

    The criminal justice system relies, as it has always done on the testimony of witnesses.

    A stock direction would be: “What do you require? You require a completed pattern of evidence from more than one source which you find credible, reliable and of sufficient weight and which satisfies you beyond reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the panel. Your verdict, ladies and gentlemen, must be based on the evidence and reasonable inferences from it. You must not speculate. You have a duty to acquit, ladies and gentlemen, if any piece of evidence, even if not believed or wholly believed, casts a reasonable doubt on the Crown case.”

    “Next I have to direct you that no one can be convicted on the unsupported testimony of a single witness, however credible his or her evidence may seem to be. The law insists on a check. There must be corroboration, that is, direct supporting evidence from a second witness or supporting evidence from facts and circumstances proved incidentally by other witnesses in the course of the trial – sometime referred to as circumstantial evidence…”

  74. Because gosh, nobody is ever convicted of a crime – never faces so much as a parking fine – without two eyewitnesses. So move along, pro choice is the only option.

  75. It is my understanding that traffic/parking violations have two witnesses: the cop is both a witness to the violation and a witness/corroborator of that violation when they speak with you. .

  76. Where I come from, police and traffic wardens invariably patrol in pairs for just that reason.

  77. I don’t know what Michael is talking about. Barring the case of identical twins, DNA evidence is infallible. Fingerprint evidence is almost infallible, and until a few years ago was considered to be.

  78. Here’s a solution:

    If two experts examine fetal remains and determine that the child was killed (not removed after death or whatever), then abortion is proved.

  79. Even if antiabortion laws only had the effect of shutting down #MyAbortionStory forever, it’d be well worth it.

  80. DNA evidence is NOT infallible. It may be falsified by error or corruption. No DNA lab of any repute will state under oath that the results are 100% certain. Saying that DNA test results are “infallible” is akin to saying that “no two snowflakes are identical.” It seems evident but all snowflakes have not been seen and all human DNA has not been compared with the DNA of all other individual humans. Simply, the statements cannot be proven.
    DNA evidence is always used along with other evidence and testimony. It does not stand alone.

  81. Hmmmmm on February 6, 2017 at 1:02 pm
    “It is my understanding that traffic/parking violations have two witnesses: the cop is both a witness to the violation and a witness/corroborator of that violation when they speak with you.”

    A police officer has a conflict of interest in issuing citations. (S)he has a quota to meet, whether formal or informal. The officer’s employer obtains revenue from citations. The way the state dodges the constitutional requirements for due process of law and of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is by the agreement the motor vehicle driver signs when applying for a driver license: to obey all of the motor vehicle/highway code. No one has to sign an agreement before being subject to the general criminal laws. They are forced on the individual by the threat of violence and death. But for some reason (guess) one must agree to obey the MV code before being accountable before it.
    The practice of having two “traffic wardens” must be a UK thing, yes?

  82. ArkansasReactionary on February 6, 2017 at 5:27 pm
    “Here’s a solution:
    “If two experts examine fetal remains and determine that the child was killed (not removed after death or whatever), then abortion is proved.”

    If abortions are being perpetrated “illegally” (they are all done unlawfully) it will be a rarity for any remains to be found. They all go down the sewer. So, unless the sewer system drains into a septic tank, any remains are long gone. For good measure, the sewer system lift pumps grind everything into a slurry, so if any bits identifiable as human body parts got as far as a lift station, they wouldn’t be identifiable on the downside of the pump.

    Murder is already a difficult crime to suppress. It is one of the least solved of serious (at least to the victims) crimes. Corpses, whole and dismembered, turn up at sanitation department dump stations frequently. I have been told by a self-alleged killer of his throwing men he killed into dump bins. According to him, they were foolish enough to bring only a knife to a gunfight.
    If abortions were totally illegal, and the police and prosecutors devoted energy similar to what they direct against murder of born people to the murder of unborn people, abortions would continue to be inflicted but we believe that the numbers of abortions as we know them now would be a small fraction of what they are now. Girls would still give birth into commodes and hide their dying and dead babies in trash cans but getting caught would be much more dangerous than it is now.
    The medical physicians of the 19th century obtained anti-midwifery laws on the basis that midwives were the main killers of newborn babies. Necks of unwanted babies were broken during birth. An “accident” that “everyone knew” was no accident. Babies failed to thrive – didn’t start breathing. Such murders were easily disguised as birth accidents. Certain midwives specialized in such murders.
    Now it’s the MDs who’s are doing the disposal of unwanted babies. Midwives are no longer known for doing this. I have, though, identified a midwife who would go into an abortion mill.

  83. The easy disposability of fetal remains is precisely why I suggested regulating their disposition. So that there would at least be some serious criminal charge applicable against murderesses even if abortion couldn’t be proven specifically.

  84. Proph,

    Nice to see you commenting again. I had just been thinking of commenting at the Orthosphere to ask if you were still around.

  85. How do you propose to regulate the flushing of the mangled remains of embryos and ripped-apart fetuses down the toilet? Wrapping larger ones in trash, stuffing them in trash bags? Tossing the pieces into furnaces?
    The majority of surgical abortions are in an early stage of pregnancy when the entire contents of the uterus would fit in a coffee cup. No harder to get rid of than a leftover scrap of pork. A fetus and placenta can be given to a dog.
    No, abortionists who have any natural affection are rare. The few who have developed any did so in response to seeing ultrasound videos and late term still-living aborted babies. Some abortionists can go from one patient who they performed a Cæsarean section on to another at the same stage of pregnancy and abort her baby, set it aside, and let it die.

  86. “Fingerprint evidence is almost infallible”

    I would refer you to the Shirley McKie fingerprint scandal in Glasgow, that lead to a public enquiry, chaired by former Northern Ireland judge Sir Anthony Campbell.

    This had important implications for DNA evidence, which had long been under suspicion, ever since the O J Simpson case in the US.

    Such evidence is always prone to human error, breakdown in quality control procedures &c. As a result, juries are always warned such evidence should be accepted only with caution.

  87. “Even if antiabortion laws only had the effect of shutting down #MyAbortionStory forever, it’d be well worth it.”

    Except they wouldn’t – Remember « le manifeste des 343 salopes » on 5 April 1971 (Signatories included Simone de Beauvoire, Christine Delphy, Catherine Deneuve, Jeanne Moureu and Françoise Sagan) and the similar manifesto by 331 doctor of 2 February 1973.

  88. People who advocate against treating abortion as a kind of murder (which it is in fact) should also face civil punishment.

  89. MPS and HarryS,

    Currently we live in a world where the majority of “civilized” countries allow for the industrial scale mass murder of the most innocent and defenseless human children at the behest of their own mothers. Justice demands that this abominable state of affairs be reversed – that those who commit these heinous acts, both the murderesses and their accomplices, face just punishment for their crimes.

    You have both made the case that exacting justice in these instances is a difficult task. But I fail to see why this is relevant to the broader point. Finding ways in which justice can be satisfied may be difficult, yes. But surely this does not affect our solemn duty to carry out justice in these grave instances.

    The fact that carrying out justice is difficult just means that we need to work harder to ensure that it is carried out.

  90. donnie wrote, “The fact that carrying out justice is difficult just means that we need to work harder to ensure that it is carried out.”

    And history suggests the most effective way of doing that is to employ women who have undergone abortions as witnesses against abortionists. That means granting them immunity.

    As a result, abortionists will become both rarer and also more expensive, to compensate themselves for the risk.

  91. MPS:

    And history suggests the most effective way of doing that is to employ women who have undergone abortions as witnesses against abortionists. That means granting them immunity.

    Why should they want immunity? Immunity from what? As I understand you and HarryS, nobody should be trying to punish them for their crimes in the first place.

    As I said upthread, immunity and plea deals only make sense as agreements between the sovereign and a criminal who would otherwise face a worse punishment that that offered in the plea deal.

    And the more severe the punishment, the more negotiating leverage the sovereign has in plea deals.

  92. Women are ungovernable. If they had to choose between blowing up the whole world or renouncing abortion, they would choose the former. Conversion is the only way.

  93. Zippy

    Obviously, unless there is a general or specific grant of immunity, they would be liable to prosecution as guilty, art and part.

    I compared it earlier to the offers of pardon commonly included in offers of rewards for information leading to the apprehension of an offender.

    The advantage of a general indemnity is that it puts abortionists on notice that his clients incur no risk in denouncing him.

  94. Why not go further? Grant general immunity to anyone who hires a hitman. Never go half retard, as they say.

  95. MPS,

    It seems to me that the failure to enforce a law against people who publicly flout it is not a failure of the law itself, but of the nerve of its enforcers. I can’t imagine any legal arrangement of things that will protect us against spinelessness.

    Ian,

    Well, I’m still alive, if not “around.” Real life (new job, new wife, and a baby on the way) consumes nearly all the free time I once gave more readily to blogging/commenting.

  96. Proph wrote, “It seems to me that the failure to enforce a law against people who publicly flout it is not a failure of the law itself, but of the nerve of its enforcers.”

    In the case of « le manifeste des 343 salopes » and the manifesto of the 331 doctors, the Procurator of the Republic rightly pointed out that it was impossible for him to corroborate their admissions, especially as they did not condescend on time, place or circumstances.

    Any half-way competent defence lawyer would argue the admissions were false in fact and that the accused had merely signed in a show of solidarity, which is far from being beyond the bounds of possibility.

    This merely emphasises the difficulty of proof in such cases.

  97. HarryS wrote, “The majority of surgical abortions are in an early stage of pregnancy when the entire contents of the uterus would fit in a coffee cup.”

    Medical abortions (70% of the total) are performed before the 8th week, when the fetus is about ¼” long, about the same size as a kidney-bean, and would fit comfortably into an egg-cup, never mind a coffee cup.

  98. Sounds like a good reason to explicitly ban advocacy of abortion.

  99. The brass tacks: our opponents are nice [read conventional] middle class ladies. The ones who are the enforcers and net-workers of society and its norms.

    The medical establishment enables them as they enjoy a monopoly over health; and infamously, the practice attracts those with god complexes. But they can be brought to heel socially and legally if the winds changed direction.

    These middle class ladies are a tougher nut to crack, as this type also operates benevolence societies, organizes social gatherings and judges social tastes. Even as they’ve moved into the professional-managerial world in the last 50-odd years, they gravitate to jobs which require strong networking and inter-personal skills.

    In short, these women are not easy to run interference on; they are capable of shutting down the whole social organization before you’d blink. And any measure to come down hard on them will be a white-knuckle ride of rulership.

    Now, our side has our own middle class ladies who have beaten the issue back into a verbal stalemate. It could even be, if polling is correct, that they have been slowly gaining the upper-hand on the issue for the last few decades. Last I checked it was essentially a 50-50 split (more likely 60-40 pro-life) in the US. More women are “pro-life” than “pro-choice” in this country. But to actually outlaw it, you will need to get the number of “pro-choice” women into the 20s, maybe even teens. Without that, what you are really asking for is to drive abortion back into being a depoliticized “women’s issue” that is dealt with by women on a location to location basis and just not discussed with menfolk. That may be enough to drive the numbers of abortion down, I couldn’t say off-hand about all the repercussions. But this all may be moot with over-the-counter abortificents becoming more consistent and easily available.

    We may be looking at a future where certain abortion procedures are outlawed but someone could pop any pill they’d like to get the same results.

  100. The fetus itself is much smaller than the umbilicus, placenta, endometrium and amniotic fluid all together. In an early term surgical abortion the entire contents of the uterus is removed, and scraped out just like a D&C.

  101. ArkansasReactionary on February 8, 2017 at 8:48 am
    “Sounds like a good reason to explicitly ban advocacy of abortion.”

    True. But how do you propose to reinstate the “Comstock” law plus expand the scope to all expression? Even condoms were prohibited, and so was any literature about how to have sex without getting pregnant. Connecticut forbade all contraceptive devices, potions and information until Griswold. Sex education would, even if abortion and abortifacient “contraceptives” were not mentioned, still give enough information for most anyone to figure out how to copulate without much risk of conception. Hey, man, the Bible tells you how to do it!

  102. MPS, what is the diff between “medical” and “surgical?”

  103. Why HarryS thinks I would find his irrelevant tangents interesting is beyond me.

  104. Why HarryS thinks I would find his irrelevant tangents interesting is beyond me.

    To anyone besides himself, that is.

  105. Proph,

    Real life (new job, new wife, and a baby on the way) consumes nearly all the free time I once gave more readily to blogging/commenting.

    Ah, good to hear. Congrats!

  106. It is good to hear from you, Proph. Let me know if you’re ever visiting Washington.

  107. Are you the blog owner, or a moderator?

  108. HarryS asked, “what is the diff between “medical” and “surgical?”

    Medical abortions are performed by administering medication, orally or intravenously; surgical abortions by mechanical means. The former is carried out by a physician, the latter by a surgeon.

    Currently, medical abortions are restricted to the first 8 weeks of gestation.

  109. In Poland? Not in the USA. It’s up to the abortionist.

  110. In the UK, NHS guidelines suggest Mifepristone and misoprostol should not be used after the 7th week of gestation or 9 weeks from the end of the last period. As I mentioned earlier, medical abortions are performed in the Gynaecology units of district hospitals.

    After that, the patient would be referred for surgery and admitted to the Labour Ward of a Teaching Hospital

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: