How About The Death Penalty For Abortion?

QUOTE — “A Texas lawmaker has filed a bill that would abolish and criminalize abortions, leaving women and physicians who perform the procedure to face criminal charges that could carry the death penalty.” —UNQUOTE


I applaud that Texas lawmaker for his most moral and courageous stand on the issue and I personally agree One Hundred Percent with the concept of his proposed law.

I believe that the only time an abortion should be legal is where it is necessary to save the life of the Mother. Otherwise, it should be heavily criminalized. That is my opinion!

Here is the article where I first saw this idea —-

Author: John American Citizen Opinion Blogger -- Inspired and Educated, smart but not all that gorgeous.

24 thoughts on “How About The Death Penalty For Abortion?”

  1. Simply put, abortion is murder. Murder is the unjustified taking of a human life with malice aforethought, and human life begins at fertilization. There is, in my mind, no difference between a woman seeking out an abortion and Andrea Yates, the Houston-area mother who drowned her five kids. Both are shedding innocent blood.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You are absolutely correct and I believe that any woman who has an abortion for any reason other than medical necessity ought to be forced into sterilization.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Although I recently started “following” your blog, I was not subscribed to your various and sundry posts (I’ve now changed that) … so I missed this one. (rawgod referenced it but since you don’t have a “Previous Posts” option, I had to do a TON of scrolling to find it! Hint … Hint)

    All I’m going to say is I totally and completely disagree with your perspective. What a woman –ANY woman– does with her body should NEVER … I repeat, NEVER … be anyone’s business but her own. No man or “LAW” has the right to interfere with whatever choice she makes … whether it’s related to abortion OR who she sleeps with.

    Which brings up the subject of vasectomies. What if all men were required BY LAW to have one after they had intercourse with a women outside of marriage and she became pregnant? You see, men play a role in this whole scenario as well … although most of them just walk away and, as Pilate did (according to the bible), figuratively “wash their hands” and declare innocence.

    John, I don’t mean to cause dissension between you and me, but this subject to VERY close to me and I simply cannot let it pass without commenting.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You wrote — ”
      Which brings up the subject of vasectomies. What if all men were required BY LAW to have one after they had intercourse with a women outside of marriage and she became pregnant?”

      My answer to that is as follows: A man who willingly engages in intercourse with a woman and then the woman becomes pregnant and the man does not marry her ….. the man, by law, should be forced to provide for the care of the woman and the child just the same as if it were child support and spousal support and, in addition to that, the errant male should be an instant candidate for a state-mandated penectomy or other form of physical emasculation so that he would never do such a thing again.

      And if the male should fail to carry out his mandated responsibilities as to providing for the financial support of the woman and the child, then the man should, in addition to everything else, spend pro-rated prison time to pay for the shortages in his financial obligations toward the woman and the child.

      There is no dissention between you and I because I do not censor legal comments made in good conscience on this blog.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Two points I would like to make here. First, the pro-life position shouldn’t care anything about what a woman does with her body. She is free to do what she wishes within reason, and that reason is defined by constitutionally supported law. Where our concern does lie is with the child, and their body, as theirs is the one being assaulted without justification. In every sense, a child in the womb is an individual human being entitled to the same human rights we afford and acknowledge for neonates and infants.

      Second, requiring a vasectomy, unlike preventing an abortion, causes direct harm to a person’s body, and there is no guarantee that a later reversal would be successful. According to you, that would be mandatory harm done to someone for a lack of responsibility without the guarantee that it can be undone. I am all for holding a man responsible for his careless and callous actions, but there must be a line that cannot be crossed, and that line is crossed when you do a disproportionate amount of damage to someone for their idiocy.

      Personally, I like the way the Bible dealt with the issue. If a young man were to convince a an unmarried woman to give it up, he was required to marry her and forbidden from divorcing her for any reason. Seems a far better solution than maiming him for youthful stupidity. I mean, if it were one of my sons who’d done it, I’d snatch them up by whichever body part I can grab, drag them over to girl’s house and make damned sure he does the right thing. I’d have a new daughter-in-law by the end of the day, that’s for sure.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Ah! You are a proponent of the Shotgun Wedding scenario. Interesting. As top doing irreparable harm to someone because they acted like an idiot, don’t you agree that the present form of criminal punishment by lethal injection and/or the electric chair fall under the same category? In the case of punishing people for criminal abortions, I do not see where anyone would even want the offenders to be able to return to their normal state. If they return to their normal state there is no guarantee that they will not kill another unborn child.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I used the biblical example to illustrate the idea that there are better options than maiming someone in cases of abandonment on the part of a man who has impregnated an unmarried woman. Would I actively encourage one of my sons to go the route of a “shotgun” wedding? Yes. I care more for the welfare of my grandchildren than I do the supposed happiness of my children, and children brought up with two married heterosexual parents are statistically more likely to succeed than otherwise. If they want to make adult decisions, then they need to face the consequences of those decisions as adults. As it stands, I am teaching my children to eschew dating and to go for courtship instead. Why? Courtship has rules associated that are intended to protect all involved, while dating simply devolves into a free-for-all that oftentimes leads to people getting hurt.

          As for murder and the death penalty, there isn’t a parallel. In the case of abandonment by the father, there is a greater chance that the child produced will grow up to suffer through all manner of problems with society, including increased criminality, poverty, mental illness, etc. However, these problems aren’t insurmountable. I can attest to that. I’m the product of a broken home, and have dealt with many of the problems that come with it. Yet, I am going out of my way to ensure that my children do better than I have.

          Meanwhile, in the case of someone who has committed murder and is facing the death penalty, that is an insurmountable problem, and one that God commanded a solution for. Genesis 9:6 springs immediately to mind,

          “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”

          This is why I said that I support treating abortion in the same manner as first degree murder. That is right and just, and all involved ought to be prosecuted for the murder of an innocent. In one case, you have someone choosing to be irresponsible, and they must not be allowed to get away with it. On the other, you have someone making a conscious decision to end the life of another. The only point they have in common is that a crime is committed against fellow image bearers of God, and it must be dealt with. That being said, proportionality is of utmost importance. Physically maiming a man for being an irresponsible moron is excessive.

          Liked by 1 person

            1. I disagree. God’s nature is such that He cannot abide Sin in His presence. Anything sinful in His presence is immediately destroyed. What is Sin if not the intentional separation of Man from God on the part of Man? The fact of the matter is that we all have two choices. We can either submit ourselves to God and His Law, or we can refuse. If we submit, we belong to Him. We have relationship with Him. If we refuse, He is too kind and loving to force people to be in relationship with Him.

              In this, choice is the crux of the matter. You can either choose to follow Him, or you can choose to rebel against Him, and there is no neutrality. Even refusing to choose is making a choice. The fires of hell then become a matter of choice. Choose Him, no hell. Choose otherwise, and you’ve chosen hell. Follow? Essentially, He isn’t condemning anyone to hell, He is simply giving them what they wanted, an eternity without Him.

              However, there is an element to this that many willfully miss. Choosing Him out fear of the consequences for choosing otherwise is the same as choosing otherwise. In other words, if you choose to keep His laws because you’re afraid of what would happen if you didn’t, then you’re no better than the people who openly defy Him. He desires willing submission, not grudging obedience. He desires gratitude for what He did for us, and nothing less.

              I follow Him and His Law out of a desire to be pleasing to Him because I recognize that my only hope for eternal redemption comes at a cost, and that cost is the innocent blood of Jesus shed on the Cross for my sake. There is no other way. Without His blood, I am totally without hope of anything but the eternity in hell that I deserve for being a rebel against God, and this is the same condition for all of humanity. There isn’t a human being walking this earth that is blameless, and that is what we all need to recognize.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Honestly, I’m not even sure what to do now. Most of the time, this is the point where the debate goes off to the races. You would be amazed how many people look at an argument like that and either willfully ignore aspects of it, ignore the whole thing, or try to drag me off into the weeds on some small detail. The fact of the matter is that the Gospel is the most offensive message in history, and people are looking for ways to sugarcoat it when there really aren’t any. My question to you is, are you a believer?

              Liked by 1 person

            3. I am a Believer and I believe that if God has said it, He means it exactly the way it was said, not the way some Bible Re-writer (Re-interpreter) cherry picks the Scriptures in an attempt to justify their favorite sins.

              We are living in an age where people who enjoy their sins try to hide the Devil, to deny the existence of Hell and who preach a doctrine of “Cheap Grace” which means that they preach that if a person “Accepts” Jesus as their personal Savior, nothing more is required of them and their sins, past, present AND FUTURE are covered by The Blood and they can live as recklessly and riotously as they wish with no fear of any eternal consequences.

              We are living in the age of the “Itching Ears” preaching …. where people only want to accept what they want to hear …only what makes them comfortable …

              I am a believer … No man can say that Jesus is Lord except by the power of The Holy Ghost and I proclaim here and now that Jesus Is Lord!

              Yes, I am a Blood-bought, Bible-believing Christian, not by my works, but by the Grace of God through the Shed Blood of Jesus Christ.

              Liked by 1 person

  3. I will always allow women to decide what to do with their bodies, so cannot agree with abortion being a criminal offence, John. If men had babies, there would be abortion clinics on every street corner, and nobody would complain.
    Best wishes, Pete.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I, personally, have had enough to do with women for a lifetime. But I also believe that if it is going to be legal to slaughter an unborn child then it ought also to be perfectly legal to institute a policy of euthanasia for old, sick, useless members of society .

      Liked by 1 person

    1. I can agree with proven cases of rape and incest. I have no trouble with accepting those as reasons for abortions. What I object to is the idea that abortion can be used in lieu of prophylaxis for anyone not wise enough to use preventative measures during willful consent episodes. (And I am sure there are plenty of those kinds of cases out there.) While we are on the subject of who can tell us what to do and what not to do with our bodies, our income, our lives … If we are going to go down that road we need to annul all the laws of the United States and start all over again because there are plenty of laws out there that tell us what we can and cannot do with this or that and if abortion is going to remain legal, then we need to rewrite a lot of those other laws that infringe on our rights but which are readily accepted by most Americans. We need to stop cherry picking consequences and punishments for various kinds of crimes … otherwise just shut down the criminal justice system altogether and let Nature take her course.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s