Abortion punishment.???

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by cluelusshusbund, Apr 6, 2017.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,668
    I really think we should probably acknowledge that you're simply retracing old territory without regard to history. Yes, every once in a while, a Republican somewhere proposes in all seriousness that women should register notice of menstrual irregularity with local authorities.

    On the outside fringe, if Randwolf, intoxicated, falls down the stairs and makes physical contact with a pregnant woman during that incident, a prosecutor might be able to build a manslaughter case against him if she miscarries, and the fetus, or blastocyst, enjoying legislated personhood—including, hey, menstrual irregularity that might indicate zygotal loss—is afforded equal protection before the law, and thus would require at least such an investigation. Death by miscarriage will not be any more sufficient a determination than death by dying.

    More realistically, as I recall you lived in a place with a "Basic Speed Rule". Maybe the accident wasn't Randwolf's fault, but if he was driving thirty-five in a thirty-five zone in the rain when he hit the brakes and mildly impacted the car that pulled out in front of him and then performed an emergency stop, his pregnant female passenger's subsequent miscarriage can easily be pinned on him ... if the miscarried organism enjoys the full equal protection of the laws conveyed by personhood.

    We all know what this personhood is about: Her responsibilities as we decide and not applicable to men, since we can't get pregnant.

    If you're honest, you would be able to admit you already know how the fetal homicide law worked out in South Carolina.

    Your pretense of ignorance is untenable according to history.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    And if laws were changed to support the concept that blastocysts and fetuses have all the rights of adults.

    So let's think about that. There are about 4 million births a year. In the US about 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, and about 25% of fertilized eggs do not implant. That's 1.8 million. 40% of women who "lose the baby" think they did something wrong to cause it; so without any prosecution you could expect a big fraction of those to turn themselves in. Let's say you have 500K women turn themselves in; another 100K are prosecuted and imprisoned for manslaughter.

    Federal guidelines are 10 to 16 months in prison for first time offenders. Let's say the average is 24 months, because many women have more than one miscarriage. So that's an additional 1.2 million women a year in prison. That means we would be increasing the US prison population by more than 50%, and another $37 billion to house all those criminals. And of course most of those women have other young children; you'd need a whole lot of orphanages.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    So we should decide "right and wrong" on how much room there is in the prisons?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    Nope. But we should understand the consequences of our action.

    This whole concept - that you should treat a blastocyst the same way you treat a year-old baby - was a nonstarter anyway. The prison argument is just another reason it's a nonstarter.
     
  8. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    My point is that if you're going to call abortion murder, you have to treat it like murder. Very few anti-abortionists actually want that.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    Agreed; and that was sort of my point as well. I was just taking a bit of a roundabout way of getting there.
     
  10. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,151
    I might disagree with that assumption. They probably do take it very seriously. Unfortunately the law makes it legal. And furthermore, what is a person to do about it other than protest and work towards changing the law? I do believe there is the possibility of real change coming though.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,127
    And furthermore, when is a misogynist like yourself going to address some of the attendant consequences and let us know how you plan to handle them - after "changing the law?" Such as miscarriages...
    Please address those concerns Bowser - if you want to pretend to be taken seriously...
     
  12. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,329
    I really should post more of my own thoughts but:



    And the U.S. blows at health care; you can get abortions in hospitals.
     
  13. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Trump believes in the original intent of the founding fathers which to limit the rights of government, in favor of more rights to the states. Abortion may become a state choice, just like marijuana. Abortion will still be available, but not in every state. It may end up limited to Liberal states, who get to pick up the tab. There is still free travel between states so the doom and gloom is all a political stunt by the left, who does not know how to be honest about anything.
     
  14. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,329
    An aside, weren't the founding fathers profoundly ignorant for lack of internet?
     
  15. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,151
    I think you are over thinking those consequences in an effort to bolster your position. But, yes, human life at any stage in it's development has value, so there should be consequences when it is terminated intentionally or by negligence. Where the line is drawn would be for the courts to decide, not you or I.
     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,102
    No, he's not.

    And you prove that by following it up with:

    In effect, you are declaring that the woman, has less value than the potential for human life she is carrying.

    And if you believe at any stage of its development, than that would include from the moment of conception, which is, well, obscene.

    Tell me, Bowser, do you also believe that some scientists should be rounded up and punished? Since working with fertilised eggs of the human and animal variety, is fairly common around the world now, to develop new treatments and to help identify diseases that one may be genetically predisposed to getting, etc. Not to mention the fact that those who undergo IVF also often destroy the unused embryo's, or donate them to science, when they are destroyed soon after use anyway.

    Do you think women who undergo IVF and opt to destroy unused embryo's, should also be punished? What of scientists who work with embryo's, from the point of fertilisation and for the next couple of weeks? Should they also be punished since they are terminating "human life"?

    Would you take medication or treatment if said treatment was discovered from the use of human embryo's?

    Or does your frankly twisted ideology only apply where the lives of women and self determination and control over their bodies kicks in?
     
  17. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    What assumption?

    It's pretty simple, really. Do you think abortion is murder? If so, why would you treat it differently from any other murder? Why not execute or incarcerate women who have abortions?
     
  18. someguy1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    357
    A fascinating datapoint is the case of Scott Peterson, who killed his pregnant wife and their "unborn baby Conner" as the local newspapers never stopped calling the fetus. This was in the strongly pro-choice San Francisco bay area. Peterson was convicted of murdering the fetus. Now how can that be? If his wife had gone to an abortionist, she'd be a feminist hero in the same region of the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson

    (ps) For some unknown reason the Wiki article no longer mentions that Peterson was convicted of the murder of the fetus. Here's a link containing that info. Beware of Wikipedia, it's very political. http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/15/us/scott-peterson-trial-fast-facts/
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    Better than not thinking about them at all until afterwards. That gets a lot more people into trouble.
    There already are consequences. The best people to decide what they are, and how to deal with them, are a woman and her doctor.
     
  20. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    595
    There aren’t many feminists who would consider the needless killing of an eight month old healthy fetus an act of heroism.

    Prosecutors say Scott Peterson murdered his eight-months-pregnant wife just before Christmas, 2002, and dumped her body in the San Francisco Bay, using handmade concrete anchors to weigh her down to the ocean floor.
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/THE-PETERSON-TRIAL-Pathologist-Baby-was-2693350.php


    From your politically biased wiki article:

    On November 12 the reconstituted jury convicted Peterson of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing the fetus she carried.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson#Trial
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2017
  21. someguy1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    357
    Some would call that a late term abortion.

    Just pointing out this strange inconsistency in the law. Mom has the right to kill the kid and not dad.
     
  22. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    595
    Late term abortions are ideally done to preserve the life of the mother or to end the life of a physiologically compromised fetus.

    Mom has the right to end the life of a non-viable fetus, or a viable one that meets the previously mentioned standard. Non-viability relegates the fetus to a category of expendable tissue such as tumors and defective organs, which the mother has sole control over.
     
  23. someguy1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    357
    I hope I can explain that I'm not actually taking a position on abortion here. I'm pointing out the curious contradictions in the law. I was living in the area at the time and you couldn't turn around without hearing about this case. "Unborn baby Conner."

    So can you explain to me under what circumstances a fetus may be given a name, referred to as an "unborn baby," and treated in the media and in the public mind as a living person, morally entitled to the right to live; and when may some other fetus have its head torn off?

    If you would be kind enough to explain this to me, a complete dummy, I'd appreciate it.

    Again I'm not here to debate abortion, but rather to observe as a logically-oriented person who follows the news, that there is some awesome inconsistency here. Surely you can grant me that much.

    But you know, since you asked, I'll go full disclosure here. Personally I am pro-choice; but that does not stop me from noticing that there is a hell of a lot of hypocrisy in the abortion business. Perhaps that explains where my questions are coming from.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2017

Share This Page