How much jail time for women who've had abortions?

callen

Jeanie wrote:

And I'm saying that if you want to have sex and you have strong feelings about abortion being wrong then as a man you do have a choice, you have the choice to protect yourself from that outcome before it eventuates. That's where your choice comes into it! You have the choice to wear a condom or have a vasectomy (heaven forbid! :rolleyes: ) or take some other form of male contraceptive or not have sex with someone that you think would have an abortion if you are against it. You do not have the right to expect that a woman should use her body as an incubator for you after the fact. This is not new information. It's really quite simple. We all have rights and we all have responsibilities. They may come at different stages in the process but they are still there for both sexes.

Men and women can take all kinds of reasonable measures not to get pregnant, but ultimately no birth control is 100% effective. So to say we have to ensure that doesn't happen really isn't reasonable either. We can do our very best to try to make sure it doesn't. But it does happen. That's why we have abortion in the first place.

I do not know the case you are speaking of, but I do not consider fully developed children and embryos to be the same thing. So on face value, knowing nothing about the case then no, I wouldn't hold the father responsible, unless of course he knew his wife had a mental illness or was showing signs of being detrimental to the health of the children and he did nothing about it, in which case then he does bare some responsibility.

...if you have sex...and a pregnancy happens and the woman doesn't want to create yet another human, abort...seems pretty simple...am I missing something here. Oh he pays half....

surferdude

catefrances wrote:

there is nothing on this earth that a man, or anyone else could ever say to me that would make me go through with a pregnancy that i for whatever reason chose not continue with. what men have no say over is what i choose to do with my body. fuck 'em, they had their fun. now all decisions are mine. I will choose to decide what is best for me, no one else.

I think this is a full of shit attitude, especially if you are in favor of women receiving child support.

Fine, you control your body. No one can force you to carry a baby to term. Let's accord men this same equality. No one can control their body. Men make money by performing an activity (i.e. using their body), taking money from a man n the form of child support is forcing him to use his body in a manner he may not wish.

Women are offered a legal ability to walk away from a pregnancy, so should every father.

Ahnimus

Note: Society really is in it's infancy

surferdude

Ahnimus wrote:

Note: Society really is in it's infancy

I'd be interested in seeing you expand on this comment and how it pertains to the topic being discussed.

What other society are you comparing ours to to say ours is in it's infancy?

Abookamongstthemany

Ahnimus wrote:

Note: Society really is in it's infancy

I agree. We still have so many primal instincts to shed that are no longer relevant.

Jeanie

callen wrote:

...if you have sex...and a pregnancy happens and the woman doesn't want to create yet another human, abort...seems pretty simple...am I missing something here. Oh he pays half....

I really don't get what you mean.

surferdude

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I agree. We still have so many primal instincts to shed that are no longer relevant.

But it's a trite a meaningless thing to say. Society is always in it's infancy compared to where it will be in the future. Compared to where we were a thousand years ago we're wisened senior citizens.

CorporateWhore

Jeanwah wrote:

Ok, all you smart people out there! Make sure you don't wind up at the wrong college with CorporateWhore!

Most of you couldn't hope to get accepted into William and Mary. It's ranked number 31 in the nation and it'd be higher if it was more well-funded. 2nd oldest college in the nation.

At least talk smack about a shitty college.

Ahnimus

surferdude wrote:

I'd be interested in seeing you expand on this comment and how it pertains to the topic being discussed.

What other society are you comparing ours to to say ours is in it's infancy?

Maybe none. Darrow's society. A society without 'crime'. A society in-which we view unusual, or non-universally preferable behavior as behavioral variations objectively and seek to (A) treat the behaviour or (B) adjust our thinking as a society.

It's apparent by this thread and others like it that - at least this social group - is largely ignorant. I mean no offense, honestly. Abortion occured long before it was legal and in the past has been illegal. The methods used for abortion were disgusting and illustrates the extents that humans will go to, to protect themselves. But what are they protecting themselves against? Why do millions of baby girls get murdered in India? Society!

Having children can be detrimental to social status and financial stability. It is society and the monetary system that encourages abortion. Yet, as with capitalism, we say "Do the best you can do and you will succeed. If you don't, then you are dumb and worthless."

Psychologists know there is a steady decline in IQ scores of children living in impoverished environments. They are not intellectually stimulated and result in the same intelligence of their parents which typically keeps them impoverished. But with capitalism it is not at all possible for everyone to be successful.

The human machine is highly dependent on stimuli. Not everyone is capable of everything or of making the best decisions and everyone makes mistakes, especially in reasoning. We have little coherency in our thoughts. We have groups of humans with certain ideological backgrounds as the basis for their thoughts and no real objectivity in our methods of dealing with undesirable behavioural variation. Or any objective method of determining what is legitimately undesirable behaviour.

Ahnimus

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I agree. We still have so many primal instincts to shed that are no longer relevant.

Yea, I mean. Capital punishment for mother's who abort? I can't believe that is even being considered. Let alone extending that punishment to doctor's and mates. The issues doesn't warrant a discussion about 'punishment' at all.

surferdude

Ahnimus wrote:

Maybe none. Darrow's society. A society without 'crime'. A society in-which we view unusual, or non-universally preferable behavior as behavioral variations objectively and seek to (A) treat the behaviour or (B) adjust our thinking as a society.

Do you think there can be any just law? Or any criminal?

Ahnimus

surferdude wrote:

Do you think there can be any just law? Or any criminal?

I don't think there is any justification for vengeance

surferdude

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't think there is any justification for vengeance

Did you read the questions?

Jeanie

CorporateWhore wrote:

Most of you couldn't hope to get accepted into William and Mary. It's ranked number 31 in the nation and it'd be higher if it was more well-funded. 2nd oldest college in the nation.

At least talk smack about a shitty college.

What's that irritating buzzing I hear??? :rolleyes:

callen

Jeanie wrote:

I really don't get what you mean.

This thread was attempting to pass blame for an unwanted pregnancy....There is no blame...hence have the abortion and split the cost.....that is if thats what the woman wants, it is ultimately her body. Having someone go to jail for aborting some cells is silly...and hence as Ahnimus pointed out..we just need to develop a wee bit and get past this.

Ahnimus

surferdude wrote:

Did you read the questions?

Yes, I did. I disagree with the terms. There can only be a 'criminal' if there is 'crime' and can only be 'crime' with vengeance.

Think about this. If a rich woman who has everything she needs, is afflicted by kleptomania and habitually steals things she does not need. She is deemed mentally ill and the 'justice' system does not persecute her but prescribes treatment. In contrast, if an impoverished woman who is struggling to survive, is afflicted by kleptomania and habitually steals things she needs. She is typically viewed as a criminal. Yet it is the same illness and in the latter the stolen goods are required for living.

We need to define 'crime' and 'law'. Law is whatever is on the books and is simultaneously enforced. Which may or may not be according to a majority opinion and which differs from country to country or state to state. So the term 'living' law might be in order. The laws change over time, with new outlooks and evidence to support it. A 'criminal' in every sense of the word, is a human machine that performs operations contrary to the mob rule of law, whether the law is correct or not.

'Justice' or 'Punishment' is a method of degrading the life of the 'Criminal' as punishment and not for the purposes of rehabilitation. There is no merit of rehabilitation to the 'Criminal' 'Justice' system. It serves only to resolve disputes and ostracize the losers of court battles, whether guilty or not.

A close examination of law reveals its true nature as a system of vengeance and punishment.

Sentences are not like treatments. If you are ill and are prescribed treatment, you typically monitor the progress of recovery and suspend treatment when the illness is gone. Legal sentencing uses a predetermined period of time to treat the illness and barely monitors progress at all. Parole boards do some degree of this, though they depend too largely on subjective opinions and attitudes.

Most people within the 'justice' system feel their duty is to serve 'justice' and view human machines as being either 'good' or 'bad'. Good history, that is, donating to charity, helping neighbours, et cetera, are not admissable evidence to court. The jury/judge is only privy to the 'bad'. The entire system is slanted towards this extremely archaic view of human nature.

There is no 'criminal' in the superficial sense used in social contexts. There is no 'justice' or 'law' in an objective mode, these things are only applicable to a current social understanding and emotional state.

Jeanie

callen wrote:

This thread was attempting to pass blame for an unwanted pregnancy....There is no blame...hence have the abortion and split the cost.....that is if thats what the woman wants, it is ultimately her body. Having someone go to jail for aborting some cells is silly...and hence as Ahnimus pointed out..we just need to develop a wee bit and get past this.

But isn't that what I was saying? That if you're gonna blame women, and send them to jail that you also would have to blame men and send them to jail too?

You'll have to excuse me callen, but I've only just woken up, so maybe I'm missing something.

surferdude

Ahnimus wrote:

Yes, I did. I disagree with the terms. There can only be a 'criminal' if there is 'crime' and can only be 'crime' with vengeance.

Ahnimus, there is something to be said for concise answers.

To paraphrase, you believe there can be no just law nor a criminal. That's all I wanted to know.

Ahnimus

surferdude wrote:

Ahnimus, there is something to be said for concise answers.

To paraphrase, you believe there can be no just law nor a criminal. That's all I wanted to know.

A debate should never consist of "I believe" statements. That's just an ideological battle that never ends. I'd much rather state the evidence than the sum of my beliefs.

surferdude

Ahnimus wrote:

A debate should never consist of "I believe" statements. That's just an ideological battle that never ends. I'd much rather state the evidence than the sum of my beliefs.

But your evidence takes a belief that it is factual.

You can tell me that your thermometer tells you it's 33 degrees celcius outside. It takes belief that the thermometer is right even though it is a tool of science. It takes belief that we even have a true understanding of heat and science to think that even a properly calibrated thermometer is the way to measure temperature. All your evidence takes just as much belief as any of my beliefs. I'm just not afraid to acknowledge them as beliefs. I don't try to quell any fears I may have by making our science to be omnipotent.