Criminalization or abortion!?!?

Lets imagine that in the future that the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. Now individual states can make abortion a criminal offence, basically pre-meditated murder. What should the punishment for a woman who gets an abortion be? Should the doctor also be charged?

Should it be legal for a pregnant woman to go to another state or country where abortion is legal and have it done then come back to her state without a criminal investigation?

Lets try not to argue if abortion is right or wrong, we’ve been there and done that. This question is a very real one that the US may face if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned. It seems that a lot of people don’t want abortion to be legal but they also don’t want to punish a woman for having one. It can’t be both ways.

Why would anyone be charged?

Person looking for abortion will just "go on vacation" in a state allowing abortion... Or Canada, or anywhere really.

OTOH, in the anti abortion states, voters will have this warm feeling they did something right... Forgetting that abortion seeker just moved somewhere else.

So it's going to be an interesting hypocrisy.
The only person who will get charged are those either too stupid to go to another place for a week, or trying to make a case and overturn the overturn.

You're in for a lot of fun.

Louis,

Or perhaps there would be a return to the less secure 'home abortions'.

Damn, my grandmother used to tell me about those and they were to say the least scary.

I think you guys are right that “home” and away abortions would increase but wouldn’t a “home” abortion or one in a different country still be illegal if caught? It would only be risky if others knew about the pregnancy but you couldn’t just go on vacation with an obvious bun in the oven and return without and not have someone scream murderer! Same way you couldn’t go on vacation with your toddler and return without and not be asked, “where’s your kid?”

you could expect a rise in deaths from back-alley abortions and teen mothers. not everyone can afford to cross state lines (assuming the state is even nearby). more black women would be sentenced to jailtime than white women, further disrupting social and economically unstable areas (like poor areas of the south). with the iraq war as background music, it would be the early 1970s all over again, which were pretty bad times to be an american.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

I think you guys are right that “home” and away abortions would increase but wouldn’t a “home” abortion or one in a different country still be illegal if caught? It would only be risky if others knew about the pregnancy but you couldn’t just go on vacation with an obvious bun in the oven and return without and not have someone scream murderer! Same way you couldn’t go on vacation with your toddler and return without and not be asked, “where’s your kid?”

---

Well that is a problem they are facing in Ireland, yet I don't hear about Irish girls getting prosecuted for abortion in N. Ireland or England.

I don't know about the US or individual state's laws (in case this should come to fruition), but wouldn't this be like prosecuting a man for having smoked weed in Amsterdam???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

...but wouldn't this be like prosecuting a man for having smoked weed in Amsterdam???

---

Sure, except smoking weed is not murder like the pro-lifers say abortion is.

With most law, you would be able to cross the state lines and have it available; I can't really think of any laws that forbid their citizens from doing certain things in other areas not under their jurisdiction, and I can't imagine the other jurisdiction policing their laws for them. But, abortion clinics aren't exactly common sights in places around the country; it would be more than just hopping across the border of a state.

Quote:

---

Sure, except smoking weed is not murder like the pro-lifers say abortion is.

---

That's because murder of the violent adult-killing-adult sense is pretty illegal everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Sure, except smoking weed is not murder like the pro-lifers say abortion is.

---

Well they can say what they want, but if that man can't be prosecuted for smoking weed (I don't know if the act of smoking is illegal in itself) then you can't have a doublestandard that says another crime-that-isn't-a-crime-in-the-place-it-was-permitted is up for prosecution. Where would it end? Homosexuals getting thrown to jail when they crossed state borders because they were known to do their stuff at home but in this place it was illegal? Come on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Well they can say what they want, but if that man can't be prosecuted for smoking weed (I don't know if the act of smoking is illegal in itself) then you can't have a doublestandard that says another crime-that-isn't-a-crime-in-the-place-it-was-permitted is up for prosecution. Where would it end? Homosexuals getting thrown to jail when they crossed state borders because they were known to do their stuff at home but in this place it was illegal? Come on...

---

Hummm, my mind is starting to swirl. Wouldn’t the murder of a US citizen (unborn babies already have some rights) by a US citizen even if in another country still be a prosecutable offence back in the US?

I’m pro-choice and trying to play devils advocate is hurting my head.:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Well they can say what they want, but if that man can't be prosecuted for smoking weed (I don't know if the act of smoking is illegal in itself) then you can't have a doublestandard that says another crime-that-isn't-a-crime-in-the-place-it-was-permitted is up for prosecution. Where would it end? Homosexuals getting thrown to jail when they crossed state borders because they were known to do their stuff at home but in this place it was illegal? Come on...

---

The US doesn't care where the act was committed. If you are a US citizen, then US courts have jurisdiction over you. If you smoke weed in Amsterdam, you can be arrested for it when you get home. Just because it doesn't actually happen doesn't mean it's not possible.

Also, for the record, in most states that allow abortion, it is illegal for non-residents to receive them. In-state doctors who give abortions can be prosecuted for giving them to out-of-state residents.

Quote:

---

The US doesn't care where the act was committed. If you are a US citizen, then US courts have jurisdiction over you. If you smoke weed in Amsterdam, you can be arrested for it when you get home.

---

I thought that wherever you were, you were subject to the laws of that land. I am under 21, but I can drink in England. Or, is that incorrect, does it specify 'no citizen shall...'? And, I guess I can't imagine other countries letting Federal Agents enforce US laws on their land.

Quote:

---

Also, for the record, in most states that allow abortion, it is illegal for non-residents to receive them. In-state doctors who give abortions can be prosecuted for giving them to out-of-state residents.

---

I'm assuming that's when the state's law says that explicitly, no?

Quote:

---

Hummm, my mind is starting to swirl. Wouldn’t the murder of a US citizen (unborn babies already have some rights) by a US citizen even if in another country still be a prosecutable offence back in the US?

---

I believe that would have to be a Federal law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

I thought that wherever you were, you were subject to the laws of that land. I am under 21, but I can drink in England. Or, is that incorrect, does it specify 'no citizen shall...'? And, I guess I can't imagine other countries letting Federal Agents enforce US laws on their land.

---

You're right, but not seeing the whole thing. As a US citizen you are always subject to US federal law. Whether your act was illegal in the country it was committed in is irrelevant to the situation. If you break a US federal law, you can be prosecuted for it, regardless of where it was committed. However, you either have to be brought to the US for a US court to try you. This can be done by you either coming back willingly, by force (i.e. bounty hunters) or by extradition from a nation that will allow it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

I'm assuming that's when the state's law says that explicitly, no?

---

Correct.

Quote:

---

You're right, but not seeing the whole thing. As a US citizen you are always subject to US federal law. Whether your act was illegal in the country it was committed in is irrelevant to the situation. If you break a US federal law, you can be prosecuted for it, regardless of where it was committed. However, you either have to be brought to the US for a US court to try you. This can be done by you either coming back willingly, by force (i.e. bounty hunters) or by extradition from a nation that will allow it.

---

Does the wording of the Federal law need to specify 'citizen' not just 'it is illegal to...' though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

Does the wording of the Federal law need to specify 'citizen' not just 'it is illegal to...' though?

---

Nope, as a US citizen you are always subject to all US federal laws. There may be some that specifically exempt US citizens for acts committed abroad, but I am not aware of any if there are. Regardless, it would be an opt out situation, not an opt in.

Clarification on the a couple issues. Drinking when under 21 is not illegal if you do it outside the US because all US drinking age laws are state laws. There is no federal drinking age. You can thank Reagan for coercing the states to all adopt 21, before that it was split between 21 and 18 depending on the state. Marijuana use in Amsterdam is illegal because federal law criminalizes its use. Since it's federal and you're a citizen, you are subject to it abroad.

I thought the drinking age was state law, but I saw something on the internet when I was double-checking... guess I didn't read carefully enough. I knew that all the states were basically coerced, because Wisconsin was the last to give in.~:cheers: But I guessed that maybe since then it had become a Federal law. Anyways, thanks for the clarification.

Well that is a problem they are facing in Ireland, yet I don't hear about Irish girls getting prosecuted for abortion in N. Ireland or England.

Not prosecuted , but it has led to very lengthy court cases where they have tried to stop women from travelling . Often in rather nasty cases involving rape victims or incestuous relationships .
All very nice and civilised .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

The US doesn't care where the act was committed. If you are a US citizen, then US courts have jurisdiction over you. If you smoke weed in Amsterdam, you can be arrested for it when you get home. Just because it doesn't actually happen doesn't mean it's not possible.

Also, for the record, in most states that allow abortion, it is illegal for non-residents to receive them. In-state doctors who give abortions can be prosecuted for giving them to out-of-state residents.

---

Aww, that is harsh. Bu to be honest I don't know if we don't have it the same way here (though about weed it would be legal since smoking it is not illegal, only the posession).
But the point here (about the abortion) is exactly state law and not federal law. So in one state it is pre-meditated murder in the other it is perfectly legal. And let's assume that the courtruling will push the states further apart, so that the no-no to abortion states will treat it as murder, while the others allow people from other states to have abortions.
What would happen? Could the states really prosecute the poor girls? Or would it fall under the state law so that you could have abortions still?

Nonsense.

You target the doctors, not the patients. If a doctor performs an abortion in a state where they are illegal, his license is revoked and he can face criminal charges. This is especially perfect given that medical licenses are dispensed on a state level.

Targeting the women would be silly, obviously.

DA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Nonsense.

You target the doctors, not the patients. If a doctor performs an abortion in a state where they are illegal, his license is revoked and he can face criminal charges. This is especially perfect given that medical licenses are dispensed on a state level.

Targeting the women would be silly, obviously.

---

And why is that? The decission and cossent is given by her, so she does have some criminal actitude too in doing so. The penalization of abortion protects the eventual human being not the woman, nor the society in general, just one eventual human being. All conducts tendent to provoque certain damage on the fetus must be considered criminal as long as it's illegal of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoulForged

And why is that? The decission and cossent is given by her, so she does have some criminal actitude too in doing so. The penalization of abortion protects the eventual human being not the woman, nor the society in general, just one eventual human being. All conducts tendent to provoque certain damage on the fetus must be considered criminal as long as it's illegal of course.

---

If the real goal is to reduce the availability and frequency of abortions, and also to make a moral statement, then targetting the doctors would achieve the end-- without all the collateral damage of legal ambiguities.

Laws are made-- or at least they should be made-- with the intention of getting results.

DA

Why not use a GPS on all fertile womens and check where they go ? Also have them to take pregancy tests monthly and if they are pregnant, give them a travel ban. Even might consider to force them to state recommended diets and exclude them from certain jobs, until they have done their duty to the state and contributed with another citizen.
Geez, some of you guy's......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Nonsense.

You target the doctors, not the patients. If a doctor performs an abortion in a state where they are illegal, his license is revoked and he can face criminal charges. This is especially perfect given that medical licenses are dispensed on a state level.

Targeting the women would be silly, obviously.

DA

---

Targetting the doctor does not change the issue. The doctors go in states where abortion is allowed, the women travel and noone get charged. Ever.

Interesting Tincow/ Kanamori discussion. I'd like to have an expert point of view on that...

It's also interesting to note that some so called "prolife" groups strategy is to make abortion a state law. From what Tincow/ Kanamori says, this is going to be self defeating.
So why would they do that?

Louis,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

Targetting the doctor does not change the issue. The doctors go in states where abortion is allowed, the women travel and noone get charged. Ever.

Interesting Tincow/ Kanamori discussion. I'd like to have an expert point of view on that...

It's also interesting to note that some so called "prolife" groups strategy is to make abortion a state law. From what Tincow/ Kanamori says, this is going to be self defeating.
So why would they do that?

Louis,

---

I think you misunderstand. If the goal is to reduce the occurrence of abortions, then this most definitely can be achieved. If you reduce the availability of abortions, they will be harder to get, and fewer women will get them. Period.

Furthermore, by making it illegal in many states, a strong moral message would be sent, further discouraging women who consider abortion.

Nope. Not self-defeating at all. I'm not pro-life by the way, just analyzing.

DA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Lets imagine that in the future that the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. Now individual states can make abortion a criminal offence, basically pre-meditated murder. What should the punishment for a woman who gets an abortion be? Should the doctor also be charged?

---

Punishment should be execution, or at the very least, life imprisonment with zero possibility for parole. Both for the "woman" and the "doctor" who participated in the murder of the baby. I put quotes around the words because in reality they are neither; that would require humanity first - but humans would not murder babies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

you could expect a rise in deaths from back-alley abortions and teen mothers. not everyone can afford to cross state lines (assuming the state is even nearby). more black women would be sentenced to jailtime than white women, further disrupting social and economically unstable areas (like poor areas of the south). with the iraq war as background music, it would be the early 1970s all over again, which were pretty bad times to be an american.

---

Would there be more abortion related deaths? Maybe. Alot more? Probably not. The often stated statistics of thousands of women dying each year from "back alley abortions" was largely a fabrication- most were performed by licensed physicians anyhow. Second, why would more black women be sentenced? From what data I've seen, close to 70% of abortions are performed on white women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Punishment should be execution, or at the very least, life imprisonment with zero possibility for parole. Both for the "woman" and the "doctor" who participated in the murder of the baby. I put quotes around the words because in reality they are neither; that would require humanity first - but humans would not murder babies.

---

Did your mother beat you as a child ?? :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

I think you misunderstand. If the goal is to reduce the occurrence of abortions, then this most definitely can be achieved. If you reduce the availability of abortions, they will be harder to get, and fewer women will get them. Period.

Furthermore, by making it illegal in many states, a strong moral message would be sent, further discouraging women who consider abortion.

Nope. Not self-defeating at all. I'm not pro-life by the way, just analyzing.

DA

---

It's a funny analyze...

I'd suggest you have a look at Ireland as a good recent showcase of abortion regulation completly failing.

Reducing the availability of abortion in Ireland only had the effect of sending Irish women to Northern Ireland and England when it was necessary.
It has failed before, it will fail again.

You know little about women seeking abortion: no law is going to discourage them, that's why you have self admnistred abortion, back alleys abortion, all those dangerous alternatives to abortion tourism. Or just plain lawful abortion. It's going to be interesting to see so called "prolife" reaction when we'll get the first cases of dead women who failed to get a safe abortion. How "prolife" will that be?

Is it possible to reduce the number of abortions? Yes probably... Some practices helps, mostly sexual education, and making contraceptives available (for that look at Eastern Europe evolution...). If you already got decent sexual education, and that contraceptives are available (ie, abortion is not seen as a contraceptive), then you got little room for reducing abortion.

Louis,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Would there be more abortion related deaths? Maybe. Alot more? Probably not. The often stated statistics of thousands of women dying each year from "back alley abortions" was largely a fabrication- most were performed by licensed physicians anyhow. Second, why would more black women be sentenced? From what data I've seen, close to 70% of abortions are performed on white women.

---

I know in Britain before it was legal, the rich women would just get some doctors to do it quietly (or find an excuse to do it legally), and poor women would end up with some local woman sticking a big needle into them.

There was a film about this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

I know in Britain before it was legal, the rich women would just get some doctors to do it quietly (or find an excuse to do it legally), and poor women would end up with some local woman sticking a big needle into them.

There was a film about this...

---

Yup, while deaths were perhaps not in their thousands there were quite a few, but many more suffered infections and subsequent loss of fertility.

I agree that to bring abortion down it would have to be a a drive at making it an unwanted choice. Much like drunk driving has become, it is simply unpopular now. Previously it was 'manly' to drive home in a 2.0 stupor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

Interesting Tincow/ Kanamori discussion. I'd like to have an expert point of view on that...

It's also interesting to note that some so called "prolife" groups strategy is to make abortion a state law. From what Tincow/ Kanamori says, this is going to be self defeating.
So why would they do that?

---

Well, I'm not sure what you would consider an expert point of view. If a lawyer would qualify, then you've already gotten one. I'm not arguing with Kanamori, just explaining how the system works.

The only reason I can think of for Pro-Life groups to be pushing state laws against abortion is as a backup in case the Supreme Court doesn't make a full shift for or against. Currently the Court requires states to allow abortion, but it lets states decided how they want to implement it, within certain limits, e.g. no third trimester abortions. If the Court changed their decision and decided to let all states decide whether or not to allow abortion altogether, then the individual state laws would come into play.

Quote:

---

Punishment should be execution, or at the very least, life imprisonment with zero possibility for parole. Both for the "woman" and the "doctor" who participated in the murder of the baby. I put quotes around the words because in reality they are neither; that would require humanity first - but humans would not murder babies.

---

and true Christians wouldn't go around calling for the death of everyone who did something they disapproved of. Nor would they throw a woman in the hole forever with no hope of release. Remember that Jesus taught forgiveness and compassion.

But over the centuries religious zealots have promoted some seriuos evil in the name of righteousness, so I guess I shouldn't be shocked by your inhumanity.

ichi:bow:

BTW abortion doesn't involve murdering babies, unless it is a very late term abortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

BTW abortion doesn't involve murdering babies, unless it is a very late term abortion.

---

According to you. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

But over the centuries religious zealots have promoted some seriuos evil in the name of righteousness, so I guess I shouldn't be shocked by your inhumanity.

---

Just about every ethnic and social group has something they are/should be embarassed about. What is your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

and true Christians wouldn't go around calling for the death of everyone who did something they disapproved of. Nor would they throw a woman in the hole forever with no hope of release. Remember that Jesus taught forgiveness and compassion.

---

This is true. I doubt that Jesus would have been much of a fan of abortion, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

I'd suggest you have a look at Ireland as a good recent showcase of abortion regulation completly failing.

Reducing the availability of abortion in Ireland only had the effect of sending Irish women to Northern Ireland and England when it was necessary.
It has failed before, it will fail again.

---

Well, let me ask you-- why are the Irish laws a failure? Has the frequency of abortions not been reduced?

Just because some women go to N. Ireland or England is not evidence of failure. I'd be willing to bet you a good sum of money that there is a lower occurrence per capita of abortions in Ireland than there would be if abortions were legal.

If your goal is the complete elimination of abortion, then you WILL fail. But a reasonable goal of reducing their frequency CAN be achieved through legislation and regulation. It's not like crack. People aren't addicted to it. Something as simple as a long journey, a high monetary expense, or a strong moral taboo could easily dissuade a woman who might otherwise have gotten an abortion.

There will always be a few who are adamant-- in which case, let them travel to California/England/wherever. That's the beauty of having some states where it's legal, and others where it's not. You remove the incentive to illegal activity.

DA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

If the real goal is to reduce the availability and frequency of abortions, and also to make a moral statement, then targetting the doctors would achieve the end-- without all the collateral damage of legal ambiguities.

Laws are made-- or at least they should be made-- with the intention of getting results.

---

That won't happen DA. Laws are done right from the idea of equity, not all get results, not all are simply pragmatic. It will not be right and just to charge the medic with a crime and not the part that gives consense. Sorry but it will never happen, and I hope that law never turns like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

That won't happen DA. Laws are done right from the idea of equity, not all get results, not all are simply pragmatic. It will not be right and just to charge the medic with a crime and not the part that gives consense. Sorry but it will never happen, and I hope that law never turns like that.

---

How is it unfair?? The Doctor is the professional, it is his JOB to know what is right to do and what is wrong, and if he fails then it is more than just for him not only to lose his license, but in some cases to face actual criminal punishment.

The woman has no professional qualification, she is not getting paid for any expert knowledge, and in most cases is simply a young, ignorant, scared girl. She has no license, she has no publicly-endowed trust to uphold.

DA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

The woman has no professional qualification,

---

Well, she does have a uterus...... ~:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

How is it unfair?? The Doctor is the professional, it is his JOB to know what is right to do and what is wrong, and if he fails then it is more than just for him not only to lose his license, but in some cases to face actual criminal punishment.

---

The doctor is the professional but that has nothing to do. Penal law represses conducts of mans yes, the wrongness of the conduct is explicit in the mother,who let's the abortion happen giving her conssent, and also on the medic, who pratices it. Simple. Both are responsable for the crime.

Quote:

---

The woman has no professional qualification, she is not getting paid for any expert knowledge, and in most cases is simply a young, ignorant, scared girl. She has no license, she has no publicly-endowed trust to uphold.

---

First, you've to have a law that sais specially to this cases of children we propose this, bla, bla, bla... The general law will talk about general dispositions and circumstances. If the mother has legal conssent is enough to make she responsable for the crime. It's very simple really she knows she is destroying the fetus then she is responsable, she receives punishment, period.

Quote:

---

and true Christians wouldn't go around calling for the death of everyone who did something they disapproved of. Nor would they throw a woman in the hole forever with no hope of release. Remember that Jesus taught forgiveness and compassion.

---

Ha! You think that the Christians follow that kind of doctrine. Do you know why was it that in ancient times, at the very begining some Pope said "we are going to be the only ones who can interpret the Bible"? Simple, because the Bible was and is full of serious moral stupidity and evilness, also the people were and are ignorant, and there was a lot of "aphpocrifal" texts... Nobody can call himself a true Christian, because there isn't such thing, you only have the Bible, and if you want to be a true beleiver then you've to follow it at the letter or the interpretation of the Catholic Church, wich is not better...Not the best thing to do if you want to really win "heaven", even like a moral guide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

and true Christians wouldn't go around calling for the death of everyone who did something they disapproved of. Nor would they throw a woman in the hole forever with no hope of release. Remember that Jesus taught forgiveness and compassion.

But over the centuries religious zealots have promoted some seriuos evil in the name of righteousness, so I guess I shouldn't be shocked by your inhumanity.

BTW abortion doesn't involve murdering babies, unless it is a very late term abortion.

---

Of course abortion involves murdering babies. "Abortion" is just a pleasant-sounding codename for that.

It is not merely "something that is disapproved of", but rather it is the act of murdering a baby.

It would be an expression of inhumanity to say that someone who has murdered a baby should be allowed to live as if nothing happened.

To allow such murders to occur and do nothing about them, that is the serious evil going on.

On the other hand, to deliver fair justice to the murderers is noble.

[QUOTE=Navaros]Of course abortion involves murdering babies. "Abortion" is just a pleasant-sounding codename for that.
QUOTE]In fact you're wrong. In the technical sense of the term it's used to diferenciate the killing of a born person from one that hasn't born yet. The not-born is not considered a person, just an eventual imperfect person, that's why you require a different word to describe it. Also some other medical-technical considerations that I really don't have clear, but the process involving abortion is very different from an objective and even more subjective point of view.

Yes, the words are not the same. We all understand that...:dizzy2:

medically, how ever, there is little difference between "aborting" a baby that would be born in one week, and aborting a baby that has been born for a week.

And, for the record, i'm not a fanatic. Early Abortions are OK, but "aborting" an infant is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

In fact you're wrong. In the technical sense of the term it's used to diferenciate the killing of a born person from one that hasn't born yet. The not-born is not considered a person, just an eventual imperfect person, that's why you require a different word to describe it.

---

The baby is still dead. :no:

Quote:

---

On the other hand, to deliver fair justice to the murderers is noble.

---

I have a feeling you'd like the movie Boondock Saints.

Quote:

---

The not-born is not considered a person, just an eventual imperfect person, that's why you require a different word to describe it.

---

And what about abortions where the baby could have lived had it been born and not aborted?

When you start saying it's okay to kill a baby since its in a woman's body, soon you have idiots like Peter Singer saying its okay to kill babies after they've been born.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I have a feeling you'd like the movie Boondock Saints.

---

Yes I agree. :bow:

Quote:

---

And what about abortions where the baby could have lived had it been born and not aborted?

---

What about it? In my statement I don't support abortion (though you may know my possition from other threads). The baby can be aborted because IMO it's not a person at all. Imperfect categories of person don't exist, however in juridical matter it appears that to limit the freedom of the mother, it's ok to give that category to some thing growing inside the uterus.

Quote:

---

When you start saying it's okay to kill a baby since its in a woman's body, soon you have idiots like Peter Singer saying its okay to kill babies after they've been born.

---

To me you're not killing anyone, you're destroying a thing of your pertenence (wich is not a crime by the way). Once the will-to-be person is born, or the thing (ie fetus) is born (the way you like to qualify it) it's considered a full real separated and independent living person, for instance killing him/her will be murder, more clear imposible.
Now lately I've being changing my position a lot. I understand the arguments gave in defence of the eventual person, so I'm right in the middle. I'm willing to accept that possition and remain in the status quo (at least in my legislation), when the mother is justified (and for instance the medic) if she is in danger to suffering serious damage to her health if the birth continues. However for exhaustive and long reasons I don't accept (from that position) the justification in cases of light damage, moral damage, rape or any other. I don't accept any other political conception that's totally outside the dogma of the law, like for example the institution of birth control, to me it's atrocious. And finally I don't accept the prescription for abortion. From this middle position, abortion is never possible, unless the already proposed. From the extreme position, it's not acceptable because there's no juridical relevant difference between a will-to-be person of 1 month and other of 6 months. I think I was pretty clear.

Lets not start arguing if abortion is right or wrong or when it is abortion and when it is murder or whatever. My original questions were…

Quote:

---

Lets imagine that in the future that the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. Now individual states can make abortion a criminal offence, basically pre-meditated murder. What should the punishment for a woman who gets an abortion be? Should the doctor also be charged?

Should it be legal for a pregnant woman to go to another state or country where abortion is legal and have it done then come back to her state without a criminal investigation?

---

From other abortion threads we all know where this one could go.:bow:

Soulforged
You didn't reply to my post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

Yes, the words are not the same. We all understand that...:dizzy2:

medically, how ever, there is little difference between "aborting" a baby that would be born in one week, and aborting a baby that has been born for a week.

And, for the record, i'm not a fanatic. Early Abortions are OK, but "aborting" an infant is wrong.

---

I want to see a MEDICAL difference between aborting a baby that will be born in an hour and aborting baby that has been born for an hour~:confused:



Both can feel pain, and think to a limited extent. they can also survive with out the mother.
As is my limited understanding....:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

I want to see a MEDICAL difference between aborting a baby that will be born in an hour and aborting baby that has been born for an hour~:confused:

---

Actually I would like to see that as well.

Soulforged you say:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

The baby can be aborted because IMO it's not a person at all.

---

What is that opinion of yours based on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

it's not acceptable because there's no juridical relevant difference between a will-to-be person of 1 month and other of 6 months.

---

In itself the juridical semantics have no value at all. The juridical definitions should reflect what society considers to be right or wrong - they cannot be the basis for an argument whether something is morally right or wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

I want to see a MEDICAL difference between aborting a baby that will be born in an hour and aborting baby that has been born for an hour~:confused:

---

The not born baby is connected to the mother and resides INSIDE the mother. The born baby is not. Rather simple actually.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

Soulforged
You didn't reply to my post.
I want to see a MEDICAL difference between aborting a baby that will be born in an hour and aborting baby that has been born for an hour
Both can feel pain, and think to a limited extent. they can also survive with out the mother.
As is my limited understanding....

---

Actually I did many times in that old discussion in wich many of the pro life left because they couldn't argue properly. Go back to that and read them, there are a lot of pages to read. If you've any other doubt, then I'll be happy to enlight you, but I'll no repeat myself. Also you're confusing my possition, and confusing terms. A baby born for an hour will not be aborted, but killed, you don't appear to know the real meaning of the separation of those terms. :no:

Quote:

---

What is that opinion of yours based on?

---

Is not only my opinion Ser Clegane, it's the opinion of all the juridic community. The position varies from one possition to the other this way: 1- let's stablish that all the juridic international community doesn't accepts the fetus to be a person, it's categorized as a object in the middle of things and person, obviously the caracter of person is given by the law, that doesn't mean that the fetus is not an human being. But if you want medical arguments, for what I know it acts like a parasit, so it cannot have the same heirarchy of an independent autonomous human being, that's the person. 2- The universal position sais that, though the fetus is not a person, it will be, eventually, one (or at least has an abstract possibility), so it deserves protection. This is not just semantics, the human and the person are different in essence, of what they can do, what they mean to society, the effects that they've on society, so the separation of both is important to understand this. 3- In my extreme position, it's not like that. To me we cannot simply limit the freedom of the mother just because some human is not still a person and depends in life and in death of the same mother, it's part of the mother. 4- However I'm turning, like I said, to a less extreme possition. For different reasons I find both arguments (on the one side and on the other), a little weak... But I admit that I like more the arguments given against abortion legalization, not by prolifers, but for real jurists that care for the very dogma of social understanding.

Quote:

---

In itself the juridical semantics have no value at all. The juridical definitions should reflect what society considers to be right or wrong - they cannot be the basis for an argument whether something is morally right or wrong.

---

Absolutely right. But the problem is that the definition of person is not necessarilly attached to the human being. All persons are human beings, but not all human beings are persons. One of the possitions sais that the fetus is an imperfect person, one that has imperfect rights, wich become irrebocable when it becomes a full person (here when it borns alive, in France when it lives and prooves viability). The question is can there exist an imperfect person? Not, that will be the same as trying to give the corpse the same qualification, the person is ot not is, simple. Now that's why I find strange that this question is still being asked. When I said juridically I didn't mean legal semantics, the juridic science studies the movements of social traditions and morality and tries to give some form to it. If this studies show that there cannot be imperfect persons. Then how it's possible that will give that to the fetus, and worst, resulting on the loss of freedom of the mother? If the critical point is the separation or viability, then there's no difference between a fetus of 1 week or other of 6 months.

Quote:

---

The not born baby is connected to the mother and resides INSIDE the mother. The born baby is not. Rather simple actually.....

---

actually, i meant medical evidence that it's not alive. whether or not it's inside the mother is a very abstract and ignorant way of deciding if somemething is alive or not.:book:

Quote:

---

The question is can there exist an imperfect person? Not, that will be the same as trying to give the corpse the same qualification...

---

No it wouldn't, because a corpse is not alive.

Quote:

---

One of the possitions sais that the fetus is an imperfect person, one that has imperfect rights, wich become irrebocable when it becomes a full person (here when it borns alive, in France when it lives and prooves viability).

---

the fetus(If it's about to be born in an hour...), is just as much alive as an infant. There isn't any difference, except that one is inside the mother and the other is not.

Quote:

---

If the critical point is the separation or viability, then there's no difference between a fetus of 1 week or other of 6 months.

---

Once again, you are arguing in a abstract legal way. the "critical point" Is when it is alive. Laws are like numbers; they are suppossed to reflect reality/Morality, not change it. it used to be legal to keep blacks as slaves, that didn't make it right.

Quote:

---

To me we cannot simply limit the freedom of the mother just because some human is not still a person and depends in life and in death of the same mother, it's part of the mother.

---

No it dosen't. a baby that will be born in an hour can survive with out the mother.

PS:Sorry i couldn't quote the entire post. Will try to do that once i have more time.

Well, the "alive" argument seems rather pointless to me. My hair is alive, yet no one cries murder when I cut it. It's not "alive" that causes the problems, it is "sentient." Barring those extremists fruitarians, we all eat living things. Even vegans are not remorseful for killing a plant for their own needs. The same is true of living human matter. The important difference is when you are extinguishing the life of something that is aware of its own existence. A fetus is not self-aware when it is one, two or four cells in the womb. A fetus is aware just before it is born. Given our current level of science, we are unable to determine exactly when the fetus transforms from a mass of living matter into a sentient creature.

As such logic dictates that aborting the fetus before sentience occurs should be acceptable to most societies. Aborting it after sentience occurs should not be acceptable to most societies. Current laws proposing a complete ban on abortion are not doing so to protect the warm mass of globular goo that exists 24 hours after fertilization. These laws exist or are proposed in order to prevent any mistakes being made in the process. The idea behind them is that it is better to err on the side of caution than to extinguish a life.

While this is a laudable reason, it is laughable in a nation that allows the death penalty. The Supreme Court has specifically stated that putting prisoners to death is acceptable despite the fact that mistakes are likely to be made and innocent lives taken. If this is the case then early term abortion, when possible sentience is little more than a slim chance, should also be legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

actually, i meant medical evidence that it's not alive. whether or not it's inside the mother is a very abstract and ignorant way of deciding if somemething is alive or not.:book:

---

You are trying to create a reference that provides you with what you need. Your "alive" argument is irrelevant. It's not a question if the baby/fetus is alive or not.

Furthermore, "inside the mother" is neither abstract nor ignorant. It's a very easily proven state of the baby, both medically, legally and morally.

Any restriction on abortion is a direct restriction on the mother and her control of her body. If your true intention is to protect the fetus, you have to make a lot of restrictions on the mother and her life. I don't accept that.

Quote:

---

Any restriction on abortion is a direct restriction on the mother and her control of her body. If your true intention is to protect the fetus, you have to make a lot of restrictions on the mother and her life. I don't accept that.

---

ROFL

it's OK to slaughter a human being who hasn't committed any crime because it's convenient?:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

You are trying to create a reference that provides you with what you need. Your "alive" argument is irrelevant. It's not a question if the baby/fetus is alive or not.

---

~:eek:
Erm, it DOES matter when you're debating on wheter it's OK to destroy something or not.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, "inside the mother" is neither abstract nor ignorant. It's a very easily proven state of the baby, both medically, legally and morally.

---

There are no differences between a baby that will be born in afew minutes and a baby that has been born for afew minutes other then the fact that one is inside the mother, the other is not. IIRC, if the mother died, the baby could be removed and it would survive.

in itself, being inside the mother means nothing.

It is futile to reason with you~:handball: This is probably my last post on the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

it's OK to slaughter a human being who hasn't committed any crime because it's convenient?:dizzy2:

---

It's a collateral damage when upholding the mothers rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

Erm, it DOES matter when you're debating on wheter it's OK to destroy something or not.

---

Abortions primary reason is not to destroy the fetus. I think in this we have your largest misunderstanding on abortion. A women who choses to make abortion doesn't do that because she wants to kill the fetus, but out of reasons of her own well being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

There are no differences between a baby that will be born in afew minutes and a baby that has been born for afew minutes other then the fact that one is inside the mother, the other is not. IIRC, if the mother died, the baby could be removed and it would survive.

---

Semantics. This has nothing to add to the actual discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

in itself, being inside the mother means nothing.

---

That is the ONLY thing that means something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

It is futile to reason with you~:handball: This is probably my last post on the matter.

---

Giving up are we ?? ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

actually, i meant medical evidence that it's not alive. whether or not it's inside the mother is a very abstract and ignorant way of deciding if somemething is alive or not.

---

Well I treated you with respect, I think I deserve the same, but if you want to play that game..."Abstract and ignorant"? Huh, I think you don't know the meaning of "abstract". In any case it's not, it's the result of centuries of studies, something that you don't have on civil matter my friend. The point is not being alive...UFFF...Look I'm a man an a person I'm alive. The fetus is a man but not a person, it's a life. Happy. (notice that that doesn't disprooves anything, just trying to make it easy for you to eat). Hell you didn't even readed my previous posts, but also ignored the last one, good work. :rtwyes:

Quote:

---

No it wouldn't, because a corpse is not alive.

---

Of course but the argument is not directed against the essence of the object, but to the abstract (see abstract) conception of personality given by the law. Doctrine doesn't acecpts imperfect personality, one is a person or not. However it's ok to give that to the fetus...

Quote:

---

the fetus(If it's about to be born in an hour...), is just as much alive as an infant. There isn't any difference, except that one is inside the mother and the other is not.

---

Well if you knew something about law, you'll know that that difference is a great one.

Quote:

---

Once again, you are arguing in a abstract legal way. the "critical point" Is when it is alive. Laws are like numbers; they are suppossed to reflect reality/Morality, not change it. it used to be legal to keep blacks as slaves, that didn't make it right.

---

Of course not, but I'm arguing the phylosophy of law, not just the dogma in itself, that's, in final instance, a derivation of the first. Laws = numbers? Because they reflect reality/morality? You need a dictionary...Again you're confusing human being with person. Now are the two concepts completely alien to each other? That's a real question. Not: If he alive or not? :wall:

Quote:

---

No it dosen't. a baby that will be born in an hour can survive with out the mother.

---

No he can't. As you see you are arguing in circles. The born child of 1 year also depends on the mother, that doesn't makes him abortable from my extreme point of view. However if he depends organically of the mother, if he's part of another individual, then that's another case, it could be aborted.

Quote:

---

PS:Sorry i couldn't quote the entire post. Will try to do that once i have more time.

---

~:eek: WOW...Now I realize, all this was because you didn't have enough time, then sorry for any condecendent comments.

Quote:

---

Well I treated you with respect, I think I deserve the same, but if you want to play that game..."Abstract and ignorant"? Huh, I think you don't know the meaning of "abstract". In any case it's not, it's the result of centuries of studies, something that you don't have on civil matter my friend. The point is not being alive...UFFF...Look I'm a man an a person I'm alive. The fetus is a man but not a person, it's a life. Happy. (notice that that doesn't disprooves anything, just trying to make it easy for you to eat). Hell you didn't even readed my previous posts, but also ignored the last one, good work. :rtwyes:

---

I was refering to bmolsson, who's argument was not as well though out as yours...

Quote:

---

Of course but the argument is not directed against the essence of the object, but to the abstract (see abstract) conception of personality given by the law. Doctrine doesn't acecpts imperfect personality, one is a person or not. However it's ok to give that to the fetus...
Well if you knew something about law, you'll know that that difference is a great one.

---

what im arguing is that after a certain point, the fetus is a person. If it was to be removed from the mother, and others cared for it, it would survive. It is capable of living with out direct attachment to another person.

Quote:

---

Of course not, but I'm arguing the phylosophy of law, not just the dogma in itself, that's, in final instance, a derivation of the first. Laws = numbers? Because they reflect reality/morality? You need a dictionary...Again you're confusing human being with person. Now are the two concepts completely alien to each other? That's a real question. Not: If he alive or not? :wall:

---

No, what i meant by that poorly worded statment was that claiming that laws change morality is like claiming that numbers can change reality. They don't; they're simply supposed to reflect what is right

Quote:

---

No he can't. As you see you are arguing in circles. The born child of 1 year also depends on the mother, that doesn't makes him abortable from my extreme point of view. However if he depends organically of the mother, if he's part of another individual, then that's another case, it could be aborted.

---

What meant was that it dosen't need to be attached to the mother to survive.

Quote:

---

~:eek: WOW...Now I realize, all this was because you didn't have enough time, then sorry for any condecendent comments.

---

See how you are?~D


At anyrate, this debate isn't going any where. In my defense, debating here is like trench warfare; an over the top attack is sometimes the only way to break the stalmate, though not in a good way....~;)

Still, I apologize for any over the top comments i might have made in this thread~:grouphug:

Just wanting to point something out (as I see data used wrongly too often in the newspaper already):

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Second, why would more black women be sentenced? From what data I've seen, close to 70% of abortions are performed on white women.

---

Of the American population 75% is white (according to this). This means that compared to other ethnics white women have less abortions.

To get back on topic:
Please correct me if I'm wrong on this: Gambling is forbidden in some states yet loads of people go to Las Vegas to gamble. Nobody is sentenced for doing that. Now if you replace gambling with abortion why would it be any different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

I was refering to bmolsson, who's argument was not as well though out as yours...

---

My arguments are facts. I guess that is why you hate them..... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke John

To get back on topic:
Please correct me if I'm wrong on this: Gambling is forbidden in some states yet loads of people go to Las Vegas to gamble. Nobody is sentenced for doing that. Now if you replace gambling with abortion why would it be any different?

---

Yes exactly. It's more a question of morality than of law, thus the state doesn't has to exercise power (of course it shouldn't that doesn't mean it's not going to do it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

what im arguing is that after a certain point, the fetus is a person. If it was to be removed from the mother, and others cared for it, it would survive. It is capable of living with out direct attachment to another person.

---

Ok, but that's an emotional appeal, not logical constructions over the bases that I've provided. Though until certain point I agree with you, that's why I changed my possition. The quality of person cannot be totally alienated to that of human being, one is the instrument of protection of the second greater.

Quote:

---

No, what i meant by that poorly worded statment was that claiming that laws change morality is like claiming that numbers can change reality. They don't; they're simply supposed to reflect what is right

---

I never pretended to say something like that. In fact I always separate the two with care, while stating clearly that the morality is the basis of all law, in fact in ancient times they were confused.

Quote:

---

What meant was that it dosen't need to be attached to the mother to survive.

---

Perhaps, and I thought as much...But science is based on facts. Also juridic science interprets the things from another non-positive point of view. The point is not if he/she is capable of sruvival, the point is: Is he/she worthy of juridical protection? The basis for the answer of those two question are totally different, one is the medical fact other the social one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Any restriction on abortion is a direct restriction on the mother and her control of her body. If your true intention is to protect the fetus, you have to make a lot of restrictions on the mother and her life. I don't accept that.

---

Restriction on the life of the mother?

Oh well, there are a lot of restrictions that can be put on a person's life.

Taking care of a family member that is on life support after a stroke can be quite a chore. Should one be allowed to kill such a family member?
After all it could not survive on its own and puts quite a restriction on the life of the rest of the family (or on society if you want).

The question is until up to what point to the rights of the mother have more weight than the rights of the unborn?

Some say that at the moment of conception the protection of potential life deserves higher priority than the right of the mother to have full control over her body.

Some (including me) say that as soon as the unborn reaches a stage were it can be considered to be a sentient being, (i.e. it feels pain) its rights to live gain priority over the mother's right to have full control over her life.

Some say that the mother's right of control over her body supercedes the right of life for the unborn up to the point of birth

Just as you, bmolsson feel that the first two positions are not acceptable, I cannot accept the last one. IMO the right of the mother to lead an "unrestricted life" (what restrictions are we talking about, BTW?) end were to right of a sentient human being to live begins.
It is irrelevant for me idf this sentient human being is a "person" in the legal sense. The right to live does not necessarily require the legal status of a "person" (I think in a lot of countries you would not be allowed to clobber your dog to death just because keeping it alive puts "restrictions" on your life).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Oh well, there are a lot of restrictions that can be put on a person's life.

---

I think that you have a pure emotional approach to the question. You don't know is a fetus can feel pain or not.
The practical approach here is that each individual have full control over his own body. A pregnant woman should not have this control removed. :bow:

Furthermore, dogs are property and any comparasion in this question with them is irrelevant..... ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

I think that you have a pure emotional approach to the question. You don't know is a fetus can feel pain or not.

---

There are some studies that say that up to the 30th week a fetus does not feel pain (there are others according to which pain is felt already at earlier stages.

I think you are the first person I saw claiming that a fetus does not feel pain at all.
Life and death questions tend to have an emotional component. What - apart from emotion - might be the reason that you insist that women should have the full control over their body, even at the expense of the unborn, at any stage of the pregnancy?

Quote:

---

Furthermore, dogs are property and any comparasion in this question with them is irrelevant..... ~:grouphug:

---

Then why am I not allowed to just clobber my property to death if I would like to do so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

There are some studies that say that up to the 30th week a fetus does not feel pain (there are others according to which pain is felt already at earlier stages.

I think you are the first person I saw claiming that a fetus does not feel pain at all.

---

Well, I don't know since I didn't remember any of my time as a fetus. I would assume, based on my own experience, that as a fetus I was not consious at all..... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Life and death questions tend to have an emotional component. What - apart from emotion - might be the reason that you insist that women should have the full control over their body, even at the expense of the unborn, at any stage of the pregnancy?

---

We have reached a consensus in democratic countries that womens are to be treated as equal individuals. I am pretty sure that in another social environment, I wouldn't give a rats ass..... ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Then why am I not allowed to just clobber my property to death if I would like to do so?

---

Those pesky PETA NGO's have succeeded to sneak that legislation in to your weak government. On the other hand, you have all right to put it out at the local vet for a small fee....... ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Well, I don't know since I didn't remember any of my time as a fetus. I would assume, based on my own experience, that as a fetus I was not consious at all..... ~;)

---

Well, I guess the same could be said about yout experience as a 6-month old toddler...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Well, I guess the same could be said about yout experience as a 6-month old toddler...

---

I do remember that time..... ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

I do remember that time..... ~:cheers:

---

I'd say in this case you are a rare exception ~:)