Abortion & Capital Punishment

[PLFXpert 0]

I was referring to "moral degradation". Mostly I was being ambiguous.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Royd 0]

Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Correct me if I am wrong people, but abortions (not counting medical issues where the mother's life is at risk) are NOT performed at the late stages of a pregnancy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


They are really rare and almost never done.. yet that is what gets all the air time and pictures of torn apart babies in the Pro-Life mind set.. you hear far more about partial birth abortions.. yet they are the rarest of them.... nasty pictures make for better press ya know.

Quote

Yes they are abhorent and should not be done.. a c section birth would be preferable if that is what it takes for the mother to survive.

So, why did the pro-choice group even feel a need to travel down that road except to make a point?

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

Here you go:

"The problem with [allowing an exception to an abortion ban on the basis of rape] is that it encourages women to falsely report rape. They either have to:

1. allow any woman who says "rape" to have an abortion

2. allow any woman with a substantiated claim to have an abortion (investigations take time...), or

3. only allow abortion after a conviction (very impractical).

The logistics of that just don't work out. If you go with 1, the woman gets her abortion and a man (possibly innocent) gets investigated for rape. This encourages women who want abortions to file false police reports. Sure, they may get investigated and charged for this, but they got their abortion. If you go with 2, the woman may have actually been raped and the evidence just isn't there (sometimes it really isn't), and if you go with 3, well, investigations and trials can take a long time. Sometimes much longer than 9 months."

I'd like to give the woman the benefit of the doubt and keep legal the abortion based on her word. Perhaps a hefty penalty for lying about it and the knowledge that she's making it more difficult for real rape victims to get justice will help reduce abuse of this exception.

If she claims rape, there will be a police investigation. The investigation will yeild one of three things: 1 - there was a rape, 2 - it can't be determined if there was a rape, or 3 - there was, in fact, no rape. If it's 1, then she was proven to have told the truth and there's no punishment. If it's 2, you take her word for it and there's still no punishment. If it's 3, she gets in big trouble.

This is the first I've thought about this aspect of the issue so you may find problems with this idea.

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[Nightingale 0]

The thing is, a "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean the crime didn't happen or the person didn't do it. It just means that we can't prove it. It's very, very difficult to prove that something did not happen, and also sometimes very difficult to prove that it did, especially if it was something that went unreported until the pregnancy was discovered. You're looking at probably at least four weeks of evidence loss. If it was a stranger rape, unless they've got DNA on file from a prior offense and manage to match the DNA with a real person, the guy's long gone and the odds of catching him are slim. If it was a date rape, it's easier to find the perp, but harder to prove the rape.

The other issue is that not all women want to report their rapes. You're putting them in a very tough situation. They either report the rape and go testify at trial, look at the guy in a lineup, and if it's a date rape, probably get grilled by defense attorneys about the details of their sex life, or they carry their rapist's baby to term. The thought of having to face their rapist in trial may drive them to seek out one of the illegal abortionists that will start popping up once the legal alternatives are gone for women who don't want to lie to the police.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

This is the first I've thought about this aspect of the issue so you may find problems with this idea.

--Head

This illustrates one of the problems I have with the anti-choice folks. Many of them will say "abortion only in cases of rape or danger to the mother" but they've never thought about how the logistics of something like that could be implemented.

How much danger would the mother need to be in? Medical opinions conflict all the time. Would the condition need to be deadly, or just risky? Where do you draw the line? What if doctors disagree?

What about fetal malformations? Most anti-choicers wouldn't allow abortion for a child with down syndrome, but what about a child with anencephaly (no brain) or other 100% lethal conditions? Does she carry the child to term just to watch it die after it's born? What about babies that would be so severely developmentally disabled that they could never walk or talk? While their condition isn't lethal, is it fair to demand that the parents care for a child who will be an adult sized infant? If someone's going to draw a line here, where would it be? Whose medical opinion gives the final say?

Rape, we've already kinda discussed.

So, I guess that I have such a problem with the shades of gray here that I can't find a place to draw the line that doesn't risk denying a rape victim an abortion or potentially killing someone while courts hash out whether or not her condition is serious enough to permit an abortion. How can that possibly be called "pro-life"?

[Butters 0]

There is a reason I did not use the terms "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice".

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

The thing is, a "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean the crime didn't happen or the person didn't do it. It just means that we can't prove it. It's very, very difficult to prove that something did not happen, and also sometimes very difficult to prove that it did, especially if it was something that went unreported until the pregnancy was discovered. You're looking at probably at least four weeks of evidence loss. If it was a stranger rape, unless they've got DNA on file from a prior offense and manage to match the DNA with a real person, the guy's long gone and the odds of catching him are slim. If it was a date rape, it's easier to find the perp, but harder to prove the rape.

A "not guilty" verdict could come from: 1 - not enough evidence to prove there was a rape or 2 - the defense actually proved beyond reasonable doubt (that may sound all lawyery, I'm not a lawyer) that there was no rape. If it's 1, she doesn't face any trouble. If it's 2, then she does.

In this scheme, it's to the woman's advantage that it's difficult to prove a rape didn't happen.

Quote

The other issue is that not all women want to report their rapes. You're putting them in a very tough situation. They either report the rape and go testify at trial, look at the guy in a lineup, and if it's a date rape, probably get grilled by defense attorneys about the details of their sex life, or they carry their rapist's baby to term. The thought of having to face their rapist in trial may drive them to seek out one of the illegal abortionists that will start popping up once the legal alternatives are gone for women who don't want to lie to the police.

I can only suggest that we seek out ways to get women come forward and report it when they're raped. I'm not a psychologist either, but it's hard for me to imagine that keeping it bottled up to herself is better than speaking up and possibly getting justice (as hard as that may be to go through).

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[Nightingale 0]

The thing is, in court, the defense doesn't have to prove the defendant is innocent, and frequently they don't. Reasonable doubt is enough. The vast majority of not guilty verdicts come from not enough evidence or not good enough evidence, not proof of innocence evidence. If there's proof of innocence (DNA says they've got the wrong guy, for example), most of the time it doesn't even get to trial. The problem here is that even if this guy is proven innocent by DNA, the woman still could have been raped, but misidentified her attacker. Eyewitness accounts are about the least reliable evidence out there, because the brain easily tricks us into seeing what isn't there or remembering things we never saw.

Many rape victims don't speak up, for various reasons. Some women don't want to explain to their boss that they need time off work to go testify at the trial of the man who raped her. Others don't want friends and family to look at them differently and choose to confide in counselors instead.

However, from what I've seen, the lack of reporting is mainly because of the hell they'd have to go through in court. Imagine, sitting in the same room with the person who was responsible for tearing your life apart, the person whose face haunts your nightmares, the memory of their voice makes you sleep with all the lights on... Imagine facing that person in court and having your personal, private life completely laid open for the court records. Imagine pictures of your body being handed to the jury so they can see the bruises and tearing and blood. Imagine having to explain to a defense lawyer that no, the sex wasn't consensual, reliving every detail as you describe exactly what happened right down to what got stuck in where, and keep your nerve and not completely have a break-down in front of twelve strangers who are going to decide the rest of your life and his. Think about that really hard, and you might have some inkling of why a victim wouldn't speak out.

Think that doesn't happen? It does. I've seen it. More than once. And then think about whether you really, truly want to force her to go through all that just so she can terminate the pregnancy he left her with and try to move on with her life.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Is it based on a societal construct that says we should defend
>those who can't defend themselves?

Yes and no.

We do have a society that places value on protecting the innocent against unasked-for violence; many of our laws are there expressly for that purpose.

However, if that was true universally, then the woman slapping the five year old would be just as much a criminal as the man slapping the (adult) woman. We have a concept here in the US that adults are entitled to all the rights called out by our constitution and our justice department, but children do not have as many rights. They cannot vote, cannot buy alcohol, do not have freedom of association etc. The younger they are, the more rights they are denied, and the more power their parents have over them. Before conception it is quite literally the power of life and death; that power extends through conception, through pregnancy and until birth. After that, parents no longer have the power of life and death, but still hold 90% of the rights of that child. They can strike the child if needed for disciplinary purposes, imprison him/her indefinitely without trial, force him/her to take drugs, undergo humiliating medical examinations or eat certain foods they may find repugnant etc.

As the child gets older, they acquire more rights, until at age 21 (at least here) they are considered fully adult.

Interesting world view you got there.

We can "strike the child if needed for disciplinary purposes, imprison him/her indefinitely without trial, force him/her to take drugs, undergo humiliating medical examinations or eat certain foods they may find repugnant etc."

Or course all this scenarios have major limitations as to way is allowable. Nice job on skirting the issue.

While our laws do grant a certain latitude (which seems to be shrinking) for parents to discipline their children, the do not permit parents to actually harm their children.

IMO abortion is harmful to an unborn child.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Are people who are "Pro-Choice" also "Pro-Choice" when it comes to other issues (assisted suicide, drugs, guns, sexuality, etc...)?

I am.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[pirana 0]

Quote

I can't answer the poll as posted. While I do not believe in abortion I am torn as to who should control who and, who should make these kind of decisions. (I am pro capital punishment by the way, and I know you are looking to exploit the hypocrisy part of this but wait until you read the end of my post)

So, when it comes to abortion I feel that the law regarding this should be left to the states and that no federal money be made available for one side or the other.

I'm curious about why you think it would be OK for abortion laws to vary between states.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Channman 2]

Abortion & Capital Punishment seem to have the same outcome except the aborted don't get a fair trail.

The Womb is one of the most deadliest places in America.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I can't answer the poll as posted. While I do not believe in abortion I am torn as to who should control who and, who should make these kind of decisions. (I am pro capital punishment by the way, and I know you are looking to exploit the hypocrisy part of this but wait until you read the end of my post)

So, when it comes to abortion I feel that the law regarding this should be left to the states and that no federal money be made available for one side or the other.

I'm curious about why you think it would be OK for abortion laws to vary between states.

Culture and society have say in this (IMO). The constitution gives the right to the states to make these kind of laws. Abortion is not a protected right (and I speak from a legal slant here so please don't flame me here) and so the SC should have not heard the cases it did and has.
Society has a huge stake in this issue and since the states are where the lines are drawn I believe they should make the choice.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,079]

> First, if we will not protect the most innocent amongst us, what does
>that say about the moral degradation of our society.

We, as a society, have decided that it is OK to kill innocent people in large numbers for political purposes as long as we feel bad about it. That's the morality of our country; carries over into other areas as well.

>My main argument here is that if the child is viable, either on its own,
>or through the use of medical technology, at the time the decision for
>abortion is made, why does the child have to die?

I'd agree if the fetus was past about 30 weeks. Before that you're setting the kid up for nasty medical problems that will dog them the rest of their lives. (I know kids have survived and been relatively OK much earlier than that, but they are the exception, not the rule.)

> How can those who so fervently embrace the individual rights of
>the woman to do as she pleases, turn around and embrace the " It takes
>a village to raise a child" mentality?

I think women should have those rights, and I don't think villages should raise kids. Parents should.

> We have no problem with allowing the woman the right to choose whether
>the child lives or dies, but we are aghast if we see a pregnant woman
>smoking, drinking, taking any number of recreational drugs, or engaging
>in some other risky behavior that might damage or endanger the potential
>child.

I am indeed taken aback when I see a pregnant woman drinking heavily, and I am also taken aback when I hear about abortions being done for purely birth control reasons. Where we differ is that I don't think either of those things should be illegal.

[billvon 3,079]

>Or course all this scenarios have major limitations as to way is
>allowable. Nice job on skirting the issue.

Right. And all of those would land you in a courtroom if you did them to another adult. The point of which is that we do NOT assume children have the same rights as adults, and they have fewer and fewer rights the younger they are. And that is exactly the point - fetuses do not have the same rights as adults.

>While our laws do grant a certain latitude (which seems to be shrinking) for
>parents to discipline their children, the do not permit parents to actually
>harm their children.

How many parents are in jail for circumcising their boys?

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I am indeed taken aback when I see a pregnant woman drinking heavily . . . Where we differ is that I don't think either of those things should be illegal.

I recall a case where a woman was convicted of homicide when her baby was delivered stillborn, because she had been smoking crack while pregnant. I don't see why drinking heavily while pregnant should be any different. If a woman gives birth to a baby with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, she should be held responsible.

And actually, this demonstrates one scenario where abortion might be the most humane solution. If a crack addict or an alcoholic were to find herself pregnant, after several weeks or even months of continuous drug abuse, the baby would likely be better off being aborted at that point.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

If I got pregnant and wanted to have an abortion (not that I would), I'm pretty sure I would let my husband take part in that decision. Well, unless it wasn't his. (Just kidding!)

Fair enough for the father. But how do you feel about the Pope, or the President, or the Chief Justice, or even rushmc and Butters having a say in your decision?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Royd 0]

I am indeed taken aback when I see a pregnant woman drinking heavily . . . Where we differ is that I don't think either of those things should be illegal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

I recall a case where a woman was convicted of homicide when her baby was delivered stillborn, because she had been smoking crack while pregnant. I don't see why drinking heavily while pregnant should be any different. If a woman gives birth to a baby with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, she should be held responsible.

It's her body, it's her fetus. She can choose to kill up until the last second before delivery, but goes to jail because she killed it on her own. Somehow, I'm just not getting the picture.

Quote

And actually, this demonstrates one scenario where abortion might be the most humane solution. If a crack addict or an alcoholic were to find herself pregnant, after several weeks or even months of continuous drug abuse, the baby would likely be better off being aborted at that point.

This might require govt intervention, or private coercion in the least. I quess it's no longer her body to do with as she pleases.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

If I got pregnant and wanted to have an abortion (not that I would), I'm pretty sure I would let my husband take part in that decision. Well, unless it wasn't his. (Just kidding!)

Fair enough for the father. But how do you feel about the Pope, or the President, or the Chief Justice, or even rushmc and Butters having a say in your decision?

Am I the father? If I am then I want a choice. Am I paying for the abortion? If I am then I want a choice.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Am I the father? If I am then I want a choice.

As the father your opinion should be heard. But it is not your body which hosts the fetus and your opinion is not the final opinion (unless you happen to be a control freak which is not the intentions to imply in this post). Ultimately if the woman does not want the baby, she does not want the baby. Why do you continue NOT to recognize this and instead insist that all women be forced to comply with your morals.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Butters 0]

Why do you continue NOT to recognize that I believe the choice of the woman and man is made prior to conception and that I believe the right to life of the fetus trumps the choice of the woman.

Edit: The issue is not whether I want to deny the woman (or anyone) a choice. The issue (for me) is whether or not the fetus has a right to life.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Why do you continue NOT to recognize that I believe the choice of the woman and man is made prior to conception and that I believe the right to life of the fetus trumps the choice of the woman.

If this is your personal view that you don't feel needs to be legislated into law for all to follow, then I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. But we have a serious case of conflicting views if you feel these views of yours should be passed as laws for all to follow.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

If I got pregnant and wanted to have an abortion (not that I would), I'm pretty sure I would let my husband take part in that decision. Well, unless it wasn't his. (Just kidding!)

Fair enough for the father. But how do you feel about the Pope, or the President, or the Chief Justice, or even rushmc and Butters having a say in your decision?

The same as I feel about them having a say in my decision to kill anyone else. What is "ok" is determined by our culture, and for now our culture has decided that it's ok to kill a baby as long as that baby has not yet been born.

[Royd 0]

>My main argument here is that if the child is viable, either on its own,
>or through the use of medical technology, at the time the decision for
>abortion is made, why does the child have to die?

Quote

I'd agree if the fetus was past about 30 weeks. Before that you're setting the kid up for nasty medical problems that will dog them the rest of their lives. (I know kids have survived and been relatively OK much earlier than that, but they are the exception, not the rule.)

That would eliminate partial birth abortion from the picture, but that would be going backward politcally, and that can't be allowed.

[Royd 0]

Quote

The same as I feel about them having a say in my decision to kill anyone else. What is "ok" is determined by our culture, and for now our culture has decided that it's ok to kill a baby as long as that baby has not yet been born.

Are you saying that you don't have an opinion, or that you're just a follower of the crowd.

If society decided that when you decide to retire, that you are no longer a productive member of society, then it's time for you to go, you'd give it a thumbs up?