How much jail time for women who have abortions?

[Vincent Vega]

Well there's not much of a question posed. If the state held a vote, then yeah most women would go to another state and it would eventually be overturned by the state supreme court. The majority isn't always right, that's the beauty of Democracy, it's designed to know that. That's where your argument fails.

Actually, depends on where you live. In Switzerland they held a plebiscit. 72.2 per cent were in favor of allowing abortion up to the twelfth week. Had they voted the other way round, it wouldn't be allowed.
In most other countries it's rather the majority of people in case of on demand abortion.
In other cases, like listed above, courts might overrule public opinion.

Hope I got you right.

Anyways, I have to get up early tomorrow and will go home for about two weeks, so it might take some time until I can respond again (probably tomorrow evening).

 

[phillyfan26]

Well, civic society can't be based on making up one's own rules.

For example, if I lived in a country were income is taxed at 30% and I feel that this tax rate is too high, it should only be 5%, would I be justified in demanding a special tax regime to suit myself? Most would say no, I would not be justified.

Income tax and abortion are two completely different issues. Abortion, as a choice, is simply yes or no. Taxes are a much different scenario. It's comparing apples and oranges.

This sounds a bit like an "all-or-none" type of post like I've seen from some people.

I'm talking about this issue specifically. I'm not inferring opening the door for all issues to be made up by someone. And I don't think it makes sense to infer that.

 

[financeguy]

Income tax and abortion are two completely different issues. Abortion, as a choice, is simply yes or no. Taxes are a much different scenario. It's comparing apples and oranges.

This sounds a bit like an "all-or-none" type of post like I've seen from some people.

I'm talking about this issue specifically. I'm not inferring opening the door for all issues to be made up by someone. And I don't think it makes sense to infer that.

So you're arguing that some issues are above and beyond the vulgarity of the ballot box and should as it were be left up to the conscience of the individual to decide. Well, are there any other rights apart from abortion rights that you'd ringfence in this manner?

'Cos a lot of people would argue that abortion rights shouldn't be deserving of this rather privileged position - particularly as we are talking about the extinction of life forms that have, at the very least, the potential to become human (as opposed to for example, the more prosaic sin of fiddling one's taxes, which isn't actually taking anyway from any individual rights or extinguishing any life).

Right to life trumps right to liberty, IMO.

 

[redhotswami]

Incidentally, to offer an Irish perspective, although thousands of women DO travel to the UK for abortions each year, the pro-choice lobby have recently discovered to their chagrin that the numbers have actually DECLINED in recent years (probably the result of better sex education, and more easily available and cheaper (relative to average incomes) contraceptives, both of which are of course good things).

One would think that both the pro-life and pro-choice lobbies would welcome this development but one gets the impression, oddly, that the pro-choice lobby here don't actually like this trend, they would much rather the numbers were higher as it would be grist to their mill.

actually i think that a decline in abortions is kinda cool. the surgery isn't an easy choice to make, and is painful both mentally and physically...at least that is what i learned from my friends who have had them. while i don't think i agree with a complete ban on abortions, i do support any efforts made to prevent spread of disease and unplanned pregnancies.

however, financeguy, i don't think that the majority of people in the pro-life movement in my country support better sex education and increased access to contraceptives. all the pro-lifers i've met practice some conservative form of religion, and would not see either of those as good things.

THAT'S one of the problems I have with the pro-life movement. i haven't met a single pro-lifer that wants to promote healthy safe sexual conduct. all they want is to ban abortion and for everyone to be abstinent.

 

[financeguy]

however, financeguy, i don't think that the majority of people in the pro-life movement support better sex education and increased access to contraceptives. all the pro-lifers i've met practice some conservative form of religion, and would not see either of those as good things.

Well, if that's the case they are inconsistent fools, as amongst the best ways of reducing the incidence of abortion are surely better sex education and freely available contraceptives.

 

[phillyfan26]

Well, if that's the case they are inconsistent fools, as amongst the best ways of reducing the incidence of abortion are surely better sex education and freely available contraceptives.

Yes, the arguments of those are usually that they should be "good Christians" and all the problems will be solved.

 

[phillyfan26]

So you're arguing that some issues are above and beyond the vulgarity of the ballot box and should as it were be left up to the conscience of the individual to decide. Well, are there any other rights apart from abortion rights that you'd ringfence in this manner?

'Cos a lot of people would argue that abortion rights shouldn't be deserving of this rather privileged position - particularly as we are talking about the extinction of life forms that have, at the very least, the potential to become human (as opposed to for example, the more prosaic sin of fiddling one's taxes, which isn't actually taking anyway from any individual rights or extinguishing any life).

Right to life trumps right to liberty, IMO.

It's quite a tough issue for me. I haven't set my beliefs in stone. I think any religious argument, which is most of what you here in America, should be thrown out right away. That's what I was saying. I think there are legitimate arguments coming from your view, and I agree with them. It's a very tough issue. I personally do not believe anyone should have an abortion who doesn't need one. The evidence? Adopted children in this world who have thrived. Things work out for them. It is my opinion that abortion should only be given to those who need it medically or because they are pregnant without choice (i.e.: rape). However, the rape angle presents a problem. How can one prove they were raped? Even through court processes, there are issues with time, through delays and such.

The honest answer is that I really haven't formed a set opinion on the issue because of the problems. I think that there are situations where abortion is legitimate, but it's tough to put a finger on those. Thus, I think the choice angle works better than a ban with medical exceptions only. I think there should be more stipulations for things like rape, but determining those angles are tough, and I'm not sure how one would go about doing that.

The only issue I think shouldn't have anything to do with voting is gay rights. They should have the rights of everyone else when it comes to things like marriage. Discrimination in its entirely should be banned. Other than that, nothing comes to mind at the moment.

 

[redhotswami]

Well, if that's the case they are inconsistent fools, as amongst the best ways of reducing the incidence of abortion are surely better sex education and freely available contraceptives.

then you should come over and enlighten them! PLEASE. i'm tired of hearing their irrational demands.

 

[anitram]

Right to life trumps right to liberty, IMO.

Except in rape...then suddenly that life isn't really life after all.

 

[BVS]

Well, if that's the case they are inconsistent fools, as amongst the best ways of reducing the incidence of abortion are surely better sex education and freely available contraceptives.

Hence why it's not the black and white issue you paint it out to be.

 

[BVS]

So are you in favour of the overturning or neutralising of the wishes of the public by an interventionist judiciary?

No, I'm saying democracy is designed so that what the majority wants isn't always what's best for the country.

You going to support slavery if all of a sudden it gets a majority vote?

 

[Hinder]

Financeguy: "right to life trumps right to liberty'

And then, you have the scary idea of what to do with a mother whose mind is traumatized by being forced to carry a child of her rapist. This kind of thing isn't easy. As much as I dislike the idea of abortion, I'd rather not make another woman go through that. Because until the baby can breathe on its own, and can be taken care of by someone else, it really doesn't have much of a life, anyway. Its very existence is dependent on the mother.

 

[maycocksean]

Well, if that's the case they are inconsistent fools, as amongst the best ways of reducing the incidence of abortion are surely better sex education and freely available contraceptives.

One thing I gotta say I love about you. . .

You can't be pigeonholed.

A non-religious pro-lifer! I love surprises like that.

 

[BWU2Buffs]

No jail time for women who have abortions, but professional misconduct charges, consfication by the State of income derived from performing abortions and possible jail time for repeat offenders for doctors that perform abortions.

Incidentally haven't some states in the US already acceded to the wishes of the majority of the electorate in those states by effectively banning abortion?

I agree that this is where the criminality would come in most likely, and I'd add that women will still have abortions, and could face some legal consequences too, at least they should. How can an act be illegal that takes two parties -- one performing the act, one recieving the act by choice - in fact paying for it -- and only one of them gets punished?

My problem on this issues is that the legal system will then revert to reflecting socio-economic status: women of means that have access to privacy, doctors and "hush-hush" will be able to get abortions - it'll cost more, but they'll find a way.

Women without means will not be able to get them due to price or access, and could revert to coat hangers or worse.

We should be more careful here in the US about laws where the practical consequences reinforce our social structures -- were all supposed to be treated by 'the law' equally.

A few other thoughts:
Women should dominate the abortion dialog, not men - if men got pregnant, Congress would probably make them easier to get than Big Macs given the demographics of the US House and Senate.

I don't think conservatives really want this debate to end with any closure -- if it does, they and the GOP have one less lightening rod to stir up their base and get folks out to vote.

Men should be held much more accountable legally than they are today; and it surprises me that women have not galvanized around this point on this issue in the US. Ladies, what's up -- why have you not forced more of the debate to focus on men in the US? Perhaps its too private of a matter; but I'd serioiusly like to know.

In the US we spend a lot of human energy and effort wrestling with this issue -- it would be nice to find a compromise and give it a ten or twenty year rest and put the same energy into some other issues for awhile.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I see where you might be coming from in saying women should dominate the dialogue, however, that takes even more responsibility away from men. This might sound like hypocrisy - a big argument for women is it is our bodies. However, it is equally the responsibility of men and women whose actions result in a possible abortion. You men cannot get a woman pregnant and then only get an opinion and sense of responsibility once she reaches a decision to abort.

 

[BWU2Buffs]

Thats a double edge sword I guess -- by having women dominate the dialog, I can see where it would absolve men of their responsibility even more. You did get my point, it is a woman's body and probably more importantly their minds and emotions -- the emotional swings, the "what to do" is probably tougher than the physical part; though when my wife was carrying our twins, it sure looked tough physically, and she went 37 weeks which is quite long for twins.

So, how do we get more men involved in the responsibility, more women involved in the dialog, and some kind of compromise in the US; even for just a little while, that does not have practical consequences of making it unfair to those without resources?

Probably won't happen for a long time; sadly.

 

[butter7]

Abortion in my country is always legal. Not too long ago, one of the capital city in my country just made a huge progress in this issue: school students could take their student card go to the state hospital and take abortion, free of charge.

I don't agree people comparing abortion to smoking or drug usage or slavery. They are completely different things.

Smoking and drug could cause addiction, no one would addict to abortion. Slaves are considered as property of their owner, but no one would consider the un-borned baby as property of the mother.

I don't know about your guys knowledge on abortion, but from the school education that I've taken, abortion always been described as "extremely harmful for female's health". Some women would probably never be able to have baby after the abortion. And the chance of having all kind of problems in her next pregnancy is also dramatically increased. So if the woman knews all of these, and still choose to do it, she must have a really good reason. All in all, it's her body, and it's her health. Went back to history, it just been too many women, chose to kill herself, rather than gave birth to the baby. And it's also not rare that the mother kill her child, even she could chose to give the baby away, only because she didn't want that baby come to this world.

It's all about choice.

 

[BVS]

but no one would consider the un-borned baby as property of the mother.

Not true, many would see it as property of the government, up until it's born of course, then they don't care.

 

[butter7]

Not true, many would see it as property of the government, up until it's born of course, then they don't care.

To be honest, it's the first time that I heard of that. How come they could think of that??!! Unless...of course...

The governor himself has been "working" really really hard.

 

[butter7]

Thats a double edge sword I guess -- by having women dominate the dialog, I can see where it would absolve men of their responsibility even more. You did get my point, it is a woman's body and probably more importantly their minds and emotions -- the emotional swings, the "what to do" is probably tougher than the physical part; though when my wife was carrying our twins, it sure looked tough physically, and she went 37 weeks which is quite long for twins.

So, how do we get more men involved in the responsibility, more women involved in the dialog, and some kind of compromise in the US; even for just a little while, that does not have practical consequences of making it unfair to those without resources?

Probably won't happen for a long time; sadly.

One of the guy I know from another U2 forum was contacting all his classmates, to gather some money, because one girl in his class was pregnant, and the father had gone to thin air after he heard the news.

It's not often, really. Since early-stage abortion is really cheap, only some pills and injection got involved, one night in hospital max, then you are free to go. Usually the guy would leave just enough money when he gone.

Aren't we just love their sense of humor?

 

[BVS]

To be honest, it's the first time that I heard of that. How come they could think of that??!! Unless...of course...

Why are you so shocked? Why else would government want to legislate your body, but then ignore your healthcare and education after you are born?

 

[BVS]

It's not often, really. Since early-stage abortion is really cheap, only some pills and injection got involved, one night in hospital max, then you are free to go. Usually the guy would leave just enough money when he gone.

Aren't we just love their sense of humor?

What are you talking about?

 

[butter7]

What are you talking about?

The truth. Ironically, of course.

 

[butter7]

Why are you so shocked? Why else would government want to legislate your body, but then ignore your healthcare and education after you are born?

the idea that abortion should be illegal is more shocking than this.

 

[BVS]

the idea that abortion should be illegal is more shocking than this.

Well it's the irony of US conservatism.

 

[bonocrazy88]

I am sort of a non-religious pro-lifer. I do not agree with abortion, but not for religious reasons.

Then again, I don't want to abolish the right of women to have abortions, because I know doing so would cause women to resort to other, more dangerous means. And sometimes, you just don't know what is going on in another person's life.

It's like the saying "I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," I don't agree with abortion, but I believe it is a right that should be available for those that do. Does that make sense?

 

[BVS]

I don't agree with abortion, but I believe it is a right that should be available for those that do. Does that make sense?

And this is probably the majority of pro choice people.

 

[phillyfan26]

The counter-argument for what you are saying is that people believe you are killing lives, and it shouldn't be a choice to kill a baby.

I think the key to what you are saying is that there has to be a safe option, because legal or not, it will exist. It's important to give safe means for it, which is why I think it exists today.

 

[bonocrazy88]

The counter-argument for what you are saying is that people believe you are killing lives, and it shouldn't be a choice to kill a baby.

I think the key to what you are saying is that there has to be a safe option, because legal or not, it will exist. It's important to give safe means for it, which is why I think it exists today.

Exactly. Because I honestly don't believe in killing a baby, no matter if it hasn't formed into an independently living human being, BUT eliminating the right to abortion would only mean people going to shady places or going towards other means in order to abort their pregnancies.

Abortion has been happening for a LONG time, even when it was just about herbs and drinking certain mixtures to kill the child. So, moral or not, it happens, and it's much better to go to an actual clinic than to try a home-abortion that could injure oneself or deform the baby... or to try to find someone willing to perform the operation in a society where it would be a crime.

I guess for those that are like me, the answer would be not to get an abortion myself. I still hate the horror stories of abortion and I cringe to think of it, which is why I think there should be major initiatives for safe sex and steps to PREVENT the unwanted pregnancy in the first place, so abortion would not even become an issue.

 

[BWU2Buffs]

... steps to PREVENT the unwanted pregnancy in the first place, so abortion would not even become an issue.

This could come in the form of more thorough DNA testing to identify the father when paternity is in doubt.

Or perhaps more legal teeth into the laws that force the men / fathers of the unborn baby to take responsibility for that baby from conception through a college education.

In other words, if you want to do more to PREVENT unwanted pregnancy, ramp up the legal structures around fathers taht help cause unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

There are other means too; but men get off too easy on this issue in my opinion.