I think I understand what InquisitiveIdiot was saying and don’t consider it a hijack.
You are saying you don’t like the “double” standard favoring men concerning abortion. All he was saying is that there are already “double” standards that heavily favor women especially in regards to child custody and support issues. Where is the outrage there?
Right, let me see if I can explain the difference. First the OP concerns specific, let me say that again SPECIFIC penalties for a specific crime. Crime and punishment is meted out for the woman, the doctor and anyone else linked to said crime. Except the father.
That’s like saying that in gang hit, the guy with the silver gun goes free, not because he didn’t kill anyone, but only because is gun is silver. Why because people with silver guns, shouldn’t be charged with murder…but everyone else can be.
Now I gave a SPECIFIC example of why the father should be considered and share in the punishment of the mother.
Why is this different from the double standard mentioned? Because there is no law that SPECIFICALLY states that no father will EVER get custody of this children. There is no law the SPECIFICALLY states that no mother will EVER have to pay child support to the father. Further any judgements are subjective, those who have the better lawyer often get what they want…regardless of their sex.
Those suggesting penalties for illegal abortion, SPECIFICALLY place the burden on the mother, yet ignore the father. Who may through inaction or design, may actually encourage the mother’s decision to abort.
The laws governing divorce are sex-blind(yes in practice they are not, but no law states specifically who gets what) The law in question, illogical as this thread may be are sex-specific, once again the father gets a walk…because he’s not the mother.
According to the premise of this thread, the father is SPECIFICALLY left out of the equation.
This thread concerns how justice is meted out, not merely a subjective double standard, but where the father is freed from ANY responsibilty for his actions and the mother not only loses her freedom, but her ability to reproduce.
Who ever said that the father had this “silver gun”? I believe that every abortion debate that has mentioned such has suggested punishment for all of those responsible for this crime. The father that just gets people pregnant is not comitting any crime. if he encourages the mother to have an abortion and assists in the crime, then he should be punished. If the doctor performs the abortion, then he is also liable.
I do notunderstand how you cannot wrap your brain around that logic.
Getting pregnant is not a crime in your “specific” circumstance. The abortion is. And all those who commit the abortion or assist and make it happen, not make it possible since getting pregnant is not illegal, are the ones responsible. What is your beef against men anyways?
I am anti-choice, but I have never heard of anyone calling for sterilisation as a punishment for abortion. That’s inhumane treatment, only the lunatic fringe would support that. Life in prison maybe.
As for the responsibility of the hypothetical man, he has none. As the anti-life crowd have told us it is “her body, her choice”. That makes it “her body, her responsibility”. If he has no say in whether she has an abortion he should have no obligations or responsibilities stemming from her choice.
If she chooses to commit an illegal activity, she must pay the legally mandated price. If he funds this activity he is aiding and abetting, or whatever crime it would be, and should pay a lesser price.
If he doesn’t aid illegal activities, what can he be prosecuted for? Fornicating? I am against fornicating and wouldn’t do it myself, but are you suggesting castration or imprisonment for this? For allowing women to do things the hypothetical serial fornicator has no control over?
There are enough psycho women going after testicles as it is.
If you’re not old enough to give meaningful consent to sex, by law, I don’t see how you can be punished…
You aren’t among those who think abortion is a front for Nazi eugenicists working to eliminate undesirable elements of society, then?
I say it’s about time. The sons would be happy, the daughters would not.
As the InquisitiveIdiot pointed out, society exercises at least as much control over men, and that’s only in parenting issues.
Men are the only ones subject to the Selective Service in America, national service in Norway and so on. Even in plucky little Israel, desperate for manpower, and womanpower, women are less likely to be conscripted and then only for a shorter, limited time.
Even in those things done of their own free will men are more likely to give up control of themselves for the good of the whole, being the vast majority of the fire brigades, and police forces of the world, 95% of American on-the-job fatalities while doing dangerous work to earnt he money society demands of them and the vast majority of forces fighting for the monkey in the Whitehouse around the world.
You see, it is not only women whose bodies society exercises control over, from the minor end, being forced to abide by the laws, not kill people and so on, to the more extreme or subtle.
Just like the InquisitiveIdiot says, only with extra added verbosity.
After previewing:
Because he has commited no crime. If he aids an abortion, fine. Apart from that he has commited no crime. When he has an abortion, he will be punished too.
Since I’m in the middle of writing my take home final for White Collar Crime, I’m thinking conspiracy is the only way to justify legal penalties. If the man encourages the woman to have the abortion, and plans it with her, that’s conspiracy.
Women seem pretty OK with having all the responsibility for pregnancy. They want to be the only ones in control of the decision. And ultimately, there’s something to the biology argument, that women are fundamentally responsible for this in a way that men aren’t, barring the legal construction of child support as a way to try to bring the men back into the picture.
Women already are more reluctant to have sex than men for the most part, probably because to them the risk of pregnancy is more real. No amount of love-em-and-leave-em men will be able to create a problem with multiple abortions if the woman exercises her decision to abstain. So why impose legal penalties on the man, when ultimately due to supply-and-demand every act of sex other than rape is created by the woman’s willingness to engage in it?
Aren’t consideration for providing for the child post-partum a large part of the responsibility attached to pregnancy?
Sex is the means, the result is an abortion, the crime is murder. You’re right getting pregnant or having sex is not illegal in this alternate reality…nor have I ever said it was. It’s the results and how those writing the “laws” deal with those results that I am questioning. Saying the father is liable is fine and dandy, however there’s a difference between paying a fine and doing 25 years to life…for the same crime. Is the woman allowed to plead to a lesser charge, if she implicates the father? Or does she do a mandatory sentence?
The same crime, you say? Well if I hire you to kill my wife and you do it, don’t we get charged with the same crime? In fact isn’t the “killer” encouraged to implicate the person who ordered the murder…
And while you may have seen debates suggesting that the father gets a hit too…I haven’t, hence this thread. There’s a different I think, in the theory of saying everyone contented gets a penalty and really believing that the “real” criminal isn’t just the woman.
While having sex isn’t illegal, the results are predictable. Either full term or an abortion. In the act of a ‘serial’ impregnantor, the results are even more so, he’s done it before. The results of his action is murder, he knows this.
Question: Does a man who has aids and knowingly has unprotected sex guilty of a crime, when he knows what the results will be? Is he committing murder, how many people have to die? How about this one: He has sex, knowingly infects his lover, who goes home to his wife, infects her, who in turn infects their unborn child who dies from aids. Is there a crime?
Cavalier
Sorry, but your argument isn’t convincing. Saying society sometimes gives men or women certain rewards is not the same thing as saying that penalties of a crime should be gender-based as a matter of law. Murder is murder. Because men join the police more than women do, or woman are more likely to ‘charm’ their way out of a speeding ticket…does not justify laws being written allowing one gender lesser penalties for the same crime.
Once again, the law concerning murder which is what this is, is gender neutral. The penalities are the same, except apparently in the case of abortion…which for this thread is considered murder. For some reason, society gets to be subjective, because the of divorce, child support and police rolls.
If my wife and I agree to kill our 3 year old, do I get a different sentence than she does, because i didn’t give birth or because more men are cops or because of the selective service?
So I give my wife the money to buy the gun, she kills our son and I do what…5 to 7?
hmmm…police rolls. Tasty.
In my state, men have no say in abortion. A woman can get an abortion without the consent of the father. Therefore, under current law, it makes no sense to do anything to the father, unless he facilitates the abortion, and only if abortion is made illegal.
You bring up a good point, that we should at least change the law so that BOTH the mothers and fathers consent must be given before any abortion can take place.
The man is just the father of the victim. Will all dads be held liable for moms killing their kids in bizarro world?
The way you say this makes it sound like you think only rape victims and abandoned single mothers get abortions.
Ideally it’s a couple’s decision, but I have to say I can see where a woman gets 51% of the vote, if you know what I mean. She’s going to carry and give birth, and she’s almost certainly going to have to put up with the brunt of raising the child. Saying “you have to get the father’s approval” is still an unfair restriction on a woman’s choice in my opinion.
Let’s try this again, using an analogy. Say a man and a woman decide to buy a gun together. The woman then decides to use the gun to rob a bank without consulting the man. By your theory, the man should be put in jail for just as long for having bought the gun with the woman, even though he played no part in the decision to commit the crime.
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but here’s how I see it:
Man conceives child with woman <- legal
Woman contemplates having abortion <- legal
Woman has abortion <- illegal
The man didn’t commit a crime by conceiving a child. The woman did by aborting it.
Now, if the man goes at her uterus with a coat hanger, then yes, he is guilty of the same crime as the woman, plus probably assault and god knows what else. If he merely stands in the background and says “go have an abortion” he is guilty of a lesser crime: that of conspiracy to commit an abortion. Since he wasn’t involved in the actual act, his punishment should be less, just as threatening to bomb an airport is less a crime than doing it.
InquisitiveIdiot,
You’ve missed the entire point. I don’t know how, but you have. From the OP and various others posts, I’ve made it clear that the father is an active participant in the abortion process…from conception to termination. He is aware of it.
I thought i was clear on that point, if not…apologies…but now that we’re here. Do agree on not, that the punishment for the man should be the same as that of the woman?
If not, why?
Depends. Define active. All of this is, of course, assuming abortion is outlawed (FYI, it hasn’t been).
If the father is only saying “Yeah, you should should get an abortion” then he should get punished, albeit to a lesser degree since he isn’t the one actually doing the crime, but only aiding and abetting. If the father does the abortion himself, then yes, the same, since he is commiting the crime.
This point has also been made clear over and over again on this thread. I don’t know how you’ve missed it, but you have.
You’re wrong.
Here’s how it goes:
Man conceives child with woman <- legal
Man and Woman contemplates murdering their unborn child,(remember for abortion to become illegal, we have to agree that the fetus is a human being and ending it’s life is murder)<- legal
Man and woman agree to commit murder <- illegal
Man and woman go to abortion doctor, pay him and he kills their baby<-illegal
It is because the baby is still inside of the mother that makes the father less guilty? because I don’t see the difference between agreeing, paying for and having someone kill a 3 month old human being or a 3 year old one.
In a court of law, if they payed to have their 3 year old killed, both parents would be considered equally to blame. Until one, pleaded and turned on the other. Why is agreeing to kill to 3 month old any different?
For the point of this discussion, a fetus is to be considered a living human being with the same rights as any other.
Once again. Abortion is the cause of death. The crime is murder. Again…The crime is murder. I don’t have to physically pull the trigger to be accused of murder.
One more time. The crime is murder…the cause of death is the abortion. The same as the case of death is drowning, but I don’t have drown you MYSELF, to be accused of murder. If I am aware that the murder is going to be committed or if I pay for the murder, I can be charged.
Try to get your head around this.
The crime is murder. Not having an abortion. The abortion is the cause of death.
Good grief. There are no crows within miles of this thread, undoubtedly due to the large and menacing strawman posited by the OP.
Who is calling for forced sterilization as a planned punishment in the event abortion becomes illegal?
However, to answer a more basic point… assuming abortion was illegal, and the penalty for violation of that law is “X”… and assuming that the father of the aborted child was an active participant in the abortion process… then should the father also suffer penalty “X”?
Yes, absolutely. He is a principal to a crime. He is absolutely subject to the same penalties as any other principal.
Alright. I can see your point here, though a court may rule another way. I would say the man is equally to blame in this case. However, your accusations of the man being the “love 'em and leave 'em” type don’t fit with this scenario. I doubt that any man who would risk this much would then just up and leave the woman in a heartbeat.
And as I said before, sterilization (a point you seem to be infatuated with) would not be accepted under any circumstances aside from in the warped heads of kooks.
Are you intentionally ignoring my posts that say exactly what you said? That if the man is complicit in the abortion process, not the process of getting the woman pregnant because there is a difference and they are not synonymous as you seem to be making it out, then he should be puinished.
As far as your castration etc; goes. that would be extreme even for the father. Because he is not being punished for creating the child, but destroying it. At it would not be the father only under every circumstance that such punished in committing said crime. If a woman gets pregnant from an affair and she and her husband decide to abort, and pay for it, then the husband would be complicit and punished, not the father from the affair. Why would you suggest castrating the man if his reproductive system hadn nothing to do with it. The same goes for an underage girl, and her father helps her with an abortion.
If castration is the only thing you would be happy with as a punishment, you should ask why none wants to castrate the doctor who commits the abortion.
To me castration is cruleand unusual. Imprsonment is an accepted punishment, and in come cases the death penalty. Wich I remind you SCOTUS has ruled as not cruel and unusual. We do not cut off hands for stealing because that is cruel and unusual.
YOu are not helping a debate on an issue like this with you extremism, as others have pointed out on this thread.