Oh come on. Divemaster did not say that YOU made adoption or state care a racial issue. In the adoption world, “healthy white babies” are the ones that dont stay on waiting lists…for better (or worse, I think), it’s an unfortunate fact of the adoption world.
Pointing out that non “healthy white babies” would probably be more likely to have difficulty being adopted…ergo would probably be more likely to require state care is just a statement of fact.
Not sure where you think that he was making an accusation against “you”… (btw divermaster, if I misinterpreted your point, please correct my mistakes…
Beagledave, I believe you’re correct.
In reading it, I thought he was implying that the 1.35million were unwanted children, and non-white.
Your interpretation makes as much, if not more sense.
I concede paranoia on that, although I’d still like a response by him to the rest…
I see the pro-lifers here quickly saying that there should be no punishment - or at least marginal punishment - to women who would procure an illegal abortion, but the doctors who perform them would be in deep dog doo.
Well, say we have this structure and those punishments, exactly as proscribed.
What, then, of the woman who jams a coat hanger up her twat and is subsequently admitted to a hospital for the injuries she inflicted upon herself while she successfully aborted her fetus?
She is the doctor who did this act, ina matter of speaking. She performed the “surgery.” It happened to be on herself, but what does that matter? It’s still “a human life” which she was responsible for ending.
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, three weeks, two days, 16 hours, 58 minutes and 55 seconds.
7068 cigarettes not smoked, saving $883.53.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 13 hours, 0 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **
I didn’t say that doctors should be in deep dog doo…Bob didn’t say it either…so not sure where you’re getting the notion that all us pro lifers want to jail the docs…
And once again, I would argue that this would make you a pro choicer who is just against the practice of abortion, but not a woman’s right to have one if she (misguidedly) chooses to have one. Join the club.
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, three weeks, two days, 18 hours, 10 minutes and 15 seconds.
7070 cigarettes not smoked, saving $883.78.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 13 hours, 10 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **
My apologies Beagledave, I guess I did come off as lumping pro-life persons into the raving lunatic arena. This certainly wasn’t my intention. I guess this is a sore point with me, a person very close to me has been on the receiving end from some of the lunatics and she will always bear the scars.
No one wants to see an abortion factory, the abortion clinics all harp on the usage of contraceptives. I don’t see the clinics trying to reach a magical number of abortions performed, I see the clinics as stressing planning and responsibility instead.
My apologies Beagledave, I guess I did come off as lumping pro-life persons into the raving lunatic arena. This certainly wasn’t my intention. I guess this is a sore point with me, a person very close to me has been on the receiving end from some of the lunatics and she will always bear the scars.
No one wants to see an abortion factory, the abortion clinics all harp on the usage of contraceptives. I don’t see the clinics trying to reach a magical number of abortions performed, I see the clinics as stressing planning and responsibility instead.
Satan’s recent post was directed at me, I’m sure. I was the one who postulated a differing scale of punishments for doctors as opposed to the pregnant woman. I don’t know why this would be such an untenable difference. Presumambly, the US had different scales of justice for many decades when abortion was illegal.
Anyway, to answer the direct question, that is:
I have to answer the same as before. I just don’t know. This category of crime (remember, the assumption of the OP is that abortion is illegal), more than most others, does not stand up well to rigid sentencing guidelines.
Maybe a lawyer could make a case for diminshed mental capacity, emotional duress, even depression to the extent of temporary insanity, maybe the “irresistable impulse” defense.
Regardless, justice in this country is by judgement of one’s peers on a jury. There also has to be a prosecutor willing to try the case. D.A.s offer pleas all the time, to all sorts of crimes. I think it likely that in the case of the above woman, the “sentence” might be to counseling, certainly not jail. Even if it did go to the jury, I do not find it probable that the sentence would come back as prison. There could be no guarantee, of course. Maybe if a woman made a habit of mutilating herself with a coathanger, a jury might decide a little stint in, say, “Piney Acres” hospital facility could adress her underlying problems.
No need to read in to this. I’m not saying desperate women are inherently insane. I’m only trying to play this little game of “what if” without having the specifics of any one case history to try to make a informed call. To come full circle…I just don’t know.
As for the doctor. Well, his/her position in this situation is as a hired hand. Take the money, perform the abortion. I do not see a jury feeling too sorry for the emotional state of a person determined to ignore the legal system (again, remember the assumption of the OP) to make money off of an emotionally distressed woman.
Back to Kyberneticist, your re-evaluation of my post is the correct one. The sentence in question was an admission on my part that there are many babies who do not fit the easily-adopted definition of “healthy white babies.” I agree that the unadoptable do pose a burden on on social systems. I do not feel it is as insurmountable as you, it seems.
Just when you start to sound more reasoned, you go off with the hyperbolic statement that
A statement like this does not help me to take you seriously. A woman’s period; that is, the sloughing of uteral lining and an unfertilized egg, is not an abortion. It will never be an abortion. This has no place in an abortion debate among intelligent people.
As for the fertilized egg and other methods of birth control are concerned, my opinion is that implantation on the uterine wall is the proverbial line drawn in the sand. Others, mainly Catholics I suppose, may disagree. Many fertilized eggs, for whatever reason, do not implant. Many women have these early spontaneous (natural) abortions. What this has to do with the debate over punishment, I’m not sure.
From Skribbler:
So sorry these “litters” cramp your low-density neighborhood lifestyle.
I failed to credit beagledave with a most correct interpretation of the racial (non)issue brought up above. I don’t get to look in often enough while at work to address points as fast as many others. So, my thanks to beagledave for a correct and timely response until I could get back in here.
brought up several times…yes…but that was not what you said earlier…you said
“I see the pro-lifers here quickly saying that there should be no punishment - or at least marginal punishment - to women who would procure an illegal abortion, but the doctors who perform them would be in deep dog doo.”
The quotes you stated are not about the STATED positions of pro lifers “here”(your word choice) , except for divemaster …they are (1) the Republican platform, (2) past Canadian history, (3) past Canadian history (4) the opinion of divemaster
So yeah, when you say the “pro lifers here”…gosh I think you are referring to me…and the other pro life folks who have posted in the thread, I think that is what a reasonable person would think about the statement “the pro lifers here”
As has been suggested before, the pro life community is no more monolithic than the pro choice community.
What I was saying was that the Republican Party platform’s position that “unborn children” be given 14th Amendment protection logically leads to severe punishments for both doctors who perform abortions and the women who hire them. The Republican Party platform does not say “We believe that human zygotes, embryoes, fetuses, and unborn children represent potential human life, that destroying them raises grave moral problems, and that human zygotes, embryoes, fetuses, and unborn children should be given a greatly increased degree of legal protection, especially later in pregnancy.” (I might take some exception to such a statement, but I wouldn’t accuse anyone who makes it of logically advocating the execution or lengthy imprisonment of women who have abortions.) The GOP says that “unborn children” should be given equal protection under the laws, period. The GOP platform doesn’t seem to specify the “life begins at conception” mantra, at least not this year, but as far as I can tell this is by far the most common standard for pro-lifers, and I think I will assume this is what the GOP most likely means until someone demonstrates otherwise. Therefore, the GOP platform is saying that a fertilized egg cell should be given equal protection under the laws by the federal and state governments of this country with every human being within the jurisdiction of the United States. In this country, a woman who hired someone to kill her baby would stand a pretty good chance of being sentenced to be lethally injected (although it’s true Susan Smith dodged the death penalty). And someone who took money from a woman to kill her baby would also stand a very good chance of receiving a death sentence. It’s true that in the GOP platform’s statements on abortion the right hand doesn’t seem to know what the left hand is doing–“unborn babies” are human beings and should be given the equal protection of the laws, but women who hire people to kill their babies aren’t murderers or accessories to murder–but that doesn’t alter the logical implications of the “14th Amendment” standard.
Maybe we’re talking to the wrong set of pro-lifers here. Is there any person posting to or reading this thread who agrees with the Republican Party that “unborn children” should have protection under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? If so, do you define “unborn children” as being “from conception”; and what penalty do you advocate for doctors who perform abortions and the women who hire them?
I just thought I’d better do some research on my assertion that the GOP platform’s reference to 14th Amendment protections for “unborn children” should be interpreted as being “from conception”.
From the Oregon State Republican Party Platform:
“We believe every citizen has equal rights, including the fundamental right to life, from the point of conception until natural death.”
On the other hand, the Maine State Republican Party Platform has this to say about abortion:
“We advocate…Banning partial-birth abortions and requiring parental or judicial consent to perform an abortion on a minor.”
This is clearly more moderate language than the “life begins conception” rhetoric found elsewhere. So, the Republican Party is not monolithic on the issue. Nonetheless, there is definitely a section of the party which would support the national platform’s call for 14th Amendment protection for “unborn children”, and which would support interpreting that to mean “from conception”.
That’s the first time someone has ever assigned that name to me. Interesting. As for your last sentence, of course it’s your job, just as it is at least the implicit job of everyone who is a willing member of our society. There isn’t a single law on the books that does not legislate the morality of others to some degree. Of course, whether a given restriction is excessive is fair game for discussion.
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, three weeks, two days, 21 hours, 33 minutes and 17 seconds.
7075 cigarettes not smoked, saving $884.49.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 13 hours, 35 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **
I’m not sure I see the difference. Much of the social change in this country comes from the efforts of citizens whose personal morality about issue concerning things like child labor, slavery, womens rights, the environment, care of the elderly etc…influenced the behavior of policy makers, who then ascribed a “public morality” in the form of legislation.
The Civil Rights marches of the 1960s were led, at the very least, in part by ministers whose personal morality infused the rhetoric that they used to convince a population to change. Their actions “forced” places of public accomodation to accept blacks…a very clear imposition of a moral viewpoint.
There is a legitimate debate (as Bob suggested) about
the manner …amount of restrictions…etc that would accompany policy change…But I do think that personal morality has shaped public policy (in all political parties) in this country since its inception.
Surgical abortions, abortion pills–with these plants around it ain’t necessary. How can you talk about punishing or criminalization of behavior that can be accomplished this easily?
This would be an unenforceable law. You can’t make it work!
If you do get this law passed, let me know so I can begin smuggling RUR 40 in, just like Prohibition.
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, three weeks, two days, 22 hours, 16 minutes and 16 seconds.
7077 cigarettes not smoked, saving $884.64.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 13 hours, 45 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **
Well to take one of your examples…if it’s 1850, and I’m a slave owner…that slave is my property not yours…he is not a legal person, “I” should be the one to decide if I want to own slaves or not, and if you’re opposed to slaves, then fine…don’t own any.
But don’t tell “me” the person who will be most affected by the loss of my slave what to do with my property…especially since you live in the North and don’t own any slaves, much less depend on them for your livlihood…My ownership of slaves does not directly affect your life, mind your own business and keep your moral indignation to yourself.
