Hey, instead of posting next time, why don’t you just put your fingers in your ears and sing, “la, la, la, la, la!”?
What you asserted is a well-known logical fallacy. It’s called the “Genetic Fallacy.” Instead of posting the same f@#$ing thing for the third time, why don’t you try a quick google? It’ll be good for your soul.
Oh, you believe, do you? Well, that’s good enough for me.
Quite a lofty objective, being worthy of your time. We’ll try to get along without you. See ya in the funny papers.
Who’s “they”?
Every unborn child will enjoy the same protection, which will manifest itself in the form of prosecuting the abortion provider. Everyone who provides abortions will be prosecuted. All those seeking abortions will not, every one of 'em.
Where’s the equal protection issue?
Because doctors do not sneak up on women and perform abortions on them. The woman is an active participant in the process, and as guilty of the crime as the abortion provider. Indeed, she is paying to have the procedure done, mainly because it is unsafe for her to do it herself. When two people are clearly equally guilty in a crime, and one is given a plenary exemption from prosecution, not based on individual circumstances, but by fiat prior to the commission of any crime, the government has a very high standard to meet. Political expediency is not sufficient to justify the primary culprit being free from the possibility of prosecution, while a secondary actor is not.
Question: I seek out “natural” means to have an abortion. Let’s assume it works and I am found out, let’s say my boyfriend calls the police and after an investigation, it is determined I indeed aborted my child.
Am I to be prosecuted?
Obviously, that standard has been met. That’s how abortion laws have been written for the last hundred years.
You’d have to specify in which state, and under what statute.
Try reading the South Dakota law again. In fact, I’ll help you (highlighting mine to make it clearer):
So, to highlight the notable bits once more South Dakota says:
[ul]
[li] The unborn is a life unto itself from the moment of conception[/li][li] Abortions are prohibited in South Dakota (period)[/li][li] South Dakota GUARANTEES due process of law to the unborn (which as we noted accrues this right from the moment of fertilization)[/li][li] The unborn has an inalienable right to life[/li][/ul]
That reads to me that abortion = murder. Depriving the unborn child of its “inalienable right to life” can be nothing else except murder. Don’t think so? Depriving already born people of their (also presumably inalienable right to) life is murder. Granted there are differing grades of murder under the law so you can argue what the punishment might be but it is murder nonetheless. So please cite a law or use logical reasoning (if you prefer) that argues that the prime motivator behind a murder (without the mother’s absolute complicity in this act it simply will not happen) is not guilty but everyone else involved is.
As you would have it the mother can perform her own abortion and be free from criminal prosecution. Only those who help her go to jail. If the mother seeks a safe method of abortion those who help her risk jail but if she risks her own health and performs an abortion on herself (say with a coat hangar) all is well.
Your bathroom example above is not analagous to this. If you want to equate it then the law would have to say that going into ANY bathroom in a crime (period). But if a woman goes in then she is not guilty of anything. However, if she asks another woman in there to help (e.g. hand her some toilet paper) then the woman who helped is guilty of a crime.
Huh?
IANAL but I am guessing under the proposed South Dakota statute you would not be per the bit below.
I meant to more clearly address the “Equal protection” issue in my previous post.
IANAL but it seems to me when you read the Constitution the SD law violates the equal protection clause.
From the US Constitution (highlighting mine):
The SD law specifically absolves the woman of criminal wrongdoing if she has an abortion. It seems to me they contradict themselves here and violate the equal protection clause. Read my earlier post and note that SD defines the unborn as fully human and deserving of the full protection of the law. Yet a woman can still kill her unborn child with no criminal repercussions to herself. It would seem to me that SD IS allowing someone to be deprived of life without due process of law hence violating the 14th Amendment.
State abortion laws for the last hundred years or so have been directed at abortion providers, and not at pregnant women.
It’s already been pointed out above that the Supreme Court does not consider the Equal Protection Clause to be an absolute. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in Romer v. Evans (1996):
The South Dakota legislature had the opportunity to add abortion to its murder statute. They could have used the word “murder” in their abortion statute. But very notably, they did neither. So, you are free to interpret it that way, but that is your interpretation, and not that of the South Dakota legislature.
I haven’t read the abortion laws of 50 states over the last 100 years so I will take that at face value but it still does not address any of my points in my response to Stratocaster a few posts above this one.
This one is easy. Please note the highlight I made to your quote above.
Life is a fundamental right.
The SD law explicitly states that life begins at fertilization and that the unborn has an inalienable right to life.
I think the unborn would qualify as a “vulnerable group of citizens”.
Interestingly I noticed that the 14th Amendment states right up front that it appplies to those “born” in the US. I wonder if anyone will make the case that this implies the Constitution has no interest or validation of the unborn as deserving of rights of any sort.
As usual you rest your case not on any merit or logic or decent rationale but only that they didn’t write it that way.
Just because a legislature writes a thing does not mean it is not debatable as a laughable, illogical, steaming pile of crap. The whole point of this thread is to point out the inconsistencies and problems with their proposed law.
Is it your contention that any law or public policy is not worthy of debate because whatever you or I think the only thing we really need to know is that they just wrote it that way so 'nuff said?
The OP asks, “What should the punishment for getting an abortion be?” Not, “Is abortion legally murder?”
But “decent rationale” as it counts only on your opinion. And apparently your opinion is more important than anyone else’s. You are the final arbiter of what a “decent rationale” is. Not the legislatures, not the courts, not anyone who disagrees with you. You, Whack-a-Mole.
I think foolsguinea put it very well at post #220. The intent of the law is not to punish. The intent of the law is to change.
But all women are exempt from prosecution for the act of procuring an abortion. All abortion providers will be prosecuted for the act of providing abortions. Both classes of people are treated equally within their class.
Aren’t there different penalties for buying and selling drugs? For soliciting and performing an act of prostitution? Why don’t these create equal protection issues?
I’m not sure the SD law will withstand the scrutiny of higher courts, as I’ve said earlier. It has some issues with its construction, as you point out. But if we treat everyone in a particular class equally, I’m not certain there are equal protection issues.
Here’s a ridiculous example. If SD makes a law exempting from prosecution anyone who hires a ninja assassin to perform a hit, but will vigoruously prosecute the ninja, we might all agree it’s a silly law. The fact that SD believes that ninjas are particularly persuasive and their undue influence creates a mitigating circumstance for the person hiring the ninja might seem stupid or irrelevant to us.
But I’m not sure it creates an equal protection issues. Everyone hiring a ninja is treated the same. So is every ninja. So is every victim of the ninja. You might say that this means that not every victim of murder (or his heirs, anyway) enjoys the satisfaction of seeing his killer(s) get the same sentence. So what? The same is true today. Circumstances dictate the nature of a killing and a sentence, today, quite outside the province of abortion laws.