Penalty for performing an abortion

[phk]

None.

[opebo]

Apparently 50% of the board believes performing an abortion should be legal, while 58%  of the board believes having it performed should be legal.  Interesting gap! 

Perhaps that 8% think only DIY abortions are acceptable.

[Smash255]

Death Penalty.

Only if we get to execute the executioner.

What crime did he commit?

What crime did the abortion doctor commit?

Murdering an infant. If that answer wasn't obvious.

It's not an infant until it's born. I voted that it should be legal.

^^^^^^

[??????????]

Death Penalty.

Only if we get to execute the executioner.

What crime did he commit?

What crime did the abortion doctor commit?

Murdering an infant. If that answer wasn't obvious.

It's not an infant until it's born. I voted that it should be legal.

^^^^^^

Its a living and breathing individual inside the womb.

[afleitch]

Its a living and breathing individual inside the womb.

It certainly isn't a 'breathing' indivdual, a baby does not breathe in the womb. It only takes it first breath of air when it is born.

EDIT: I would also diasagree over the term 'individual' as it is attatched to it's mother by an umbilical cord and shares her nutrients.

[??????????]

Its a living and breathing individual inside the womb.

It certainly isn't a 'breathing' indivdual, a baby does not breathe in the womb. It only takes it first breath of air when it is born.

EDIT: I would also diasagree over the term 'individual' as it is attatched to it's mother by an umbilical cord and shares her nutrients.

Babies do indeed take "breaths" within the womb. Not necessarily of air, but of fluid. They also yawn, burp and get the hiccups. I've actually felt baby hiccups! Its pretty neat!

[J-Mann]

I knew a guy who was getting ready to move to a different town; he had five dogs -- three large ones and two smaller ones.  He decided that taking the smaller ones with him would be too much of a burden, so he had them put to sleep.  They didn't really do anything -- they never bit anybody, were good pets as far as I knew; he just didn't want to deal with them any more, whether that was because of the time and money involved, or if moving them would have just required an "effort."  They were just in the way and a burden on his lifestyle, so he had them killed.

It never fails that no matter who I tell that story to, pro-choice or not, everyone thinks he was wrong to kill those dogs.  Kind of interesting that there are people out there who would go to bat for a dog, but they support a woman's right to have a baby scraped out of her and killed.

[Emsworth]

Kind of interesting that there are people out there who would go to bat for a dog, but they support a woman's right to have a baby scraped out of her and killed.

Although most people would consider the action of killing these dogs wrong, they would probably not question the right to commit it. Likewise, many people who consider abortion wrong in certain circumstances are still in favor of leaving the choice up to the woman.

[Beet]

I knew a guy who was getting ready to move to a different town; he had five dogs -- three large ones and two smaller ones.  He decided that taking the smaller ones with him would be too much of a burden, so he had them put to sleep.  They didn't really do anything -- they never bit anybody, were good pets as far as I knew; he just didn't want to deal with them any more, whether that was because of the time and money involved, or if moving them would have just required an "effort."  They were just in the way and a burden on his lifestyle, so he had them killed.

It never fails that no matter who I tell that story to, pro-choice or not, everyone thinks he was wrong to kill those dogs.  Kind of interesting that there are people out there who would go to bat for a dog, but they support a woman's right to have a baby scraped out of her and killed.

That's because you don't have to oppose his right to put his pets down to oppose his specific decision to do so. I don't think hardly any people would oppose owners' right to put down their pets.

Of course it's an entirely different situation, as the question with the fetus (at least for me) is whether or not it has conscious experience, which is not a question with dogs.

[??????????]

Kind of interesting that there are people out there who would go to bat for a dog, but they support a woman's right to have a baby scraped out of her and killed.

Although most people would consider the action of killing these dogs wrong, they would probably not question the right to commit it. Likewise, many people who consider abortion wrong in certain circumstances are still in favor of leaving the choice up to the woman.

The same could be said for rape, murder or child molestation.

[opebo]

I knew a guy who was getting ready to move to a different town; he had five dogs -- three large ones and two smaller ones.  He decided that taking the smaller ones with him would be too much of a burden, so he had them put to sleep.  They didn't really do anything -- they never bit anybody, were good pets as far as I knew; he just didn't want to deal with them any more, whether that was because of the time and money involved, or if moving them would have just required an "effort."  They were just in the way and a burden on his lifestyle, so he had them killed.

It never fails that no matter who I tell that story to, pro-choice or not, everyone thinks he was wrong to kill those dogs.  Kind of interesting that there are people out there who would go to bat for a dog, but they support a woman's right to have a baby scraped out of her and killed.

No act is 'wrong', J-Mann, as there is no such thing as objective morality.  I honestly could not care less about that fellow's actions regarding the dogs.

Lastly, the way you put that last sentence 'scraped out of her' is I think important.  After all, one has a right to have oneself scraped, for whatever reasons, and if some parasite is killed in the process, it can hardly be of any concern to the rest of us.   

[J-Mann]

I knew a guy who was getting ready to move to a different town; he had five dogs -- three large ones and two smaller ones.  He decided that taking the smaller ones with him would be too much of a burden, so he had them put to sleep.  They didn't really do anything -- they never bit anybody, were good pets as far as I knew; he just didn't want to deal with them any more, whether that was because of the time and money involved, or if moving them would have just required an "effort."  They were just in the way and a burden on his lifestyle, so he had them killed.

It never fails that no matter who I tell that story to, pro-choice or not, everyone thinks he was wrong to kill those dogs.  Kind of interesting that there are people out there who would go to bat for a dog, but they support a woman's right to have a baby scraped out of her and killed.

No act is 'wrong', J-Mann, as there is no such thing as objective morality.  I honestly could not care less about that fellow's actions regarding the dogs.

Lastly, the way you put that last sentence 'scraped out of her' is I think important.  After all, one has a right to have oneself scraped, for whatever reasons, and if some parasite is killed in the process, it can hardly be of any concern to the rest of us.   

There are rights and wrongs, as far as I'm concerned.  And if no act is wrong, why did you advocate lifetime imprisonment for someone who assaulted another, as mentioned in a post I made several months ago?  You have contradicted yourself.  You have advocated letting murderers run free because they're not "wrong," but you'd see someone who merely assaulted another be jailed for life?  Who's the fascist now?

Please, explain why these men deserved punishment for apparently, in your eyes, committing a wrong.

His little First Amendment exercise eventually got him an entire 6-pack of beer bottles across the face.  He lost an eye,

The perpetrators should be jailed for life, J-Mann.

You can't explain that away.  Sure, post something about how you were just joking, or that particular circumstance was different.  Your are just trying to make ridiculous and inflamatory statements, as per usual, and have been caught in a contradiction.  Apparently, wrong does exist in your world, because you're willing to advocate punishment for it.

Abortion, like murder or rape or assault, is a violation of another's freedom, something you claim to be very concerned about, but in reality you don't care much if it gets violated.  You can't honestly expect anyone -- no one sane, anyway -- to believe that murder is fine because there are "underlying causes."  Yeah, there probably are underlying causes -- that doesn't make killing right.  It doesn't make rape acceptable. 

You can live in a world where rights and wrongs don't exist, Opebo.  That's fine with me.  And when you are robbed or assaulted, applaud the individual for expressing his freedom by violating yours.  You are welcome to live in that world -- I'll live in mine where rights and wrongs definitively do exist, if that's alright with you; unless of course you don't respect my freedom to make such a choice.

[Virginian87]

Option 5 for first trimester.  After the first trimester, a penalty that increases with each infraction.

[Hatman 🍁]

I knew a guy who was getting ready to move to a different town; he had five dogs -- three large ones and two smaller ones.  He decided that taking the smaller ones with him would be too much of a burden, so he had them put to sleep.  They didn't really do anything -- they never bit anybody, were good pets as far as I knew; he just didn't want to deal with them any more, whether that was because of the time and money involved, or if moving them would have just required an "effort."  They were just in the way and a burden on his lifestyle, so he had them killed.

It never fails that no matter who I tell that story to, pro-choice or not, everyone thinks he was wrong to kill those dogs.  Kind of interesting that there are people out there who would go to bat for a dog, but they support a woman's right to have a baby scraped out of her and killed.

I fully support a dog's right to choose.

[opebo]

There are rights and wrongs, as far as I'm concerned.  And if no act is wrong, why did you advocate lifetime imprisonment for someone who assaulted another, as mentioned in a post I made several months ago?  You have contradicted yourself.  You have advocated letting murderers run free because they're not "wrong," but you'd see someone who merely assaulted another be jailed for life?  Who's the fascist now?

No, I have never advocated letting murderers run free.  One does not need to make the claim that murder is 'wrong' in order to jail murderers.  I am all for jailing murderers and assaultists for practical reasons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They don't 'deserve' anything, it is merely convenient (safer) for the rest of us to get them out of the way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The perpetrators should be jailed for life, J-Mann.[/quote]

You can't explain that away.  Sure, post something about how you were just joking, or that particular circumstance was different.  Your are just trying to make ridiculous and inflamatory statements, as per usual, and have been caught in a contradiction.  Apparently, wrong does exist in your world, because you're willing to advocate punishment for it.[/quote]

No, I advocate that the State maintain social order and protect citizens from violence.  One need not make the claim that something is 'wrong' in order to make a law against it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I don't agree.  I see the pregnant woman as the citizen here, not the fetus.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've never said that murder or rape were acceptable, though I have said things like 'cop-killers are freedom-fighters'.  Of course that is a special case in that the police are the agents of violent oppression.  In many cases rape expresses a response to the oppression of the rapist - it is a way to revenge himself upon the world where his low status in the social heirarchy means he may not have the sort of women his betters have.

Certainly I believe one can hold these two positions simultaneously - that 1) most crime is caused by society rather than the individual, and 2) it is still necessary to protect others from criminals, even as we attempt to address the societal causes of crime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One need not think that one's assailant is morally wrong in order to fight back or otherwise deal with him, J-Mann.  By the same token, I would probably rob someone right now if I thought I could benefit by it and get away with it.  I suppose that is the law of the jungle, and it seems realistic to me.  What is most interesting is looking for how that use of force, that application of power works in our complex society - the rich do no personally assault the poor, but it is most certainly done for them in really effective institutionalized ways.

[Emsworth]

There are rights and wrongs, as far as I'm concerned.  And if no act is wrong, why did you advocate lifetime imprisonment for someone who assaulted another, as mentioned in a post I made several months ago?  You have contradicted yourself.

There is nothing contradictory about opebo's argument. He is merely stating that there is no such thing as objective right and wrong. He may subjectively disapprove of assault.

I would have to agree with him that there is no such thing as objective morality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, there are plenty of people who believe that murder is acceptable in certain cases. For instance, several people supported the murder of innocent Japanese persons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Frodo]

Nothing -except lifelong guilt for the woman having the abortion.  But that requires no law. 

[Napoleon]

Nothing -except lifelong guilt for the woman having the abortion.  But that requires no law. 

Why should the woman feel guilty?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Nothing for the woman, jail time for the doctor.

[Oakvale]

Why was this thread from six years ago bumped?

[k-onmmunist]

The same penalty as having a cancerous tumour or a tapeworm removed.

[Purch]

Short Jail time would be sufficient.

[Franzl]

If abortion is really equivalent to murder, why is "a little" jail time sufficient?

[opebo]

Why was this thread from six years ago bumped?

Oakvale, I love when people bump these old threads.  Just look at my posts from 2006.  I feel so proud of my young self.  Enjoy!

[Purch]

If abortion is really equivalent to murder, why is "a little" jail time sufficient?

If a serious issue is criminalized and there's not a fear of strict consequences then there's no reason to make it illegal.