How Much Time?

[McBell]

By Anna Quindlen
Newsweek

Aug. 6, 2007 issue
- Buried among prairie dogs and amateur animation shorts on YouTube is a curious little mini-documentary shot in front of an abortion clinic in Libertyville, Ill. The man behind the camera is asking demonstrators who want abortion criminalized what the penalty should be for a woman who has one nonetheless. You have rarely seen people look more gobsmacked. It's as though the guy has asked them to solve quadratic equations. Here are a range of responses: "I've never really thought about it." "I don't have an answer for that." "I don't know." "Just pray for them."

You have to hand it to the questioner; he struggles manfully. "Usually when things are illegal there's a penalty attached," he explains patiently. But he can't get a single person to be decisive about the crux of a matter they have been approaching with absolute certainty.

A new public-policy group called the National Institute for Reproductive Health wants to take this contradiction and make it the centerpiece of a national conversation, along with a slogan that stops people in their tracks: how much time should she do? If the Supreme Court decides abortion is not protected by a constitutional guarantee of privacy, the issue will revert to the states. If it goes to the states, some, perhaps many, will ban abortion. If abortion is made a crime, then surely the woman who has one is a criminal. But, boy, do the doctrinaire suddenly turn squirrelly at the prospect of throwing women in jail.

Source and rest of article

 

[Nanda]

Wow, that was incredibly interesting. Thank you. :clap

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

They were surprised because they in fact, as they mentioned hadn't thought it through. While I am not a fan of abortion, the Islamic view forces me to be pro-choice because there are situations that exist that call for abortions. Therefore one could not in good conscience make it illegal. It's a good question posed to an unbalanced view of the abortion situation.

 

[yossarian22]

If it was made illegal, I assume a fetus would be considered a person, so it would be infanticide. A DA could push for lethal injection in some states.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

If it was made illegal, I assume a fetus would be considered a person, so it would be infanticide. A DA could push for lethal injection in some states.

Which is both sadly true, and horrificly unjust.

 

[Mathematician]

I often wonder how many of these protesters are captured by the pro-life propaganda and imagery [It's the abolition movement all over again!/God is on our side] without actually thinking about the repercussions.

 

[Blindinglight]

I feel they should just keep it legal. If it is to be decided by the states, then a woman can simply travel to a state it is legal in, and have one performed.

But, it is very interesting to know that people who push for it to be illegal do not have any concept of what sort of penalties should arise from an abortion.

 

[Pariah]

Good stuff.
Never thought of it that way.

 

[yossarian22]

Which is both sadly true, and horrificly unjust.

Who said the law had to be just?

 

[Jeremiah]

Who said the law had to be just?

That is the goal of laws.

 

[yossarian22]

That is the goal of laws.

The goal of laws is to ensure order, justice has nothing to do with it.

 

[Ever learning]

Personally abortion would never have been an option for me there are def. reasons such as medical or rape, where it is valid to have one. What get´s me is the fact that some women use it as a means of birthcontrol. Then again if you make it illegal in one country people will travel to the next country to have one. That´s what is done in Europe over here.

 

[shadow_fire]

Thats interesting.


I for one think abortion should be 100% legal. I don't see anything wrong with abortion because a fetus is sort of like a potential life. Sure it may be alive, but it hasn't really lived. And a baby can really damage a persons life. Teen mom=screwed out of college. Also I support stem cell research because it could end up curing many diseases.

Thats just my opinion of course.

 

[Jeremiah]

The goal of laws is to ensure order, justice has nothing to do with it.

Law/Retributive justice is a way to encourage/enforce the "ethical".

True justice is just vengeance. (as I see it.)

 

[yossarian22]

Law/Retributive justice is a way to encourage/enforce the "ethical".

True justice is just vengeance. (as I see it.)

Something that is as fluid as ethics should never be a part of law. Law exists to prevent us from slaughtering each other.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

By Anna Quindlen
Newsweek

Aug. 6, 2007 issue
- Buried among prairie dogs and amateur animation shorts on YouTube is a curious little mini-documentary shot in front of an abortion clinic in Libertyville, Ill. The man behind the camera is asking demonstrators who want abortion criminalized what the penalty should be for a woman who has one nonetheless. You have rarely seen people look more gobsmacked. It's as though the guy has asked them to solve quadratic equations. Here are a range of responses: "I've never really thought about it." "I don't have an answer for that." "I don't know." "Just pray for them."

You have to hand it to the questioner; he struggles manfully. "Usually when things are illegal there's a penalty attached," he explains patiently. But he can't get a single person to be decisive about the crux of a matter they have been approaching with absolute certainty.

A new public-policy group called the National Institute for Reproductive Health wants to take this contradiction and make it the centerpiece of a national conversation, along with a slogan that stops people in their tracks: how much time should she do? If the Supreme Court decides abortion is not protected by a constitutional guarantee of privacy, the issue will revert to the states. If it goes to the states, some, perhaps many, will ban abortion. If abortion is made a crime, then surely the woman who has one is a criminal. But, boy, do the doctrinaire suddenly turn squirrelly at the prospect of throwing women in jail.

Source and rest of article

Great article, awesome video. (Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo)

If it was made illegal, I assume a fetus would be considered a person, so it would be infanticide. A DA could push for lethal injection in some states.

So you are prepared to send half of all American women aged 15-44 to the lethal injection deathbed? (Source)

What about the men who got them pregnant? What should be done with them?

The goal of laws is to ensure order, justice has nothing to do with it.

Do you realize that dictators talk this way?

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

A couple other things while we are on this subject.

First of all, unless the Religious Right gets its way (and because of some of the laws that have been created in the near and distant past, that possibility cannot be ruled out), any potential overturn of Roe v Wade would most likely allow for rape or incest. Notwithstanding all the massive problems this would cause for women and families, such a decision would open the floodgates to another nasty symptom: a likely epidemic of women crying rape. If a woman needs an abortion (and if you don't think such a case exists, I'm sorry, but you clearly haven't explored all sides of this issue), then her only way to get it is to accuse her husband/boyfriend/lover/etc., or possibly a third party male, of rape. Inevitably, some accusations would go through, thus destroying some men's reputation for the rest of their lives.

Anti-abortionists, what have you to say to such a scenario that WILL occur if abortion becomes illegal except for rape or incest?

Second, this:

Even with "no reliable data," he went on to conclude that "severe depression and loss of esteem can follow." (Apparently, no one has told Justice Kennedy about the severe depression and loss of esteem that can follow bearing and raising a baby you can't afford and didn't want.)

Never gets talked about. I am well aware that abortion can cause emotional trauma, and I accept that point. But why does this flip side never get discussed? Have we forgotten that some parents simply lack the emotional and/or financial resources to truly love their children? Who are we as a society if we force a woman to bring into the world a child which she is unable love? What will this do to the child for the rest of his or her life?

 

[Jeremiah]

Something that is as fluid as ethics should never be a part of law. Law exists to prevent us from slaughtering each other.

Go do some reading.

Wikipedia can get you stated,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

I'll look for more web links and edit here if I find some

I have not had time to read this pages but it look intresting.


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/index.htm

 

[yossarian22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

I'll look for more web links and edit here if I find some

I have not had time to read this pages but it look intresting.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/index.htm

The wiki article does not address the fluidity of ethics.

Hegel argues that ethics can be an absolute because an individual has a drive to be ethical, claiming that it results in satisfaction of the individual but goes beyond in individual to the group.

The problem with this argument is that ethics-especially modern ethics- do not necessarily satisfy the individual, for example killing your neighbor after he steals from you would be satisfying, but not ethical. Furthermore, what may be ethical to you- somebody steals food from you, you take food from him- would not be ethical for the people who were planning on eating that food, so the drive for satisfaction will not necessarily move beyond the individual. The existence of such a drive is also highly suspect, because we would be much better people and perform better in a social environment then we currently do.

 

[Mister Emu]

Whatever it is called when someone has someone else kill a third party(conspiracy to committ infanticide?), they should get charged with that and whatever sentence is involved...