How Much Time?

[Nanda]

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...

Life in prison, then?

 

[Willamena]

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

How is ensuring order not justice (or vice-versa)?

 

[Runt]

I was not overly impressed with the video.

First, I got the distinct impression that it deliberately omitted the responses of individuals who'd actually considered the question and were articulate enough to express their views. It seemed to me as though the video was attempting to paint all anti-abortionist protesters as uneducated and illogical religious nuts who fail to think beyond "killing babies is wrong". While there are certainly some such individuals on the anti-abortionist side of the coin (as well as equally-ignorant counterparts on the pro-choice side), I think more enlightening responses were quite possibly deliberately left out of the video.

Second, I think the video utterly failed to make a genuine point about the validity of the anti-abortionist stance. The question of whether abortions are right or wrong is for ethicists to answer; the question of whether it should be illegalized is for society to answer; and the question of what should be done to those who have abortions is for judges to answer. The answer "I don't know what should be done to those who have illegal abortions" does not in any way speak to the validity of the argument that abortion is wrong.

As for the responses of the protesters themselves; despite all that I have said above, I am nevertheless a little surprised and disgusted by what appears (in some of their cases) to be a general inability to imagine, in a realistic fashion, what will be done by society to women who have abortions should abortion become illegal. Although I think some of the ignorant responses may have simply been the result of an unwillingness to come off on camera as heartless, I think most of the individuals shown simply failed to think beyond their hoped-for day when lawmakers finally say "Thou shalt not have an abortion".

 

[Jeremiah]

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.

I disagree, but I must stop this is not what the thread is about

 

[yossarian22]

How is ensuring order not justice (or vice-versa)?

The Soviet court system kept its society in order, but it was nowhere near just.

 

[yossarian22]

Life in prison, then?

Killing through a third part is the same as murder in our court system. Lethal injection in some states, or a "life sentence"- which is more like 25 years.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Yossarian, what have you to respond to this dilemma?

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?

 

[yossarian22]

Yossarian, what have you to respond to this dilemma?

Lets see.

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.

If there is no evidence for rape, the women who levied the accusation would ideally be convicted of perjury, which destroys any professional credibility she once had. It furthermore would result in a massive fine and 2-5 years in jail.
Unfortunately, it would more likely play out as a dismissal without prejudice. meaning the defendant is not completely exonerated (and has to still pay his lawyer) and the woman is free to go unless the defendant chooses to charge her with perjury (unlikely) and sue her in civil court for defamation. The civil suit will go nowhere as juries are very sympathetic for rape victims and end up costing the defendant more.

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

Most people who wish to totally abolish abortion rarely consider the other effects of the law. Sadly, such a situation is likely to happen.

 

[PureX]

From the Tao Te Ching:

The kind man does something,
yet something remains undone.
The just man does something,
and leaves many things to be done.
The moral man does something,
and when no one responds
he rolls up his sleeves and uses force.​

I think the people in this video are moralists. They focus only on what they believe is morally right and morally wrong, and so do not see the practical effects of their own moralist behavior.

This is how moralists can use force, and never recognize that they may actully be the "bad guys".

 

[rojse]

How could you prove rape occured, not consentual sex? Obviously, any bruises or scratches could be proof, but intimidation does not have to be physical. A gun, for example, would not leave any bruises, but certainly make the woman feel that she has no chance of retailiation.

It's down to one person's word against the other.

 

[yossarian22]

How could you prove rape occured, not consentual sex? Obviously, any bruises or scratches could be proof, but intimidation does not have to be physical. A gun, for example, would not leave any bruises, but certainly make the woman feel that she has no chance of retailiation.

It's down to one person's word against the other.

And when it comes down to her word vs his, the her always wins. So much for reasonable doubt...

Also, such a situation is very unlikely, as there are other methods of determining whether it was rape or if it was with consent. I would prefer to not go into the details about it.

 

[McBell]

*performs some necromancy*

 

[Eliot Wild]

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

I respectfully disagree with the above statement. No offense.

The "goal" of the law is multifoliate. And while one of the goals of criminal law is to insure order, there is also an attempt to meet the ends of justice inherent in our criminal laws as well. I think if we were to ask a room full of peoole what is the primary goal of the law, then we would probably get multiple answers, even if that room was full of legal scholars and law school professors. And I feel fairly certain we would get a host of different answers from the members of Congress as well, the branch of our government specifically tasked with creating our laws.

I guess my point is, the "goal" of the law is relative depending on one's subscribed social/legal philosophy.

And even though civil law might rectify disputes, settle disagreements and bring a certain amount of order to our neighborhoods, in my mind, civil law is more concerned with the ends of justice than it is with insuring order, especially when we narrow the subject down to Tort Law.

When you file a civil complaint against someone, you are seeking relief for damages you alleged have occurred at the fault of another. There is little to do with ensuring order in that. There is, however, an attempt to meet justice, to satsify the loss/damages that the plaintiff claims to have suffered.

And while the foregoing seems to be severely afield from the topic presented by the OP, I will do my best to bring this back online.

I would argue that regardless of the goal(s) of the law, there is a huge qualification that all lawmaking, law-enforcing and law-interpreting bodies of the government must consider: Do they have jurisdiction?

My contention is that the United States government does not have jusidiction over a person's body, especially a woman's reproductive parts. Just as our government cannot tell the Chinese what their speed limits should be, and our lawmakers cannot tell the Italians what consititutes 1st degree Rape or 2nd Degree Murder, the United States government has no jusridiction over a woman's body. In that realm, she is sovereign.

Sorry if I diverted the thread. I tried to get back on topic.

 

[Eliot Wild]

And even though civil law might rectify disputes, settle disagreements and bring a certain amount of order to our neighborhoods, in my mind, civil law is more concerned with the ends of justice than it is with insuring order, especially when we narrow the subject down to Tort Law.

When you file a civil complaint against someone, you are seeking relief for damages you alleged have occurred at the fault of another. There is little to do with ensuring order in that. There is, however, an attempt to meet justice, to satsify the loss/damages that the plaintiff claims to have suffered.

Having just re-read my post, I would like to clarify something, or at least make another point about the "goal of the law".

One might argue that by the very creation of civil laws, the governing body that enacts them is trying to ensure order by establishing a Court to settle disputes between citizens. In other words, if someone believes they have suffered damages due to the fault of their neighbor, then by taking the matter before the Court rather than slamming a baseball bat upside the neighbor's head, order has been preserved.

However, I would argue that is the "goal" of applying the law. In other words, order would still be insured in the above case by criminal law. You can't take a Louisville Slugger to your neighbor just because you believed he is liable for some damages you have suffered. And if you do get out the baseball bat and strike him with it, you will most likely face criminal charges in an attempt by the state to maintain order.

The goal of civil law is to meet justice. Even though the goal of the lawmakers and the Courts might be to maintain order in its application. In other words (my favorite phrase), in hearing the case the Court is trying to insure justice. That is their first consideration, even if meeting justice doesn't necessarily preserve order. However, the Court should probably try to do both.

 

[painted wolf]

If you can jail (or possibly kill) a woman for having an abortion... what about a miscarriage?
Surely if abortion is treated as murder than a miscarriage must be treated as manslaughter...

So jail time for how many women?

Where will be put them all... in federal style prisons with other murderers?

wa:do