Can someone explain this?

[WATU2]

Drugs: under the law both drug users and drug sellers are criminals.
Murder: under the law both the actual shooter and those abetting the crime are criminals.
Theft: those who steal and those who take stolen goods are criminals.

Abortion: only the doctors are considered criminals?

That seems to be the position taken by anti-abortion advocates. It had not become clear until Trump got into hot water saying that women who have abortions should be penalized. Both anti-abortion and pro-choice groups came after him and made it very clear that women seeking or having an abortion should not be criminalized. Don't they participate? Aren't they the market? Don't the anti-abortion groups also abet by hindering sex ed, family planning and contraception efforts?

And men? Aren't they involved in unwanted pregnancies too?

Evidently Trump really had a hard time with the question about whether men who had sex with women who needed an abortion should be penalized. But once again he has taken over the media.

 

[astonmartin708]

Well, it's a hazy area to venture into. People like me, who think it should be legal (at least early term) wouldn't say it's a crime anyway so no one should be punished. If you're going to make it illegal then you would have to say both parties should be punished.

 

[lawpoke87]

Wasn't the statement....Women who have illegal abortions should be punished? I have no idea if he was responding to a question or just another off the cuff remark.

 

[TUBballJunkie]

I don't know what the specific question was but asking about men (or women for that matter) being punished for getting pregnant? That's absurd. Consenting adults getting pregnant isn't a crime.

And right or wrong, men don't really have the final say when it comes down to it.

 

[TUMe]

As usual Trump shot from the hip. He made a statement about a hypothetical law that doesn't exist and as President he would have the option to veto or pass, then changed his mind twice within three hours. It also assumes that the Supreme Court would change it's ruling.

 

[TUMe]

Upon going back and reading articles, this post reflects some changes to my view from the previous post. It's not really hypothetical if he is proposing it, since he should know what he is seeking.

In an exclusive interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews, the GOP front-runner described himself multiple times as "pro-life" but struggled to define what the legal ramifications of that position should be. When continually pressed for what the answer is regarding punishing women who would break any theoretical ban, Trump said the "answer is that there has to be some form of punishment, yeah."

When asked what kind of punishment he had in mind, Trump lacked specifics and said that he has "not determined what the punishment would be." Trump noted that he does "take positions on everything else, but this is a very complicated position."

"If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under the law," Matthews stated, making the pivot from the moral position of being pro-life to the practical implications of implementing that position in the law.

Trump asked Matthews, "are you going to say, well wait, are you going to say put them in jail? Is that the punishment you're talking about?"

advertisement

Matthews responded that that's the question he was asking the front-runner himself. Trump responded that he was pro-life.

 

[astonmartin708]

Good thing the president isn't supposed to be the one coming up with laws. (Not that that has stopped them in the last 100 years or so)

 

[lawpoke87]

Rule 101....don't answer hypothetical questions and there is no end to that rabbit hole.

 

[TUMe]

Rule 101....don't answer hypothetical questions and there is no end to that rabbit hole.

It depends. If the law comes about independent of him, then the question is hypothetical. If, as it appears, he is proposing the change in the law that is another matter. Of course, there would be give and take in writing the law. However, if he is proposing this then he should have to answer questions about what he is proposing. Further, though, don't hold your breath until this is a law anyway.

 

[lawpoke87]

I freely admit my constitutional law knowledge is limited but since the SCOTUS has found the right to an abortion to be a constitutional right how can a President ban such a right especially in light of Roe v Wade?

 

[WATU2]

Interesting responses but Cruz in criticizing Trump, "we shouldn't be talking about punishing women..." No qualifiers about 'legal" or "illegal". Other Republicans have stated that they have never seen any credible corner of the movement calling for criminal sanctions against women seeking abortions. Legal or illegal. But doctors? They are are the targets and run personal risks even where it is legal.

These laws were mostly written by guys who understand that women vote. So they take the same approach Oklahoma did back when it was "dry": it's illegal to sell liquor but not illegal to buy it. But in a murder case, shouldn't all the participants be brought to justice? There might be many fewer unwanted pregnancies if men were included. Aren't unwanted pregnancies the root problem?

 

[WATU2]

I freely admit my constitutional law knowledge is limited but since the SCOTUS has found the right to an abortion to be a constitutional right how can a President ban such a right especially in light of Roe v Wade?

Trump/Cruz appointees could well reverse RvW. Southern states/anti-abortion groups are working hard to limit abortions and family planning at the same time: result will be increased demand with higher costs and fewer alternatives. More children born in a society that has reduced interest in their welfare.

But back to the question. Isn't it hypocritical and self-defeating to focus solely on doctors who are responding to demand instead of those who seek out and pay for their services? Particularly in situation that is driven by the concept of murder.

 

[TUMe]

I freely admit my constitutional law knowledge is limited but since the SCOTUS has found the right to an abortion to be a constitutional right how can a President ban such a right especially in light of Roe v Wade?

He.can't. He will not get such a law passed. If it were passed, the court would strike it down. So in that sense it is a hypothetical question. But he has put himself in double bind. He says he is going to do it but he can't give details and if he says it is hypothetical then he admits he promised law is smoke and mirrors.

 

[TUMe]

Trump/Cruz appointees could well reverse RvW. Southern states/anti-abortion groups are working hard to limit abortions and family planning at the same time: result will be increased demand with higher costs and fewer alternatives. More children born in a society that has reduced interest in their welfare.

Trump isn't going to appoint anyone outside of his business.

 

[URedskin54]

But back to the question. Isn't it hypocritical and self-defeating to focus solely on doctors who are responding to demand instead of those who seek out and pay for their services? Particularly in situation that is driven by the concept of murder.

It's a fundamentally different kind of punishment for a fundamentally different kind of killing. Laws take into account intent and circumstances to determine punishment(or lackthereof) for all kinds of crimes. Women who choose abortion are often in a very coercive situation and thus are seen as a second victim in the act. This has always been the view, and it does not surprise me at all that Donald Trump would say something so stupid while saying what he thinks a pro-life person wants to hear. There's also the fact that it's not a settled moral issue in terms of public opinion(which is why the argument needs to be won before a ban should be implemented at all). Jailing a woman for making a choice that 1/2 or more of society tells her is ok, would be cruel.

While we're discussing logical inconsistencies, isn't the democratic party's position that you can not kill a child two days after it is born, but you can two days prior to birth? What is the moral or biological distinction that makes it ok? This is not what an average Dem believes, I'm aware. Most favor some restrictions. But the official party position is no restrictions whatsoever.

 

[URedskin54]

Anti abortion is a personal belief usually based in religion.

Not everyone believes the same, so anti abortion legislation is similar to legislating sharia law

Look up secular pro-life. Also, this shows a pretty flawed view of the nature of Sharia. Kinda shocked one of our resident Islam experts gave you a like.

 

[TUMe]

There aren't many absolutes in the world. I am pro-choice but I get a little squeamish about partial birth abortion. Since we are looking at contradictions of thought, why does the right of privacy you give you the right to stop a human life even as it is beginning? WATU loves to count the 21,000 gun suicides in the total of gun deaths. Does Mr. Body with bone cancer have the right to privacy if he wants to kill himself? Should a partial birth abortion count as a death from surgery?

Still, I don't think it is proper to force a person [usually a woman] to give birth to a child that they don't want, can't support, or simply are not able to deal with. We are not an endangered species close to extinction.

 

[WATU2]

But back to the question. Isn't it hypocritical and self-defeating to focus solely on doctors who are responding to demand instead of those who seek out and pay for their services? Particularly in situation that is driven by the concept of murder.

 

[URedskin54]

I'm not going to re-explain it to you.

 

[TUMe]

But back to the question. Isn't it hypocritical and self-defeating to focus solely on doctors who are responding to demand instead of those who seek out and pay for their services? Particularly in situation that is driven by the concept of murder.

Apparently, you are going to keep posting this until you get the answer you want.

It compares to a different standard for having some drugs on you and having drugs with the intention of distributing.

You are asking "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Let me rephrase your question.

"Although it is not illegal to have an abortion, if it were illegal and if there were penalties would it be hypocritical and self defeating to focus solely on the doctors and not on those having the abortion?"

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the most hypocritical thing I can a imagine and zero being giving a kidney to a sick child, I would give it a 4.3

You really need to quit asking questions without stop until you get the answer you want. Also, you complain about lateral Arabesques that others go on yet drift of topic yourself. Possibly that is because you already have where you are going in mind when you ask your question.

 

[noble cane]

I freely admit my constitutional law knowledge is limited but since the SCOTUS has found the right to an abortion to be a constitutional right how can a President ban such a right especially in light of Roe v Wade?

Well if the current emperor is any indication, he can put an executive order maze of restrictions in place to make the performance of said procedure difficult.

 

[WATU2]

It's a fundamentally different kind of punishment for a fundamentally different kind of killing. Laws take into account intent and circumstances to determine punishment(or lackthereof) for all kinds of crimes. Women who choose abortion are often in a very coercive situation and thus are seen as a second victim in the act. This has always been the view, and it does not surprise me at all that Donald Trump would say something so stupid while saying what he thinks a pro-life person wants to hear. There's also the fact that it's not a settled moral issue in terms of public opinion(which is why the argument needs to be won before a ban should be implemented at all). Jailing a woman for making a choice that 1/2 or more of society tells her is ok, would be cruel.

While we're discussing logical inconsistencies, isn't the democratic party's position that you can not kill a child two days after it is born, but you can two days prior to birth? What is the moral or biological distinction that makes it ok? This is not what an average Dem believes, I'm aware. Most favor some restrictions. But the official party position is no restrictions whatsoever.

Agreed it is a murky area. If women were criminalized we would see a lot of new people elected around the country. If men were also included we would see even bigger changes. So the anti-abortion movement focuses on a small group: doctors who perform abortions. A handy small, scapegoat community. You mention 'coercive situations' which I assume includes rape and incest, but even in those cases there are some who would rule that out as a justification for a doctor to perform an abortion. OTOH no one is suggesting going after women who seek abortions for convenience or even sex preference. An inability to support a child once it is born has some moral aspects to it that will likely be debated.

I don't know what the Democratic party's position is but agree that there are likely inconsistencies for the reason you list above. My own preference would be to focus on limiting the number of unwanted pregnancies via family planning, education, and contraception. Expenditures in real dollars in this area have been slashed. I can also live with very early stage termination. After that it does get murky, but to the extent society insists that a child be carried to term, it should recognize its continuing obligation to support those born into poor families.

Bioethics is a growing field.

 

[WATU2]

Well if the current emperor is any indication, he can put an executive order maze of restrictions in place to make the performance of said procedure difficult.

President Obama will have to hustle if he is to catch up with Nixon, Reagan and Dubya in issuing Executive Orders. Although the internet abounds with false claims to the contrary.

 

[aTUfan]

It's not the quality that is the problem.

 

[rabidTU]

Drugs: under the law both drug users and drug sellers are criminals.
Murder: under the law both the actual shooter and those abetting the crime are criminals.
Theft: those who steal and those who take stolen goods are criminals.

Abortion: only the doctors are considered criminals?

That seems to be the position taken by anti-abortion advocates. It had not become clear until Trump got into hot water saying that women who have abortions should be penalized. Both anti-abortion and pro-choice groups came after him and made it very clear that women seeking or having an abortion should not be criminalized. Don't they participate? Aren't they the market? Don't the anti-abortion groups also abet by hindering sex ed, family planning and contraception efforts?

And men? Aren't they involved in unwanted pregnancies too?

Evidently Trump really had a hard time with the question about whether men who had sex with women who needed an abortion should be penalized. But once again he has taken over the media.

This is actually a very good question and needs more discussion imo.

I assume the law considers pregnancy an accidental ocurrance from the probable legal act of intercourse rather than an intended outcome - if abortion results. However, if for instance, a person intentionally takes a hard illegal drug, the intent is to get high and an "intended consequence" is rewarding the pusher of the drug rather than a legally trained doctor.

But of course the greater result is the possible "murder" of a pre-born person.

The law right now doesn't consider the fetus to be a person, but many people do, including most of the religious community. IMO we must honor the idea that it might be a life, because to end an innocent life is against our humanity. Since we can't be sure and it can't be absolutely proven one way or the other we must err for life. My opine.

 

[WATU2]

All good points.

But I continue to be disappointed by the pressure to cut funding for family planning, sex education, and contraception by those who are also anti-abortion. Prevention seems a far better way to avoid or reduce the magnitude of the problem than dealing with the complex pregnancy issues you raise above.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

President Obama will have to hustle if he is to catch up with Nixon, Reagan and Dubya in issuing Executive Orders. Although the internet abounds with false claims to the contrary.

You are arguing against something neither said nor implied. Because you falsely inferred it you are arguing with the wind. What was implied was that Obama placed restrictions in the form executive orders to essentially circumvent the process more towards the way that a law would.

 

[TUBballJunkie]

It's naive to think all unwanted pregnancies result from carelessness or lack of education. The only 100% methods are total abstinence or at least a partial hysterectomy. Everything else is gray area. I don't think anyone is really interested in legislating toward that even if it was constitutional in this hypothetical.

And if we are talking about the present real life ban, it's on a very specific *procedure*. There are all kinds of ways around that ban for the doctor.

I personally believe the battle prior to the third trimester is completely lost for prolifers. It's a total non-issue to me in voting. Things like plan b over the counter illustrate losing additional ground from Roe v Wade.

I think this whole hypothetical discussion is an attempt to push prolife supporters to the extreme position of the absolute beginning of life. Both sides of the discussion are generally somewhere in the middle though. Defining life at viability is even an arbitrary line from the court.

 

[URedskin54]

I personally believe the battle prior to the third trimester is completely lost for prolifers. It's a total non-issue to me in voting. Things like plan b over the counter illustrate losing additional ground from Roe v Wade.

I tend to agree, but I'd say before the second trimester. There are some issues with the polling but polls like this illustrate that there may be pretty good support for banning after the first trimester. Public opinion in European countries was such that many have similar restrictions, so I'm optimistic. And no I'm not saying "let's just do what works in other countries" lol just that it seems possible.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/..._even_pro_choicers_support_a_20_week_ban.html

 

[TUBballJunkie]

Am I just tired or does that article jump back and forth a lot?

I think that second semester discussion probably depends a lot on how much information about the development of the baby a person has. Obviously there's a lot of things happening before "viability"...

 

[TUMe]

Ured said second trimester
Junkie said second semester.
Just for clarity was the difference intended?
Might that be compromise?

It jumps around a lot because some are discussing abortion and some are discussing hypocrisy.

 

[TUBballJunkie]

Bwahaha!

Yes, Me I think the line of questioning is specifically to paint prolifers as hypocrites based on some extreme hypotheticals. But I think you could also do the same thing on the other side of the spectrum. Most people are not for zero abortion and most are not for zero restriction.

 

[URedskin54]

Speaking for myself only, I would prefer it be banned altogether(extremist!), with the obvious necessary exceptions. However, like I said before, that's not where most of society is on the issue. So while it is important to me, I think the argument itself has to be won before anything like that should be implemented. I recognize that the first trimester is much more of a moral grey area, and abortion at that level of development is far more defensible. So based on where society is today I would be pleased with that compromise. Judging by where the courts are at the moment, I don't see it happening for quite a while.


WATU likes to paint republicans of any sort as some kind of monolithic group that's in lock-step on every issue, but that's just not how it is. I disagree with my (potentially former due to Trump) party about all kinds of things, it just represents my views best. Same goes for anyone that adopts a pro-life label.

 

[TUMe]

Most people are not for zero abortion and most are not for zero restriction.

^ ^ ^ This

One need not worry about being a purist. That is part of the reason for such divisive politics.

 

[WATU2]

WATU likes to paint republicans of any sort as some kind of monolithic group that's in lock-step on every issue, but that's just not how it is. I disagree with my (potentially former due to Trump) party about all kinds of things, it just represents my views best. Same goes for anyone that adopts a pro-life label.

Nah, I see differences. Heck, I was voted Republican for decades before I became independent, and there's much in the Democratic party that I disagree with. It's just that in this forum, people who call themselves moderate tip the scale far to the right of most audiences I'm familiar with. Remember on many surveys, Oklahoma is considered the most conservative state in the union. Many on this board confirm that.

As for abortion, it's the inconsistencies that bother me. If society is going to insist that every child be brought to term, that insistence implies (to me) a responsibility for that child after birth. I've seen how other cultures handle that responsbility. For example, in some in Asia until a child is 100 days old, it's not really born, likely because so many die in childbirth or immediately afterwards. Big party when they make 100 days. Then there's the ancient Spartan approach of putting baby girls and boys through initial tests to see if they were strong enough to be useful to the state. If a child did not pass these fitness or health tests, they would be left to die, outside of main living area of the state, typically in the wild, or in the mountains.

Me, I'm for contraception, education, and family planning to reduce the size of the problem to begin with. These are knotty enough problems without making them bigger.

 

[TUMe]

Me, I'm for contraception, education, and family planning to reduce the size of the problem to begin with. These are knotty enough problems without making them bigger.

I agree with that. In addition, I am pro-choice for a number of reasons already stated. Partial birth abortions are stretching it.

 

[TUBballJunkie]

I do not disagree for a second that conservatives tend to forget politically about a child the moment it is born.

But I think that is a different discussion.

 

[rabidTU]

Something as complex and personal as this "mandate" needs to be thought through imo. And no-one should be bullied into contributing to an (immoral) "tax" by Caesar.

I do agree that a nun (like the Little Sisters of the Poor) shouldn't have to "contribute" to some organization that "aborts" a fetus in any way shape or form. Its against their basic vows - at least the way they interpret those vows. There should, on occasion, be legal exceptions to every law (or mandate) and that's at the top of the list imo.

 

[TUBballJunkie]

You think those children should just be nonexistent?!

Holy hell.