proposed solution for Abortion

when you abort whatever was the age of embryo/fetus at the time is how much you spend in prison for it

abort it at 2 weeks ? - get 2 weeks in prison.

abort it at 2 months ? - get 2 months in prison.

both parents serve the time.

if the girl is under age the man serves both his and her time.

anything past 6 months is murder.

age of consent is reduced to age of puberty.

would you support this scheme ?

It sounds dumb.

It isn't even possible. Exactly how would figure out the time at which the women aborted? Its not like back-alley doctors are going to be preserving the evidence for you.

rathi said:

It isn't even possible. Exactly how would figure out the time at which the women aborted? Its not like back-alley doctors are going to be preserving the evidence for you.

Click to expand...

Then it's only favor that the back-alley doctors will serve a full 9 months, plus serve the mother's 9 month sentence in her place.

Either abortion is the unwarranted killing of a person-- the mainstream pro-life position-- in which case the penalties are grossly insufficient, or it is not, in which case another justification for the criminal penalties must be found. If abortion is criminalized for reasons other than the killing of an unborn person, then the gestational age of the fetus is largely irrelevant to the sentencing.

And if the age of consent was the onset of puberty, there would be no pregnant underaged girls for men to serve the sentences for.

This "solution" is nonsensical and utterly unworkable.

It's ridiculous, unworkable and unenforceable, not to mention a violation of the law. Why would you come up with something this idiotic? :doh

Cephus said:

It's ridiculous, unworkable and unenforceable, not to mention a violation of the law. Why would you come up with something this idiotic? :doh

Click to expand...

Because I can't have what I want and make adult women who have abortions to lose their ability to reproduce at all for the rest of there lives.

DarkWizard12 said:

Because I can't have what I want and make adult women who have abortions to lose their ability to reproduce at all for the rest of there lives.

Click to expand...

Why in the Hell would you want to do that? Whatever your opinion of women who have abortions when they are younger, most of them go on and grow up to raise families and are reasonably responsible mothers. This is a very foolish position to adopt out of sheer spite.

This is a ridiculous system. I have more respect for the idea of banning abortion completely.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Either abortion is the unwarranted killing of a person-- the mainstream pro-life position-- in which case the penalties are grossly insufficient, or it is not, in which case another justification for the criminal penalties must be found. If abortion is criminalized for reasons other than the killing of an unborn person, then the gestational age of the fetus is largely irrelevant to the sentencing.

Click to expand...

stop thinking like a NeoCon. is the word better without Saddam Hussein - yes or no ? not everything is a black and white question.

is killing a mouse a crime ? how about killing a cat ? why is one crime and one not a crime ?

a fetus is not a person. on the other hand a fetus is clearly alive. i would say that killing a fetus is a crime similar to killing a cat.

there is no single moment in which something magical happens and life begins. life haven't fully begun even by the time you are born. you are not 100% person probably up until age 3 or so ( depending on individual ).

life may not end in a single moment either. if you have alzheimers your life may end as gradually as it began.

be more flexible in your logic.

Korimyr the Rat said:

And if the age of consent was the onset of puberty, there would be no pregnant underaged girls for men to serve the sentences for.

Click to expand...

hehehe. you know what i meant. i meant girls under 18.

molten_dragon said:

This is a ridiculous system. I have more respect for the idea of banning abortion completely.

Click to expand...

so you think that an abortion at 2 weeks is the same as abortion at say 3 months ?

NEUROSPORT said:

so you think that an abortion at 2 weeks is the same as abortion at say 3 months ?

Click to expand...

Medically? No. Morally? Yes.

The situation doesn't change until there's a chance of viability outside the mother.

NEUROSPORT said:

stop thinking like a NeoCon. is the word better without Saddam Hussein - yes or no ? not everything is a black and white question.

Click to expand...

Grey is nothing more than different values of black and white. The world isn't better off without Saddam Hussein, but it could have been if we'd had a better plan for what would replace him. It isn't a crime to kill either mice or cats unless they belong to someone else, but it is a crime to kill them cruelly; it is even the same crime, regardless of which you killed, despite the difference in the likelihood that you'll be convicted.

A fetus is not a person, and the vast majority of abortions occur before it is capable of experiencing cruelty. Those that remain are done so quickly, causing braindeath in less time than it would take a cat to die if you shot it with 20 gauge birdshot. Thus if killing a fetus is like killing a cat, it's only a crime if it belongs to someone else.

NEUROSPORT said:

there is no single moment in which something magical happens and life begins.

Click to expand...

No, but there is a single moment when something legal happens and citizenship begins. There is a single moment, despite our inability to pinpoint it, when a fetus becomes more likely to survive premature birth than not. There's a single moment when a fetus becomes more likely to survive to term than not. For any objective criterion you wish to establish, there is a moment after which a human being qualifies, and before which it does not.

The only thing subjective about it is deciding which to use.

NEUROSPORT said:

life may not end in a single moment either. if you have alzheimers your life may end as gradually as it began.

Click to expand...

If I am diagnosed with Alzheimer's, I can guarantee that my life will end far more suddenly than it began. Bang.

NEUROSPORT said:

be more flexible in your logic.

Click to expand...

Logic is order. It is structure and it is rules. When you take away structure and rules, what you have is no longer logic-- and no longer reliable for use as a moral compass. When you stop using rules to determine what is right and what is wrong, what should be applauded and what should be punished, you stop having a reason to do-- or not do-- anything. At that point, not even your whims have value.

NEUROSPORT said:

hehehe. you know what i meant. i meant girls under 18.

Click to expand...

There is a moment in every girl's life where something legal happens...

Korimyr the Rat said:

there is a single moment when something legal happens and citizenship begins. There is a single moment, despite our inability to pinpoint it, when a fetus becomes more likely to survive premature birth than not. There's a single moment when a fetus becomes more likely to survive to term than not. For any objective criterion you wish to establish, there is a moment after which a human being qualifies, and before which it does not.

The only thing subjective about it is deciding which to use.

Click to expand...

so you believe that a law can be arbitrary ?

for example: you can drink alcohol but you can't smoke weed. one is a crime and one is not because that's just what we decided.

you believe in that ?

i don't.

i believe no law should exist unless it is absolutely objectively necessary and makes perfect sense.

but then of course i remember you think the chains are the best part of life.

frankly Korimyr i just don't care enough about abortion to argue with you about it. you are very difficult to argue with and i would rather save it for something i consider more important.

NEUROSPORT said:

so you believe that a law can be arbitrary ?

Click to expand...

I don't believe that law can be anything but arbitrary. In the end, regardless of whether the law is written by one man or thousands, whether the law itself is constrained by other laws, and even what goals the law sets out to accomplish, the law is nothing more than opinions decided by men with pens and enforced by men with guns. There is no law that could not have been written differently, and no law that could not work just as well within society if it had been.

The only things that matter are what you want the law to do, and whether or not it works. If you don't know what you want the law to do, you can't tell whether or not it works-- and if you don't know why you want the law to do something, you can't tell whether or not it's worth the price.

NEUROSPORT said:

i believe no law should exist unless it is absolutely objectively necessary and makes perfect sense.

Click to expand...

The only thing that is objectively necessary about the law is that it exists and that it's enforced. Society needs to have rules in order for people to know how to behave, and more importantly, to know how to expect other people to behave. Beyond that, everything else is just a matter of how people want other people to behave and there's nothing more subjective than that.

I have a different solution. Remove the fetus without killing it, and leave it up to science or God to see if they can keep it alive. Because even if a fetus deserves the same rights as the rest of us it still shouldn't be allowed to ride around in someone's uterus.

NEUROSPORT said:

when you abort whatever was the age of embryo/fetus at the time is how much you spend in prison for it

abort it at 2 weeks ? - get 2 weeks in prison.

abort it at 2 months ? - get 2 months in prison.

both parents serve the time.

if the girl is under age the man serves both his and her time.

anything past 6 months is murder.

Click to expand...

I view a unborn child as a human being who deserves the same rights as the rest of us and that killing a innocent human being should be avoided.So I believe someone who gets an abortion should be treated no different than a murderer and someone who performs an abortion should be treated no different than a serial killer. So the same penalty for murder should apply regardless of the age of the victim.

would you support this scheme ?

Click to expand...

No I would not support it.
If I was an abortionist then I would view your idea as still stupid. It would be as absurd as suggesting criminal penalties for someone cutting off their own toenail since that is what abortionist view an unborn child as.

age of consent is reduced to age of puberty.

Click to expand...

What does age of consent have to do with this? What if someone reaches puberty at a early age or even later,should someone who has sex with a 9 year old suffer less no punishment than someone who has sex with a child the same age just because that child developed early or should someone suffer punishment just because the victim reached puberty at a later age? 16 is the age of consent in many states around the country why push the line even lower? And if you are going to try to push it lower then why something not clearly defined by age. You are aware that puberty typically starts for girls starts at 10 and boys at 12?

NEUROSPORT said:

so you think that an abortion at 2 weeks is the same as abortion at say 3 months ?

Click to expand...

I think abortion is fine no matter what time you do it, right up to the end of the second trimester. What difference does it make?

Korimyr the Rat said:

Why in the Hell would you want to do that? Whatever your opinion of women who have abortions when they are younger, most of them go on and grow up to raise families and are reasonably responsible mothers. This is a very foolish position to adopt out of sheer spite.

Click to expand...

that's why I said "adult" women. Most younger women, I think, are just confused with what they want, so that should stay more with family. But after 18, I have zero, zilch, pity for them. Used to, I did, but no I don't. if they aren't responsible enough to prevent getting pregnant in the first place and lack the heart to put their child up for adoption, then they deserve the right to reproduce, after that abuse.

If they want a kid so bad later on, then they can adopt.

The year is 2009, not 2900..
By then we will be, I hope, more civilized and abortion will end.Until the, we will have to live with it, like it or not.
Illegal abortion will just create more problems, not save lives..
Man has caused this problem by acting in an irresponsible manner; when he learns to respect life and the woman, most of the need for abortion will be gone...

Korimyr the Rat said:

I don't believe that law can be anything but arbitrary. In the end, regardless of whether the law is written by one man or thousands, whether the law itself is constrained by other laws, and even what goals the law sets out to accomplish, the law is nothing more than opinions decided by men with pens and enforced by men with guns. There is no law that could not have been written differently, and no law that could not work just as well within society if it had been.

The only things that matter are what you want the law to do, and whether or not it works. If you don't know what you want the law to do, you can't tell whether or not it works-- and if you don't know why you want the law to do something, you can't tell whether or not it's worth the price.



The only thing that is objectively necessary about the law is that it exists and that it's enforced. Society needs to have rules in order for people to know how to behave, and more importantly, to know how to expect other people to behave. Beyond that, everything else is just a matter of how people want other people to behave and there's nothing more subjective than that.

Click to expand...

so do you see it as a need to balance human rights with social order?

or do you see no place for human rights at all ?

i think that we only need to protect human rights and social order will result automatically because any disturbance of the order will necessarily violate somebody's rights.

so for example we don't even need to write a law saying that all must drive on the right side of the street. you try driving on the left side - you run somebody over - and you find yourself on an electric chair. your brother will then think twice before driving on the left side of the street even though there isn't a single law regulating traffic.

you make the assumption that you know what means will lead to which ends. or at least you think you can figure it out by trial and error.

i say it doesn't need to be that complicated. instead of a guessing game let's make it a constraint satisfaction problem:

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constraint_satisfaction_problem]Constraint satisfaction problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

which is what the Fathers did with the bill of rights. they defined the ENDS rather than the means.

the ends being agreed on universally is sufficient for a framework for social order. the means can and should be decided on individual level because decisions are usually more efficient on that level than on state level.

micro-managing from the top only makes sense if the person on the top is leaps and bounds more intelligent than the person being managed.

however when the person on the top is nothing more than average vote of the retards at the bottom - it doesn't work any more. because now you are just taking 300 million average intelligences and reduce them to one average intelligence - you reduce system efficiency by a factor of 300 million instead of increasing it.

do you know how fish forms schools when they swim ? and birds form flocks ? there are no laws telling fish what side of the street to drive on. and there is no NEED for any.

in september i drove my car all across America - 4,000 miles. speed limits in different states and on different roads varied roughly from 65 to 75 mph yet the cars always maintained 80 mph speed regardless of what state it was in. the only exceptions were NYC where the cars went SLOWER ( about 70 ) and LA where the cars went FASTER ( about 90 ). but that's because NY has traffic probably 16 hours a day and LA is mostly douchebags in porsches.

interestingly the speed limit in LA is only 65 but people drive faster there than in places where the limit is 75. that's because people in LA have more $$$ to burn on gas, brakes and tires.

moral of the story is people will ON THEIR OWN and INSTINCTIVELY settle on UNWRITTEN rules to go by, just like fish and birds do it. there is NO NEED in most cases for any state rules and any such rules will only INTERFERE with the NATURAL ORDER.

every once in a while you suddenly see people braking for no apparent reason then a minute later you see a cop sitting in the bushes with a radar then a minute later everybody speeds back up to 80 mph - IDIOCY !

NEUROSPORT said:

so do you see it as a need to balance human rights with social order?
or do you see no place for human rights at all ?

Click to expand...

Human rights are just more policies. If you ask three liberals to seriously define what human rights are, you'll get four answers and an impromptu street protest. Some "human rights" are good policies because they're cheap and they produce good results, like the freedom of the press and the right to keep and bear arms. Other "human rights" are mostly good policies because the State can provide blanket coverage in ways the market cannot-- like primary education and universal healthcare-- and they double as useful tools for social engineering.

And some "human rights" are just bad policies, like the "right" to an education you're intellectually or socially incapable of benefiting from, the "right" to incur 85% of your lifetime healthcare costs staving off the inevitable in your last eighteen months, or the "right" to march down public roads shouting, blocking traffic, and waving picket signs with offensive slogans on them.

NEUROSPORT said:

you make the assumption that you know what means will lead to which ends. or at least you think you can figure it out by trial and error.

Click to expand...

The only real assumption I make is that society will survive, mostly because assuming anything else is self-destructive. As long as society survives, it is possible for it to be improved, and as long as society's goals are consistent with its means, improvement is inevitable. The problem is that in democracies, especially liberal democracies, society's goals are not consistent with each other-- and the majority of them remain unspoken.

NEUROSPORT said:

which is what the Fathers did with the bill of rights. they defined the ENDS rather than the means.

Click to expand...

The problem is, they defined a very limited system of ends in reaction to abuses against them carried out by their former government-- and did not consciously address either the practical or moral needs of society. Our nation has survived this long mainly because the State has ignored-- in some cases blatantly-- the limitations imposed upon it by the Constitution in order to fulfill its obligations to the people.

NEUROSPORT said:

the ends being agreed on universally is sufficient for a framework for social order. the means can and should be decided on individual level because decisions are usually more efficient on that level than on state level.

Click to expand...

Everyone believes this, and it's a load of utter nonsense. It is not enough to say that we have a right to life, liberty, and property and then simply let individuals figure out not only how to secure their own, but how to defend their neighbors', rights. There must be an authority that defines what these "rights" means, and implements them practically in the law-- and that means that the authority is limited by their own subjective experience and biases in implementing the law.

Korimyr the Rat said:

The problem is, they defined a very limited system of ends in reaction to abuses against them carried out by their former government

Click to expand...

yes. maybe that is the problem.

they left way too much room for politics.

Constitution should have been about the same size as Bible.

and the first thing the Constitution should have said is that every person must be required to know the Constitution by heart otherwise he forfeits his citizenship.

and they should have never allowed for amendments. or at least made sure that amendments may only be passed unanimously AND with 2/3 majority public support.

perhaps they just didn't care what would happen 200 years down the line. perhaps they felt their ancestors didn't deserve to have everything handed to them on a silver plate.

the Fathers based their decisions on their knowledge of HISTORY. but at no point in history was there ever the kind of *****fication we have today where not a single person is willing to move a single finger to bring about any change let alone a revolution. based on the history such and end was simply impossible for them to foresee.

I actually agree that penalties for abortion should be progressively harsher as the fetus develops; the latest-term abortions should be treated like murder. That's not to say I exactly agree with your solution though.