Abortion discussions and debates

[unixknight]

@MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, unixknight said:

@MormonGator

 LOVE IT! 

 

[anatess2]

The middle ground is to send the Pro-Choice/Pro-Life discussions to the forgotten realms.  If you're pro-Life, stop debating making abortions illegal.  If you're Pro-Choice, stop debating abortions remain legal.  Just stop.  Drop it.  Send it to the ether of obscurity.

Here's the new debate... WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?

After that's decided, then the Constitutional protection of inalienable rights will take over.

[unixknight]

14 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 LOVE IT!

I call Superman!

On topic, there's a problem I've encountered when trying to find that middle ground when discussing abortion.  A lot of people go for the middle ground that says they'd oppose legal abortion except in cases of rape an incest.  That seems reasonable on the face, but the problem is in the implementation.

How would one set up a system in which a rape victim can obtain an abortion?  What would the requirement be?  A conviction for the rapist?  That can take months, sometimes even years.  By the time the case was decided, the baby could be learning to walk. 

Is the mere accusation of rape enough, then, so it can be done in time?  I see a lot of false accusations of rape in order to obtain an abortion by frightened young women who don't feel like they have any other option.  A false allegation of that type can be absolutely devastating to a guy.  Just ask a Duke lacrosse player. 

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, unixknight said:

 

Is the mere accusation of rape enough, then, so it can be done in time?  I see a lot of false accusations of rape in order to obtain an abortion by frightened young women who don't feel like they have any other option.  A false allegation of that type can be absolutely devastating to a guy.  Just ask a Duke lacrosse player. 

All great points. Nifong should have had to do serious time for that.  

[Guest MormonGator]

Rolling Stone magazine might have something to say about it as well. 

Edited April 18, 2016 by MormonGator

[unixknight]

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

All great points. Nifong should have had to do serious time for that.  

Yeah I can't believe he got a 1 day sentence in county jail and then probation.  What a travesty.  That dude had been watching too many Law & Order episodes where the D.A. finds ways to heroically get that pesky Constitution out of the way so he can get the conviction for the bad guy.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Yeah I can't believe he got a 1 day sentence in county jail and then probation.  What a travesty.  That dude had been watching too many Law & Order episodes where the D.A. finds ways to heroically get that pesky Constitution out of the way so he can get the conviction for the bad guy.

My thoughts completely. What people fail to realize is who this hurts most: Women who have been legitimately assaulted. 

[NightSG]

44 minutes ago, unixknight said:

How would one set up a system in which a rape victim can obtain an abortion?  What would the requirement be?  A conviction for the rapist?  That can take months, sometimes even years.  By the time the case was decided, the baby could be learning to walk. 

Is the mere accusation of rape enough, then, so it can be done in time?  I see a lot of false accusations of rape in order to obtain an abortion by frightened young women who don't feel like they have any other option.  A false allegation of that type can be absolutely devastating to a guy.  Just ask a Duke lacrosse player. 

Well, the corollary to such a law would be that, if an abortion is done on those grounds and it is later proven that the sex was consensual, the abortion becomes first degree murder.  Not sure about other states, but in Texas, murder of a child under 6 (including a fetus) can be prosecuted as a capital murder.  The chance of the death penalty might make a potential false accuser think twice about the risk vs reward scale.

[unixknight]

14 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Well, the corollary to such a law would be that, if an abortion is done on those grounds and it is later proven that the sex was consensual, the abortion becomes first degree murder.  Not sure about other states, but in Texas, murder of a child under 6 (including a fetus) can be prosecuted as a capital murder.  The chance of the death penalty might make a potential false accuser think twice about the risk vs reward scale.

Problem is I think it would be pretty hard to have cases be that cut and dry.  If a guy is acquitted of the rape charge I don't see that justifiably being used to automatically charge the woman with murder.  An acquittal isn't an assertion of innocence, only that the prosecutor was unable to convict.  Imagine a woman who really was raped, her attacker acquitted somehow, and now she's up on charges for murder on top of everything else. 

No, that won't fly.

Edited April 18, 2016 by unixknight

[NightSG]

55 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Problem is I think it would be pretty hard to have cases be that cut and dry.  If a guy is acquitted of the rape charge I don't see that justifiably being used to automatically charge the woman with murder.  An acquittal isn't an assertion of innocence, only that the prosecutor was unable to convict.

Right, which is why I specified "if the sex was proven to be consensual."

It's not that uncommon for guys to make sure their cell phone is recording audio at the "decision points" of an encounter these days, just in case a woman decides to cry rape later.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

MormonGator, I am confident that you know the pro-life view--that once life is conceived it is human, with a God-given right to live. If we're right, you surely see why we shake our heads at the notion that male voices don't count. ...

A key phrase in your remarks above is "if we're right".  I say this because there are differing views on these points just as there are on so many other aspects of the overall abortion issue.  For example many people--whether we label them pro-life or pro-choice--will say that a human blastocyst is like other masses of human cells; but it is not a human being. This leads to the disagreements about ensoulment and when it occurs. 

[unixknight]

8 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Right, which is why I specified "if the sex was proven to be consensual."

It's not that uncommon for guys to make sure their cell phone is recording audio at the "decision points" of an encounter these days, just in case a woman decides to cry rape later.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "proven to be consensual."  I would think the first method that comes to mind is an acquittal in court, which I addressed.  Did you have a different scenario in mind?

[unixknight]

9 minutes ago, UT.starscoper said:

A key phrase in your remarks above is "if we're right".  I say this because there are differing views on these points just as there are on so many other aspects of the overall abortion issue.  For example many people--whether we label them pro-life or pro-choice--will say that a human blastocyst is like other masses of human cells; but it is not a human being. This leads to the disagreements about ensoulment and when it occurs. 

The problem is that no matter where you draw the line between "lump of cells" and "human being" it'll be completely arbitrary.  If we're really talking about matters like the soul and the definition of a human being, are any of us qualified to make that arbitrary distinction?

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

The middle ground is to send the Pro-Choice/Pro-Life discussions to the forgotten realms.  If you're pro-Life, stop debating making abortions illegal.  If you're Pro-Choice, stop debating abortions remain legal.  Just stop.  Drop it.  Send it to the ether of obscurity.

Here's the new debate... WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?

After that's decided, then the Constitutional protection of inalienable rights will take over.

I confess I haven't put a lot of thought into this, but . . . what is the basis for arguing that the Constitution requires states to make murder illegal?

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

Problem is I think it would be pretty hard to have cases be that cut and dry.  If a guy is acquitted of the rape charge I don't see that justifiably being used to automatically charge the woman with murder.  An acquittal isn't an assertion of innocence, only that the prosecutor was unable to convict.  Imagine a woman who really was raped, her attacker acquitted somehow, and now she's up on charges for murder on top of everything else. 

No, that won't fly.

If all that is required for the abortion is that the woman make a police report, then you can still nail the woman on providing false info to police officers (or whatever the local analogue to that is) if the sex is later "proven to be consensual".

Speaking more generally:  I don't know that capital punishment, or lengthy prison sentences, are the best way to deal with women who undergo elective abortions in violation of law.  Sure, if you're pursuing a retributive theory of penalization, that would be appropriate (at least, for fetuses we can agree are "persons")--but that same theory would say that rapists must in turn be raped, batterers must in turn be battered, etc; and of course we don't do that under our current criminal system.  When it comes to abortion--assuming it can be criminalized--I think the other penal goals of deterrence and rehabilitation can be very adequately served by means short of imprisoning the women who undergo these abortions.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, unixknight said:

The problem is that no matter where you draw the line between "lump of cells" and "human being" it'll be completely arbitrary.  If we're really talking about matters like the soul and the definition of a human being, are any of us qualified to make that arbitrary distinction?

Yes it is arbitrary, and that is why I said that the phrase "if we're right" is important.  For example if I claim a blastocyst is a human being with a soul, and you say that I'm wrong neither of us knows just as you pointed out above.  I agree with you that therein lies the problem. 

[unixknight]

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If all that is required for the abortion is that the woman make a police report, then you can still nail the woman on providing false info to police officers (or whatever the local analogue to that is) if the sex is later "proven to be consensual".

What about a case where a woman makes that police report in good conscience, but the alleged rape is either unproven or at least unclear?  That takes us back to defining what's meant by "proven to be consensual."  It's got to be more than just an acquittal in court.

[Just_A_Guy]

8 minutes ago, unixknight said:

What about a case where a woman makes that police report in good conscience, but the alleged rape is either unproven or at least unclear?  That takes us back to defining what's meant by "proven to be consensual."  It's got to be more than just an acquittal in court.

We've gone through the rounds on this before, but my own opinion is that for the purposes of getting a rape-based abortion, it should be enough that the woman was willing to come forward in a timely manner and subject herself to the medical examinations, legal processes, and general scrutiny that making such an allegation entails. 

Now, if we get a woman who's making her fifth police report in two years, or something like that--at some point it may be appropriate to impose a higher standard.  But generally speaking, I think compelling a woman to carry a baby conceived via rape to term is potentially so damaging to her that I prefer to give self-professed rape victims the benefit of the doubt.

[Guest]

@unixknight  And I suppose the problem that you and I agree about is the basis for what I understand to be part of Roe v Wade, i.e. that because we don't know when a potential human being becomes an actual human being, then during the first Trimester the choice is solely the woman's and not the State's.

[NightSG]

13 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "proven to be consensual."  I would think the first method that comes to mind is an acquittal in court, which I addressed.  Did you have a different scenario in mind?

As you said, an acquittal doesn't prove that it was consensual, though proving it was consensual is one route to an acquittal.  (For example, proving the accused wasn't the actual perpetrator wouldn't establish anything about the sexual act other than his lack of participation in it.  In that case, the pregnancy would reasonably well establish that it did happen with someone, but the acquittal would be meaningless with regard to the nature of the act.  In such a case, it's hardly unimaginable that the actual father might come forward with some evidence of consent (witnesses or the aforementioned audio recording) in an attempt to save his child, or to avenge it if the abortion has already happened.)  It's essentially a separate question that would have to be addressed separately if the accused asserted such, but for whatever reason didn't prove it in order to obtain the acquittal.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The middle ground is to send the Pro-Choice/Pro-Life discussions to the forgotten realms.  If you're pro-Life, stop debating making abortions illegal.  If you're Pro-Choice, stop debating abortions remain legal.  Just stop.  Drop it.  Send it to the ether of obscurity.

Here's the new debate... WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?

After that's decided, then the Constitutional protection of inalienable rights will take over.

May I join you in this part of the debate?  I'll make some presumptions and you tell me if we're on the same page, alright?  I presume you do not assert that a "human egg" is a human being nor that a human sperm is a human being.  I my presumption correct?  Do you assert that a fertilized egg is a human being?

[unixknight]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We've gone through the rounds on this before, but my own opinion is that for the purposes of getting a rape-based abortion, it should be enough that the woman was willing to come forward in a timely manner and subject herself to the medical examinations, legal processes, and general scrutiny that making such an allegation entails. 

Now, if we get a woman who's making her fifth police report in two years, or something like that--at some point it may be appropriate to impose a higher standard.  But generally speaking, I think compelling a woman to carry a baby conceived via rape to term is potentially so damaging to her that I prefer to give self-professed rape victims the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think you're wrong, I just think that would still cause a lot of undeserved damage to guys' reputations when condoms break or someone wakes up with regret.  I just don't know that there's any possible way to ensure that women in legitimate cases of rape have access, but also that no false accusations ever get made.  I think that's going to be a problem anytime a system is in place where a party might have a motive to lie, which would throw off the entire purpose of the system.

8 minutes ago, UT.starscoper said:

@unixknight  And I suppose the problem that you and I agree about is the basis for what I understand to be part of Roe v Wade, i.e. that because we don't know when a potential human being becomes an actual human being, then during the first Trimester the choice is solely the woman's and not the State's.

Indeed.  Of course, now that we have partial-birth abortions, the effort to draw that line has become meaningless anyway.

11 minutes ago, NightSG said:

As you said, an acquittal doesn't prove that it was consensual, though proving it was consensual is one route to an acquittal.  (For example, proving the accused wasn't the actual perpetrator wouldn't establish anything about the sexual act other than his lack of participation in it.  In that case, the pregnancy would reasonably well establish that it did happen with someone, but the acquittal would be meaningless with regard to the nature of the act.  In such a case, it's hardly unimaginable that the actual father might come forward with some evidence of consent (witnesses or the aforementioned audio recording) in an attempt to save his child, or to avenge it if the abortion has already happened.)  It's essentially a separate question that would have to be addressed separately if the accused asserted such, but for whatever reason didn't prove it in order to obtain the acquittal.

Makes sense, though I can imagine the backlash when people perceive that as putting a victim on trial.  Ultimately, the only truly conclusive proof of consent would have to be a recording of the actual encounter, which is hardly a practical solution...

And that's the thing, if we're talking about putting a woman on trial for murder because she had an abortion under questionable circumstances, the burden of proof would still lie with proving she wasn't raped.  Trying to prove a negative would be next to impossible so I can't imagine too many convictions there.  Heck, I don't even know why a prosecutor would even try the case unless he had a recording...  But even THEN what does it prove?  Okay, so this couple had at least one encounter which was consensual.  Fine.  Now prove that was the actual encounter in which she got pregnant.  Because all she'd have to say is "Yes, that occasion was consensual, but the next day..."

[anatess2]

26 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I confess I haven't put a lot of thought into this, but . . . what is the basis for arguing that the Constitution requires states to make murder illegal?

 

Nothing.  That's why the When Does Life Begin is the better debate.  Because there's no question that when life begins, the death of that life gets covered by all the already existing laws that protect that life.  So, when Congress finally figures out the definition of Life, then the rest of the debate on abortion is moot.

[unixknight]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Nothing.  That's why the When Does Life Begin is the better debate.  Because there's no question that when life begins, the death of that life gets covered by all the already existing laws that protect that life.  So, when Congress finally figures out the definition of Life, then the rest of the debate on abortion is moot.

...which they'll never do because as long as we're divided on the issue and fighting over it, they have a platform to run on for re-election.  They have no reason at all to solve the problem as long as they can keep scapegoating the other side.

[Just_A_Guy]

19 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I don't think you're wrong, I just think that would still cause a lot of undeserved damage to guys' reputations when condoms break or someone wakes up with regret.  I just don't know that there's any possible way to ensure that women in legitimate cases of rape have access, but also that no false accusations ever get made.  I think that's going to be a problem anytime a system is in place where a party might have a motive to lie, which would throw off the entire purpose of the system.

Sure; no solution is going to be perfect.  But I'm not aware that we had a slough of pre-Roe bogus rape allegations; and if we make it easier to relinquish for adoption while simultaneously beefing up penalties (both criminal and civil) for demonstrably false allegations, I think we can craft a liveable balance.

18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Nothing.  That's why the When Does Life Begin is the better debate.  Because there's no question that when life begins, the death of that life gets covered by all the already existing laws that protect that life.  So, when Congress finally figures out the definition of Life, then the rest of the debate on abortion is moot.

Perhaps, but I think you'd more likely set off an avalanche of blue states re-defining their homicide statutes--plus unforeseen circumstances as the full implications of fetal "deaths" become manifested (for example, does the result of a miscarriage have to be turned over to the state coroner for autopsy, or to a licensed funeral director for disposal?)