How Much Jail Time for Women Who Have Abortions? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

SecretMethod70 · 07-30-2007, 04:40 PM

Newsweek commentary regarding the video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010696/site/newsweek/

Randerolf · 07-30-2007, 05:24 PM

Wow, very interesting. I'd never thought about asking people that exact question, but they looked lost for a minute there.

Willravel · 07-30-2007, 05:52 PM

I would have had an answer ready.

A system would need to be in place to prove that contraceptive were used and failed for a woman and man to be excused. If they were able to prove they used contraceptives and failed, they would be allowed to abort the child. If not attempt was made to be responsible, there would be legal repercussions. Women who would violate an hypothetical law banning abortion should be punished. Obviously she will birth the child, which she would be totally responsible for. Because it's clear that the woman isn't mature enough to procreate, her procreation rights would be removed for no less than 5 years. If she breaches those rules and becomes pregnant again, she has her tubes tied.

Cynthetiq · 07-30-2007, 06:09 PM

Too many people just do things without thinking it all the way through.

will, I'm glad you've taken the time to think it through. I stilll don't want to live in your world.

I don't think it should be illegal.

corresponding article:

Quote:

Quindlen: How Much Jail Time for Women Who Have Abortions?
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.

"They never connect the dots," says Jill June, president of Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa. But her organization urged voters to do just that in the last gubernatorial election, in which the Republican contender believed abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest. "We wanted him to tell the women of Iowa exactly how much time he expected them to serve in jail if they had an abortion," June recalled. Chet Culver, the Democrat who unabashedly favors legal abortion, won that race, proving that choice can be a winning issue if you force people to stop evading the hard facts. "How have we come this far in the debate and been oblivious to the logical ramifications of making abortion illegal?" June says.

Perhaps by ignoring or infantilizing women, turning them into "victims" of their own free will. State statutes that propose punishing only a physician suggest the woman was merely some addled bystander who happened to find herself in the wrong stirrups at the wrong time. Such a view seemed to be a vestige of the past until the Supreme Court handed down its most recent abortion decision upholding a federal prohibition on a specific procedure. Justice Anthony Kennedy, obviously feeling excessively paternal, argued that the ban protected women from themselves. "While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon," he wrote, "it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained."

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.) Luckily, there still remains one justice on the court who has actually been pregnant, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg roared back with a dissent that called Kennedy's caveat about regret an "anti-abortion shibboleth" and his opinion a reflection of "ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution—ideas that have long since been discredited."

Those ancient notions undergird the refusal to confront the logical endpoint of criminalization. Lawmakers in a number of states have already passed or are considering statutes designed to outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned. But almost none hold the woman, the person who set the so-called crime in motion, accountable. Is the message that women are not to be held responsible for their actions? Or is it merely that those writing the laws understand that if women were going to jail, the vast majority of Americans would violently object? Watch the demonstrators in Libertyville try to worm their way out of the hypocrisy: It's murder, but she'll get her punishment from God. It's murder, but it depends on her state of mind. It's murder, but the penalty should be ... counseling?

The great thing about video is that you can see the mental wheels turning as these people realize that they somehow have overlooked something central while they were slinging certainties. Nearly 20 years ago, in a presidential debate, George Bush the elder was asked this very question, whether in making abortion illegal he would punish the woman who had one. "I haven't sorted out the penalties," he said lamely. Neither, it turns out, has anyone else. But there are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can't countenance the first, you have to accept the second. You can't have it both ways.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010696/site/newsweek/

SecretMethod70 · 07-30-2007, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I would have had an answer ready.

A system would need to be in place to prove that contraceptive were used and failed for a woman and man to be excused. If they were able to prove they used contraceptives and failed, they would be allowed to abort the child. If not attempt was made to be responsible, there would be legal repercussions. Women who would violate an hypothetical law banning abortion should be punished. Obviously she will birth the child, which she would be totally responsible for. Because it's clear that the woman isn't mature enough to procreate, her procreation rights would be removed for no less than 5 years. If she breaches those rules and becomes pregnant again, she has her tubes tied.

You're not a big fan of the idea of freedom, are you?

EDIT: Also, Cyn, thanks for posting the article text. I have absolutely no idea why that didn't cross my mind this time around

Willravel · 07-30-2007, 08:33 PM

It's not my answer, it's an answer I'd expect from someone who had actually thought about the question. I'm way too liberal to want to impose my personal philosophy on people via the law (unless it has something to do with guns).

In a perfect world people would act like responsible adults and take responsibility for their actions. It's not a perfect world, and those dolts that shag without protection apparently don't have to deal with the consequences of their actions. I'll never respect people who don't use condoms, but it's not up to me to say whether they can get an abortion or not.

rockzilla · 07-30-2007, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I would have had an answer ready.

A system would need to be in place to prove that contraceptive were used and failed for a woman and man to be excused. If they were able to prove they used contraceptives and failed, they would be allowed to abort the child. If not attempt was made to be responsible, there would be legal repercussions. Women who would violate an hypothetical law banning abortion should be punished. Obviously she will birth the child, which she would be totally responsible for. Because it's clear that the woman isn't mature enough to procreate, her procreation rights would be removed for no less than 5 years. If she breaches those rules and becomes pregnant again, she has her tubes tied.

First of all, what kind of magical system would allow a couple to prove that they were using contraceptives? Should they be required to show recipts from birth control purchases, along with proof of intercourse using said birth control?
Under your system, would I be required by law to videotape every sexual encounter I have, prominently displaying a date-stamped proof of purchace of my condoms (or any other type of birth control) while I'm engaging in the act of baby-making as legal proof that we took every responsible measure to not create a fetus?
What would happen to the children born to people who are obviously unfit to become parents? Do you throw them into the oubliette of being Wards of the State? Is that any better than being born into a 'family' (whatever definition you give it) that wasn't expecting them?
And do you really think that making unprotected sex illegal for certain people will stop them from having babies? If anything, your system would increase the numbers of women abandoning babies in dumpsters a thousandfold.
I could go on and on poking holes in this plan, but the end result is that hundreds of thousands would suffer, millions of dollars would be wasted trying to monitor these unwanted pregnancies, and nothing would change.

Edit - Okay, maybe you don't really feel that way. But do you realize how futile the idea of making unprotected sex and having unwanted babies illegal is? Maybe if we loosen up on the ideas of contraception and sex education, the next generation might be a little more educated and responsible?

snowy · 07-30-2007, 08:51 PM

Cyn, thanks for posting the text of the article. It just made me realize that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is totally my hero.

I'm volunteering this Sunday for Planned Parenthood at the county fair. Though most of our county is populated by pro-choice liberals, I'm sure I'll encounter those who disagree, and this is a great question to have up my sleeve.

Willravel · 07-30-2007, 09:10 PM

Rock, read post #6. Apparently I wasn't clear enough. Yeesh.

rockzilla · 07-30-2007, 09:19 PM

Sorry Will, I was writing my reply while you posted that. I've edited my post, but still don't understand why you posted that in the first place.

la petite moi · 07-30-2007, 10:19 PM

Oh man, pwned. That was GREAT.

Cynthetiq · 07-30-2007, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It's not my answer, it's an answer I'd expect from someone who had actually thought about the question. I'm way too liberal to want to impose my personal philosophy on people via the law (unless it has something to do with guns).

In a perfect world people would act like responsible adults and take responsibility for their actions. It's not a perfect world, and those dolts that shag without protection apparently don't have to deal with the consequences of their actions. I'll never respect people who don't use condoms, but it's not up to me to say whether they can get an abortion or not.

ah, should have posted that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I would have had an answer ready.

that meant to me that was your "answer" that was ready and not what you expected.

still don't want to live in your world.

sadistikdreams · 07-31-2007, 12:48 AM

I think there's a bias. I mean, how many people did this guy interview? They only showed like, seven people. How many people were actually at the protest?

Obviously, if he would've shown all the interviews, at least one person would have a well thought out answer.

Shit though. I think if you're so supportive about something, you should be able to back it up somehow. Bottom line, just because you make something illegal, doesn't mean that people will stop doing it. *takes a bong hit*

And on the other hand, if you make it legal, yeah, alright, it means that society sanctions it. But that doesn't mean you HAVE TO get an abortion. It means you have a choice.
That's what freedom is all about.
What's ironic, is that the town is called Libertyville.

la petite moi · 07-31-2007, 12:53 AM

sadistik, I was thinking the same thing about the town's name! Hahaha, the irony!

analog · 07-31-2007, 02:24 AM

This makes me giggle like an idiot... especially the ones who've been doing it for years and years... and never thought about what a punishment would be for it, were they to get their way.

"I'm not prepared to answer questions" - because you're a mindless parrot? Yeah, that sounds about right.

"I'm here because God's called me here"... oh... lovely.

SecretMethod70 · 07-31-2007, 03:36 AM

sadistikdreams, it's possible that he left people out, but 1) it's true that this isn't a question people normally consider, so I'm not really surprised by the reactions he got and 2) I thinks it's quite possible he didn't get any different responses from others. Not every protest is going to be a massive gathering, and I find it very believable that there may have only been a total of, say, 14 people protesting that day.

Bill O'Rights · 07-31-2007, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadistikdreams

I think there's a bias. I mean, how many people did this guy interview? They only showed like, seven people.

While you are more than likely correct, we'll probably never know for certain.

Puts me in mind of Jay Leno's "Jaywalking", where he interviews absolute idiots, total dolts and complete morons. One likes to think that he had to interview tens of dozens of people before he found one that thinks that WWII was fought to gain our independence from the British.

warrrreagl · 07-31-2007, 05:39 AM

Stephen King's Insomnia makes a brilliant use of the blind stupidity of the people on both sides of the issue. Not to give too much away, but ancient and evil forces in the story need an excuse to get people in a particular town to go at each other's throats and they (naturally) throw the abortion debate in their midst. It works perfectly because none of them can really intelligently answer why they're so violently stoked about the issue. They just are. And none of them can answer even the simplest questions about it.

/crap, there goes warrrreagl with another senseless Stephen King plug

jorgelito · 07-31-2007, 06:01 PM

I don't get it. This is an easy question to answer.

If you are to claim abortion is murder, then the punishments for abortion should follow accordingly.

What was so hard about that?

On another note, why is abortion considered a religious issue? I am very religious but my standpoint on abortion does not derive from religion (maybe Buddhism if anything).

SecretMethod70 · 07-31-2007, 07:23 PM

jorgelito: it's difficult to answer because most people who are against abortion don't really believe it is the same as murdering any other person, otherwise it would be a very easy question to answer. Then there's also the political aspect of the issue. They fully recognize how much more difficulty they would have gaining support if they claimed any woman who goes through with an abortion (after they're made illegal) should be considered a murderer and punished accordingly (which could very easily mean life in prison, since I don't see how abortion in that instance can be considered anything other than premeditated murder).

Willravel · 07-31-2007, 08:47 PM

I would assume that many see it as premeditated infanticide. That could even get the death penalty in some places.

ratbastid · 08-01-2007, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

I don't get it. This is an easy question to answer.

If you are to claim abortion is murder, then the punishments for abortion should follow accordingly.

What was so hard about that?

That's the logical response. The thing is... for most people, actually punishing the woman is quite distasteful. Or at the very least, they never considered it until the question was asked.

However, now that this is in the news, be prepared for a well-rehearsed talking point on it to start circulating.

07-30-2007, 04:40 PM	#1 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	How Much Jail Time for Women Who Have Abortions? Newsweek commentary regarding the video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010696/site/newsweek/ __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

07-30-2007, 08:51 PM	#8 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	Cyn, thanks for posting the text of the article. It just made me realize that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is totally my hero. I'm volunteering this Sunday for Planned Parenthood at the county fair. Though most of our county is populated by pro-choice liberals, I'm sure I'll encounter those who disagree, and this is a great question to have up my sleeve. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

07-31-2007, 03:36 AM	#16 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	sadistikdreams, it's possible that he left people out, but 1) it's true that this isn't a question people normally consider, so I'm not really surprised by the reactions he got and 2) I thinks it's quite possible he didn't get any different responses from others. Not every protest is going to be a massive gathering, and I find it very believable that there may have only been a total of, say, 14 people protesting that day. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

07-31-2007, 05:39 AM	#18 (permalink)
warrrreagl pinche vato Location: backwater, Third World, land of cotton	Stephen King's Insomnia makes a brilliant use of the blind stupidity of the people on both sides of the issue. Not to give too much away, but ancient and evil forces in the story need an excuse to get people in a particular town to go at each other's throats and they (naturally) throw the abortion debate in their midst. It works perfectly because none of them can really intelligently answer why they're so violently stoked about the issue. They just are. And none of them can answer even the simplest questions about it. /crap, there goes warrrreagl with another senseless Stephen King plug __________________ Living is easy with eyes closed.

07-31-2007, 07:23 PM	#20 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	jorgelito: it's difficult to answer because most people who are against abortion don't really believe it is the same as murdering any other person, otherwise it would be a very easy question to answer. Then there's also the political aspect of the issue. They fully recognize how much more difficulty they would have gaining support if they claimed any woman who goes through with an abortion (after they're made illegal) should be considered a murderer and punished accordingly (which could very easily mean life in prison, since I don't see how abortion in that instance can be considered anything other than premeditated murder). __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

07-30-2007, 05:24 PM	#2 (permalink)
Randerolf Fireball Location: ~	Wow, very interesting. I'd never thought about asking people that exact question, but they looked lost for a minute there.

07-30-2007, 05:52 PM	#3 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I would have had an answer ready. A system would need to be in place to prove that contraceptive were used and failed for a woman and man to be excused. If they were able to prove they used contraceptives and failed, they would be allowed to abort the child. If not attempt was made to be responsible, there would be legal repercussions. Women who would violate an hypothetical law banning abortion should be punished. Obviously she will birth the child, which she would be totally responsible for. Because it's clear that the woman isn't mature enough to procreate, her procreation rights would be removed for no less than 5 years. If she breaches those rules and becomes pregnant again, she has her tubes tied.

07-30-2007, 08:33 PM	#6 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It's not my answer, it's an answer I'd expect from someone who had actually thought about the question. I'm way too liberal to want to impose my personal philosophy on people via the law (unless it has something to do with guns). In a perfect world people would act like responsible adults and take responsibility for their actions. It's not a perfect world, and those dolts that shag without protection apparently don't have to deal with the consequences of their actions. I'll never respect people who don't use condoms, but it's not up to me to say whether they can get an abortion or not.

07-30-2007, 09:10 PM	#9 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Rock, read post #6. Apparently I wasn't clear enough. Yeesh.

07-30-2007, 09:19 PM	#10 (permalink)
rockzilla Junkie Location: The Kitchen	Sorry Will, I was writing my reply while you posted that. I've edited my post, but still don't understand why you posted that in the first place.

07-30-2007, 10:19 PM	#11 (permalink)
la petite moi Filling the Void. Location: California	Oh man, pwned. That was GREAT.

07-31-2007, 12:48 AM	#13 (permalink)
sadistikdreams lonely rolling star Location: Seattle.	I think there's a bias. I mean, how many people did this guy interview? They only showed like, seven people. How many people were actually at the protest? Obviously, if he would've shown all the interviews, at least one person would have a well thought out answer. Shit though. I think if you're so supportive about something, you should be able to back it up somehow. Bottom line, just because you make something illegal, doesn't mean that people will stop doing it. takes a bong hit And on the other hand, if you make it legal, yeah, alright, it means that society sanctions it. But that doesn't mean you HAVE TO get an abortion. It means you have a choice. That's what freedom is all about. What's ironic, is that the town is called Libertyville.

07-31-2007, 12:53 AM	#14 (permalink)
la petite moi Filling the Void. Location: California	sadistik, I was thinking the same thing about the town's name! Hahaha, the irony!

07-31-2007, 02:24 AM	#15 (permalink)
analog Banned	This makes me giggle like an idiot... especially the ones who've been doing it for years and years... and never thought about what a punishment would be for it, were they to get their way. "I'm not prepared to answer questions" - because you're a mindless parrot? Yeah, that sounds about right. "I'm here because God's called me here"... oh... lovely.

07-31-2007, 06:01 PM	#19 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	I don't get it. This is an easy question to answer. If you are to claim abortion is murder, then the punishments for abortion should follow accordingly. What was so hard about that? On another note, why is abortion considered a religious issue? I am very religious but my standpoint on abortion does not derive from religion (maybe Buddhism if anything).

07-31-2007, 08:47 PM	#21 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I would assume that many see it as premeditated infanticide. That could even get the death penalty in some places.