What if we made sexual intercourse, with the intent of getting an abortion in the event of pregnancy, a crime? Theoretically, that would not actually be an infringement on the woman's "bodily rights" to end a pregnancy. Rather it would be punishing an individual for choosing to have sex, in certain situations, when she knew that she was just going to get an abortion if pregnancy resulted. Could a law worded in this way reframe the abortion argument? It's true there are already many types of situations where sex is not legal. And there are already numerous different types of "intent" laws on the books. Somewhat similar to the situation of paedophilia, the woman does not have, and cannot have, the consent of her fetus to be aborted. It is true that the fetus does not exist yet, and rather only exists in the future, but it will exist, and then be killed, as a direct result of what she is doing now, her present actions. Even if a woman should have the right to "bodily autonomy", to not have to continue a pregnancy, that does not mean she should not be punished for what she did--getting pregnant in the first place, when she knew what that could be likely to result in. (If I hypothetically buried a landmine in the sand in a children's playground in a newly built residential community where no children had been born yet, all the people who live there are young childless couples, that would still be evil. Children would eventually be born and then those children would play in the sand and get killed. The point is, the fact that the fetus does not exist yet is irrelevant; it's still wrong to do something that will kill someone who does not yet exist) related hypothetical thought experiment scenario: Does a woman's right to sex outweigh the right of a fetus?
Well, unless there was some specific reason why the woman would want to get an abortion, a reason that did not exist before but then exists later after the pregnancy has begun, then it could be assumed that that was the woman's intent all along in the first place, to do that if she got pregnant. And there is always a lie detector test or the truth serum for cases where the authorities are not sure. (Like if they're pretty sure she's guilty but just want a little more evidence and certainty) Men could be punished under this law too, if they were later found to have been trying to coerce a woman into abortion, or if the biological father is aiding or abetting in the abortion. (Kind of proves he already had abortion in mind when he had sex with her)
I dunno if you can punish off of assumption. Innocent till proven guilty. While I agree with the premise, I don't see this happening. I would like to see some sort of punishment on repeat offenders abusing the abortion process. Maybe tubes tied?
Yes you can. Look up how intent laws work. (Obviously no one can ever read minds, but they can still use evidence to try to determine likely intent) A lot of this would be circumstantial.
Even if you could somehow prove this intent, how many people out there do you think are having sex with the specific intent of getting pregnant so they can have an abortion? Do you think abortions are a pleasurable experience or something?
I don't think that's what he meant. More that if somebody has sex, and knows that they would choose abortion in the event of pregnancy, then that sex would be illegal. Basically, all heterosexual sex in reproductively-intact people must be open to the possibility of allowing procreation. It's sort of like the catholic church approach to sex, right? lol. I don't think it would change behavior much and would mostly decrease respect for the law. The bottom line is still the same issue for me. Not a person until it has a mind, and so needs no rights until then. And pressuring people to go through pregnancies they don't really want may cause problems of its own even beyond violating the mother's rights. But I enjoy the out-of-the-box thinking.
What an absurd fantasyland! The very idea that the natural state of humans is pure chastity is just plain ridiculous. Women can become pregnant regardless of what is done to lower the odds of that happening. This whole direction is just a flat out denial of our species - psychologically, sociologically, biologically, morally, in terms of engineering, in terms of personal physical protection, and every other way.
Amen. Old white men, thinking that there position in government means they can impose their religious beliefs on women, regardless of medical necessity.
That's mostly in your imagination. That you think it this is coming from specifically men, or that you think the arguments are mostly just religious. We've discussed this before. Why repeat the same tired old debunked tropes? Well, the natural state of women is reproductive. There are various other ways she can have sex that do not have any risk of pregnancy. (other options do exist. we've discussed them before)
I don't even slightly agree with your first paragraph. And, your last paragraph is just a denial of sexuality that may work for you, but is a ridiculous notion and totally inappropriate as a justification for imposing laws against women.
Would you agree that there are situations where individuals are expected by society to control their sexual impulses, and if they do not, they are punished? Now, are you willing to concede that people have other options, several possible ways to be able to satisfy the sexual drive that do not carry any risk of pregnancy? Pro-lifers are not even telling women they can't have sex. Just that if they choose to have sex a particular way, they need to be willing to accept a small risk of carrying a pregnancy. Is that too unnatural or unreasonable? Especially when we are talking about moderate pro-lifers that would still allow a woman to get an abortion provided she catches it early enough.
Yes. You are being grossly unreasonable with your proscriptions on sex. Then, you want to pretend this is about some you call moderates. But, those working on laws against abortions are showing NO interest in reasonable windows where abortion would be legal. Plus, they are ignoring cases of rape, incest and healthcare. You need to consider the real world.
an abortion is not a sexual impulse... THANK YOU for once again saying banning abortion and forcing women to gestate IS PUNISHMENT! YES! That's not moderate, that's "control freaks".....
That's why what this proposal actually criminalizes would not be the specific act of abortion itself. Rather, abortion would be taken as evidence for an earlier frame of mind.
How about if there is a record that the woman went to a sperm bank, or used the services of an in-vitro fertilization clinic? That would show that she did clearly intend pregnancy. Does everyone still think she has the right to change her mind for non-valid reasons?
You keep coming up with situations that are more and more absurd. And, then you admit that there could still be valid reasons. Do you really think legislatures can account for all these crazy ideas as they plan out how to control women's healthcare? That certainly hasn't been the case in the past, as Republican laws on "late term" abortion have even failed to consider the very life of the woman. Yet, now you want the legislature to spell out for prosecutors how to guess the intentions of women who become pregnant??? What would THAT legal text look like?
What if we made a man’s failure to wear a condom a crime because that would be a clear sign of wanting a woman to get pregnant which led to a subsequent abortion, so really the man’s fault. I hope you get this point and stop starting senseless threads.
That's what I already brought up in my second post. If a man is pressuring or coercing a woman into getting an abortion, or aiding and abetting the female to get the procedure, then he could be punished for the sex (which led to that abortion) too. Of course, otherwise the man gets the benefit of the doubt because we have to assume he might not have been planning or wanting to push for the abortion in the event of pregnancy. If a man wants to have sex and is willing to take responsibility in the event of pregnancy, there's nothing inherently so wrong about that. (Although this is one of the reasons sex outside of marriage was once illegal, or the man would face threats of physical violence from the young woman's family members if he did not marry her)
I am not referring to that. I am saying if a man doesn’t wear a condom, he should be held accountable if a woman gets pregnant .
He is. It's called child support laws. Or you mean he should be held accountable for the woman's choice even if she chooses abortion and he has no control over that? (Oh, and by the way, I think your logic here can be used as just one more argument in favor of why prostitution should be illegal)
