From the information I gather here.....
People who molest children should be castrated or hung and not be allowed even around children.
BUT
Women who murder their own children (not abortion) should not have their rights taken away to have more children that they could possibly murder in the future?
How does that make sense?
2006-11-30 06:37:28 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ABORTION
2006-11-30 06:49:10 · update #1
No, that doesn't sound right. A woman who kills her own children should not have the right to reproduce again. Just like a molester should never be allowed the opportunity to molest again.
2006-11-30 06:49:27 · answer #1 · answered by Chris J 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hope I make sense. I hate the idea of abortions, I hate that it happens. I hate that a situation can occur where a woman feels a need for an abortion. But I am uncomfortable in being part of legislation that would make every abortion illegal as well. I have a pal, whose daughter became pregnant at age 17. A baby having a baby, so to speak. He gave her the money to have an abortion with the view that she was too young to raise a child, not mature enough to care for herself as well as a child. And that she would most likely end up not being able to support herself and this child to come, in a way that would insure the child had as good a life as possible. He is no wealthy guy and his ability to contribute is limited. This is a terribly difficult issue to find answers for and doubtful any 3 people can agree on it.
On a side note, it annoys me that a married or attached woman is able to freely have the child aborted, yet, for a man to have an out-patient vasectomy has to has a signature from his wife. Seems like another double standard to em. Anyway..my 2 cents.
2006-11-30 06:47:32 · answer #2 · answered by Rich B 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That is because we have a fundamental constitutional right to control our reproduction. Maybe men who molest children (and over 90% of them are men) SHOULD be castrated, but in this country that constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. I do not believe that there are currently any states that allow castration for convicted child molesters. I think the convict can request castration.
Furthermore, taking women's rights away to have babies is very intrusive physically and has other dangerous health implications related to cancer, hormones and aging. No one has even suggested castration for men that kill their children and they are more likely to commit these types of violent crimes. Women who kill typically kill their romantic partners - not their children. Should we plug up their vaginae to prevent them from getting involved in the future?
Finally, women killing their children is not quite the rampantly occurring event it has been made out to be. It occurs, but not very frequently - it just happens to be reported and sensationalized when it occurs because it is so shocking and heinous.
2006-11-30 08:08:38 · answer #3 · answered by Tara P 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It sounds like you are arguing against the 'Scarlett Letter'.
You're right! It's either across the board or not at all.
2006-11-30 09:27:43 · answer #4 · answered by wjscottjones 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope, there are a lot of mixed up folks out there.
2006-11-30 06:51:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't make sense.
2006-11-30 06:43:33 · answer #6 · answered by Gustav 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋