for travelling outside of Utah to get one? They are proposing that doctors and women get fined for it, but would they fine you if you went somewhere else? And how do you feel about fining women and doctors, but not men? If you are for it, do you agree that men have no place in the discussion?
2007-02-22 05:13:31 · 18 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
they have stated that they would levy fines against the woman and the doctor, but not the man. As a Utah senator put it 'if my wife robs a bank, I don't have to go to jail for it'...leaving me to think...'if you were holding the gun you would!'
2007-02-22 05:24:30 · update #1
Yes, I have watched those Maury episodes where a girl will name 13 guys as the father, and none of them are. And on more than one occassion, the girl has been a victim of incest and didn't realize that her brother or father who had been raping her for 15 years could get her pregnant. yeah, I have seen that show.
2007-02-22 05:27:01 · update #2
I know it seems to some of you led by your emotions that I am talking about abortion. I am not, I am asking a question about state laws and how they would implement new laws. Thanks for paying attention
2007-02-22 05:29:16 · update #3
Yes, men have a say in the law, but I am talking about the relevance of a man in the PREGNANCY discussion, and whether or not a man should be involved in THAT decision. Just to clarify
2007-02-22 05:56:00 · update #4
I am very aware of men's abiltiy to make laws...they have ALWAYS been the ones who made them. I wonder how different things would be if women were represented...
2007-02-22 05:56:45 · update #5
YES! Let people with children make those decisiosn concerning education, and STOP TAXING ME TO PAY FOR THAT EDUCATION!
2007-02-22 05:59:08 · update #6
No a states laws end at the states borders
2007-02-22 05:20:14 · answer #1 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That's my problem with it.
If people are going to be totally consistent and follow the law to its logical conclusion, they would have to put into PREVENTIVE DETENTION any woman threatening to leave the state to have an abortion. (If you want to "save a life," what else short of that would do? If it's "murder," treat it like an attempt! You wouldn't let someone leave their house, gun in hand, swearing to kill their neighbor, and just arrest them afterwards!)
If you think Cindy Sheehan got publicity, wait until the first pregnant woman is locked up!!!
If someone's prepared to do that (preventive detention), they have my "respect" for consistency, but I suppose the people shooting women for not wearing veils are "taking a principled stance" too.
If they don't "man up" (excuse the pun) and agree to something less than that, then they are NOT being honest about protecting the unborn, and are therefore hypocites. The mumbo-jumbo about the woman being a victim, etc. is a cop-out.
THAT'S the argument I see for keeping abortion legal - our society can't restrict it much without losing basic freedoms.
I have a HUGE problem with arguments from the pro-choice side which appear to say it's necessary essentially because these people are UNWANTED - all the pro-life thumbs downs I get here will be reversed the next time someone posts a question essentially saying "take care of my baby for me or I'll kill it" - but again where a fetus is not viable the woman has the right to control her body. (Where it IS viable, take it out alive, I say. The mother controls her body; the baby gets to live.)
It's a tough issue; people need to open their hearts and their minds. If everyone disagrees with me, then there must be a degree of truth in what I say.
Life is precious. But we end it all the time when other considerations outweigh it. Self-defense, war, abortion, death penalty, etc. We come out in different places, but we apply the same damned test.
There's my obnoxious sermon, for the umpteenth time. But I happened upon the question. I was hoping to stay away from it because it's very sensitive, and I'm sure I do NOT fully appreciate what people go through, although I try, and I have had my share of "pregnancy scares." I get moody and crabby too, but I try to back off when that happens. I have questions open too. Peace.
PS My emotions did get the best of me. I was giving my opinion on how the law should work, or why it would not. :)
PPS I usually get very impatient with the argument that restrictions on abortion are intended to control or punish women, but this "half way" approach of the statute - and most other restrictive ones - does lend itself to that interpretation. I, PERSONALLY, don't care what men or women do! Do it 'till you can't walk, and turn blue! I have! (A.K., where are you now? I only left you because I was afraid you'd kill me in my sleep!) I wish I were doing it right now! Just don't kill a viable fetus! Maybe I shouldn't care so much. Maybe I shouldn't care if the neighbor kills her newborn either. It doesn't affect ME! But I do. I would hope neither would say "you can't tell me not to unless you are willing to take care of it yourself." Really, are there too many of us already, or is every person precious? On many fronts, we're not doing nearly enough. We're probably the only species that KNOWS it can become extinct; are we ACTING like we know?
If I were being consistent, I would draft the law to punish anyone involved in performing and procuring the abortion. If the father is involved in that, yes, he's aided in the commission of the "crime." Having sex and creating a child is not a crime. I know this is just the answer you are NOT looking for, but no if the father is not involved in the abortion he would not be charged, but the mother would be. This is true in my little hypothetical world for the same reason the mother can choose to terminate a pregnancy and the man has NO legal right to "choose" either way once he's done his part - it's in her body, not his! I'm trying to be consistent. I'm also embarrassed because this is rambling and maybe not making sense.
No, I would not force a woman to gestate a pregnancy against her will. You made your point. Maybe that's all I needed to say! God, I'm a bore!
2007-02-22 05:17:51 · answer #2 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Abortion is the deliberate killing of the weakest and most defenseless among us. What motivates an abortionist? What must they think as they slash and tear a baby apart or plunge a knife into its neck? “A Woman’s Right To Choose”. It’s a free country, and I ask you, how could anyone possibly be against it? I am most definitely in favor of a woman’s right to choose. But there is a problem with it, which nobody seems to notice, and that problem is that when a woman learns that she is pregnant there is another person in existence. Doesn’t that person have the same right to choose? Are we going to say that just a certain privileged class of person has this right to choose to lice or die – and for other people? That doesn’t sound fair. That’s not freedom of choice – that’s tyranny. Certainly the other person is not old enough to vote in an election, but doesn’t that person have the same right to be protected by society as other children are protected? But wait, you say it isn’t really a person, it’s a fetus. A child is a child whether it’s inside or outside the mother, whether it’s one pound or ten pounds. Size doesn’t determine humanity. And just think about it – does it make any sense at all to say a baby inside its mother isn’t human, but the minute it pokes its head out it is? Today, abortion supporters say that it is better for babies to be aborted than to grow up in a home where they are unwanted. Who are they to decide if a life is meaningless? Do they think that they are God? Just because an unborn baby is unwanted today does not mean that he is destined to be unwanted for the rest of his life. But if you still don’t agree, ask you family doctor some very specific questions: At what point is it possible to hear a baby’s heartbeat? When can you fist measure brainwaves? How soon does a baby start to look like a person? If that seems like to much trouble to ask the questions and go to the doctor, than I will say that 6 days after implantation in the uterus the person has developed so rapidly that his heart, brain, spinal column, and nervous system are almost complete; after 8 days the person’s heart has started to beat. Although still very small, this individual has taken control of the pregnancy to try to assure it’s survival – and the mother probably doesn’t even know she is pregnant yet. A child is a human being irregardless of how small or how young, whether inside or outside the mother; and therefore has the right to choose to live. Since young children are unable to express their desire to live, at least until they learn to talk; it is reasonably certain that, like most of the population, they would prefer to live rather than be killed; and should be protected by law and adult population until they become a legal adult at 18.
2016-05-23 23:18:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why not? American pedophiles who travel to Thailand to diddle 8 year-olds are prosecuted under US law, so why couldn't the same theory be applied in this case? A person is leaving Utah with the express intention of committing an act which is illegal in Utah.
As far as your assertion that "men have no place in the discussion" is concerned, I assume you believe that only currently-serving active military personnel have a right to voice an opinion about the war, and only people with children currently attending public schools can legitimately express an opinion on educational matters as well, correct?
2007-02-22 05:43:48 · answer #4 · answered by Rick N 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I do not support the action of Utah, but I do support their right as a State to enact such laws.
The problems with fining women for an out of state abortion is that the State of Utah does not have the authority to regulate commerce outside of its own State. Therefore, any attempt to regulate the commerce of abortion under those circumstances is unconsitutional as its usurps the powers of the Congress in Atrilce 1, Section 8.
If it is an issue of trasporting a minor out of state without permission of both parents, then it is legal in regards to the transporting of a minor, as many states have laws making it illegal to transport minors across state lines without parental presence and consent.
There is nothing wrong with fining doctors, as if they break a law they should be fined. Same goes for the women. Men do have a place in the discussion because we are talking about legislation. Legistaltion is a matter of the people, and men and women both comprise the people. To remove someone from the discussion and voting aspects of public policy based on sex/race/ etc. is to undermine all suffrage movements and betray the very ideals that form women's rights.
The men who approve the abortion are not guilty, but if they pay for the abortion, then they too become accessories to the crime. Simply approving of an illegal action is not warrantable as a crime in of itself, as the court shows in Brandeburg versus Ohio. However, facilitating that crime with delivery of the criminal(s) to the scene, or financing the crime, is itself an accessory charge. Also, failure to disclose the procedure makes one an accessory after-the-fact.
As I said, I do support Utah's right to this legislation, but I do not support the legislation. However, the Federal Courts will overturn the legislation as a violation of Roe versus Wade.
Hope this helps. (BTW, I am pro-life, I just think that Utah's way of going about it in this regard is a poor choice for a battleground).
2007-02-22 05:34:20 · answer #5 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm in favor of fining the doctors and repeat offender should have their medical licenses revoked.
The women will have to live with the decision on their own consciences.
Utah is also a parental notification state, so the possible legal issues may also involve kidnapping, if a teen travels out of state with someone to do this.
2007-02-22 05:40:36 · answer #6 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I just think the state of Utah is taking a stand against abortion and I applaud them for it. I don't think they CAN stop women from going elsewhere.
I think that society has to make it harder for deadbeat Dads to get off the hook paying child support. Garnish wages more.
BUT - it is the responsibility of the woman to at least KNOW who the father is! Do you watch Maury? How many of these promiscuous tramps have no idea who they slept with and then you and I end up paying for their kids! That's not right.
I feel sorry for Dads who do not want to see their child aborted but it is. There are 2 sides to that too.
2007-02-22 05:23:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I'd like to see them justify fining someone for getting an abortion out of state. How will they enforce that? There is no state record of who is pregnant. Are they going to perform womb checks at all state borders? Implant manditory womb monitors on all women?
2007-02-22 05:19:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
That depends how the law is written.
I doubt if it would go to those extremes though.
How on earth would they enforce something like that.
Put it this way, if it is made illegal across the country-would women be punished for going to Canada or Mexico to get one?
2007-02-22 05:17:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Utah thinks they can operate by different rules. I would find it hard to believe with all the other problems they have that they would be able to find time to persecute woman for things they do out of state.
2007-02-22 05:30:35 · answer #10 · answered by ropemancometh 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋