Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
How much jail time should women get for abortions??
msnbc.msn.com — When demonstrators who want abortion criminalized were asked 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.
Alexa42- 23 diggs
- digg it
- johnnick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Interesting article. Just wish it included the link to the video. Searching on YouTube for "abortion penalty" doesn't turn it up, nor does "abortion criminal" (although both find a LOT of other scary things).
- Alexa42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I found the link at YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnPIWqdfBug
enjoy...- knde, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I am utterly stunned, that the best response from people who have actively campaigned against abortions for years is;
"I've never really thought about it" / "I don't know" / "It's up to God" / "I'm not sure" etc In regards to a suitable punishment, were abortions to be made illegal.
Some of them have been doing this for at least 5 years and they have NEVER thought about it! Wow!
- knde, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I am utterly stunned, that the best response from people who have actively campaigned against abortions for years is;
- steamer25, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1The same as a woman who kills her newborn child.
- cquinnd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Then would that be the same for a woman who has a miscarriage?
- steamer25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, prosecution would have to demonstrate intent.
- jazzberry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0so the penalty for miscarriage would be the same as involuntary manslaughter.
or at the very least, depraved indifference.
good to know.
- jazzberry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0so the penalty for miscarriage would be the same as involuntary manslaughter.
- npsken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Death of natural causes never got anybody any jail time.
- steamer25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, prosecution would have to demonstrate intent.
- TCommonSenseM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why? Where do you then draw the line? At the stage where it's a fertilized egg, it's wrong? After the first trimester? Where does the line get drawn?
- steamer25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Good question. My understanding is that with current medical technology, an unborn child would be capable of surviving outside the womb as early as 20 weeks along. Certainly at this point the child should be considered an individual human with the same constitutional right to life that you and I enjoy. Earlier than that, it starts getting fuzzy (E.g., a women only 12 weeks pregnant doesn't know and goes out binge drinking--inducing a miscarriage/whatever...). In the first trimester I think it would be particularly important to establish intent before sentencing the mother but I also think that cultivating a respect for human life is important. I think it's reasonable to extend societal protection of children all the way to conception--specifically because we don't know where else to draw the line. Again, current medical technology validates the humanness of a 20 week old unborn child. What if in two years we can save 15 week olds? In the mean time is it okay to include 15-20 week olds in the less-than-human-and-okay-to-kill group?
- cquinnd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Then would that be the same for a woman who has a miscarriage?
- TCommonSenseM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Very very interesting
- Eliza101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo
(Alexa42's is no longer up) - Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The simple answer is none. The fact that the protesters have failed in their struggle to rationalise this is all the more reason not to listen to people with billboards in the first place and to make your own mind up.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by