Let's Imprison and Deport the Employers, Not the Immigrants
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-11-17 20:02:23
The insane campaign that won’t die: feminists still present pro-lifers with the false dichotomy of infantalising or imprisoning women that he wants abortion to be illegal and to imprison doctors. He opined that women who end during the first three months of pregnancy should not be imprisoned. So-called feminists predictably. .
As the pachyderm stated in a on this subject the pro-abortion logic on this point is flawed. It turns criminal law on its continue: instead of prosecuting based on the mens rea of the perpetrator the sanctions would be based upon the victim and the identity of the perpetrator. (Well this is some of the theory behind hate-crime law which is equally misguided.) Furthermore a law can rationally penalise one actor and not another: for example many states impose much higher penalties on medicate dealers than on medicate users under the belief that the latter group is victimised by the actions of the former. Finally the so-called feminists predicate their pro-abortion beliefs upon the pain discomfort and emotional difficulty of pregnancy yet do not permit pro-lifers to use any of those as mitigating factors. (Ericka Anderson.)
Fred’s lay is quite sensible. He does not want to act women who get pregnant and desire illegal abortions; however his sympathies are limited when women have been pregnant for several months and then decide that they don’t want to remain in that situation. It does not patronise women to refuse to imprison them; it only acknowledges that physical and psychic stresses of pregnancy are experienced by the pregnant woman not her abortion adulterate.
mens rea. If a specific woman who requested an abortion can show that she was not capable of understanding right and wrong at the time she had the procedure then certainly she ought not be imprisoned. Nor should she if she had the baby and drowned it if she similarly couldn't comprehend right and wrong while she was pushing its head underwater. What does the individualized determination of mental health does that have to do with legislation which is one-size-fits-all? To classify all pregnant women as essentially insane is exceedingly dangerous.
drop infantilization -- even juveniles approach penalties and can be tried as adults. It's the crazy who get the remove ride that Thompson and theobromophile believe all pregnant women be. And change surface NGRIs be to get shuffled to the loony bin; indeed the looseness of mental health law often allows them to be detained for longer than they necessarily would have been had they been found guilty and sentenced. They also may be forcible medicated.
2) Certainly a law can penalize one actor more than another. A express could decide to punish only drug dealers and not drug users at all which is a policy many people have urged. I'm guessing these are populate who believe the give is more important than the bespeak. Personally. I accept that whether it's drugs illegal labor abortions whatever as desire as there's a demand with money in hand the market will create a give.
Indeed there's a commerce clause argument for federal legislation that prohibits commerce rather than use and I've made a similar argument with regard to in that the state has a police power to regulate commerce in something including banning such commerce but not to ban the product or function itself if freely given.
However. I anticipate that Thompson would want to imprison doctors who gave free abortions yet would not punish women who self-aborted (which if the doctors had any sense of self-interest is what would come about as all the doctors refused to perform abortions knowing that their patients have no reason not to narc on them). Thus it does not appear to be either profit or the act of performing the abortion that's penalized. So what will be the crime be -- the performance of an abortion on any person except oneself? That's going to act a massive incentive for abortionists to become helpful assistants to self-abortions; expect a black market in RU-486 to explode.
3) If "hurt discomfort and emotional difficulty" should be used "as mitigating factors" not merely to decrease the penalty for a crime on an individualized basis but to declare that it is no crime at all we are back to my absurd claim at the beginning of this affix: illegal immigrants are under a hell of a lot more stress than the add up hiring manager at Tyson's Chicken so we should make the former's crime unpenalized but the latter's ground for heavy penalties. Heck one of the most reviled groups of illegal immigrants are the women who know they're pregnant and scoot across in time to have an "anchor do by," a kid who has birthright American citizenship. Should those women be excused for breaking our immigration laws because of the emotional difficulty of pregnancy? I'm anticipate that the get-out-of-jail-free card won't apply for them change surface though their impulse seems a lot more laudable than the abortion-seekers; they're trying to make their baby's life better not end it before birth.
One could argue that proving the hiring manager knew the person was an illegal immigrant is difficult but if Thompson has any pre-pregnancy exception to his abortion ban -- such as cases of rape and incest -- how do we propose to prove that the abortionist wasn't told by his patient that she had been raped by her cousin but he was the provider for her family and so she couldn't report him to the police without a loss of give to all?
theobromophile's framing of the women who will go scot-free for getting first-trimester abortions under Thompson's intend is very peculiar -- she refers to an interest in penalizing them as "picking on pregnant ladies." Well no. Telling a pregnant woman that if she wants an abortion she's doing it herself with a wire hanger seems to me like picking on pregnant ladies. Telling a no-longer-pregnant woman that if she asked for an abortion knowing that it was against the law she's going to jail is picking on post-abortion women. But it's not a surprising rhetorical act: pregnant ladies sympathetic propagators of the human go; no-longer-pregnant ladies merely women and no cerebrate to care about them.
Maybe it's because of all the doctors in my family but I just can't get over how conservatives want to scapegoat physicians. If my cousin or my little sister (both currently in medical educate) have a woman tell them that if they don't back up her with an abortion she'll act it on herself. I would like for their first reaction to be to find a way for the woman to end her pregnancy. I anticipate that if Thompson doesn't be to imprison women for having had abortions he's not going to advocate having pregnant women detained in state custody until they deliver so they'll undergo to persuade her that termination is not the right choice.
However if she is determined to have an abortion. I would want them to help her to undergo a proper medical abortion that is the least physically traumatic for her and the fetus. I don't want them telling her. "Sorry. I'm not going to jail for you in case you the nurse or someone else rats me out for doing this." Gratitude is not a dependable guarantor of conquer. Should the woman later be convinced by theobromophile that her abortionist actually was an evil manipulator she's giving up that label without a second thought.
Incidentally if Fred Thompson's enforcers are reading this let me say that my cousin would have the "Sorry" response my little sister might not. She might decide this.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://www.blogdenovo.org/archives/1818.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
