Modest ProposalsupercansadoFebruary 5 2009, 16:54:08 UTC
Yes, I think the main split is that we disagree on the basic argument on the topic.
Regardless, I'm glad that I asked about it because it makes clear your position. In that light, I'd like to propose a better solution.
In studies on crime, one theorist, Beccaria, came up with the concept that the reason punishment doesn't work is that there is no consistent correlation between crime and punishment that the offender can rely upon. If he or she knew the punishment, then to commit the act would be a logical decision where the offender knew he or she would have to accept the resulting punishment. This would all but erase crime.
So I'm wondering, under your system/the Bush system, is the problem that there is only the chance of risk in getting an abortion, rather than a clear payment or sacrifice that must be made/paid for an abortion. Your method is arbitrary and therefore doesn't deter behavior in the desired manner.
What if, instead, you made abortions as safe as possible, but you cut off a finger of the woman having an abortion. That way the punishment would be consistent and logical. Also, (this is the part that I really like) there is some public shame involved since it would be read as a clear symbol of a sin committed.
In this sense, this reform on abortion is kinder and gentler because a woman's life is not a risk.
ImModest Proposal1_peach_2_peachFebruary 6 2009, 22:46:07 UTC
Ha! Would that only be 10, or would you just not be found out anymore?
That's an interesting theory by Beccaria--one I'd like to know more about. Is he (or she?) saying that no punishment works because there is always a chance you won't get caught? I wonder what he thinks the goal(s) of punishment is (or are) and how success is to be measured. I'm not really going that far--trying to make the deterrent/punishment as painful, efficient, and universal as possible--I'm just saying that the risk that naturally exists is a healthy, important deterrent. I acknowledge that those kinds of risks don't stop everyone, though. I just watched a couple of video clips of idiots rollerblading off of rooftops and into traffic, etc., so I admit common sense doesn't work on everyone.
As for me, I'm not suggesting that we prosecute (or persecute) women who have abortions. If abortion became illegal, then I'd be all for some kind of punishment, but I don't know exactly what that would be at this point. Let's leave the amputation to the Muslims. What do you say we just give them each a donut as they leave the doctor's office, and send them some pictures in a couple of days?
Regardless, I'm glad that I asked about it because it makes clear your position. In that light, I'd like to propose a better solution.
In studies on crime, one theorist, Beccaria, came up with the concept that the reason punishment doesn't work is that there is no consistent correlation between crime and punishment that the offender can rely upon. If he or she knew the punishment, then to commit the act would be a logical decision where the offender knew he or she would have to accept the resulting punishment. This would all but erase crime.
So I'm wondering, under your system/the Bush system, is the problem that there is only the chance of risk in getting an abortion, rather than a clear payment or sacrifice that must be made/paid for an abortion. Your method is arbitrary and therefore doesn't deter behavior in the desired manner.
What if, instead, you made abortions as safe as possible, but you cut off a finger of the woman having an abortion. That way the punishment would be consistent and logical. Also, (this is the part that I really like) there is some public shame involved since it would be read as a clear symbol of a sin committed.
In this sense, this reform on abortion is kinder and gentler because a woman's life is not a risk.
Also, the woman could only have 10 abortions.
Reply
That's an interesting theory by Beccaria--one I'd like to know more about. Is he (or she?) saying that no punishment works because there is always a chance you won't get caught? I wonder what he thinks the goal(s) of punishment is (or are) and how success is to be measured. I'm not really going that far--trying to make the deterrent/punishment as painful, efficient, and universal as possible--I'm just saying that the risk that naturally exists is a healthy, important deterrent. I acknowledge that those kinds of risks don't stop everyone, though. I just watched a couple of video clips of idiots rollerblading off of rooftops and into traffic, etc., so I admit common sense doesn't work on everyone.
As for me, I'm not suggesting that we prosecute (or persecute) women who have abortions. If abortion became illegal, then I'd be all for some kind of punishment, but I don't know exactly what that would be at this point. Let's leave the amputation to the Muslims. What do you say we just give them each a donut as they leave the doctor's office, and send them some pictures in a couple of days?
Reply
Leave a comment