What was the penalty in 1972 and prior?

Abortion is premeditated, so it would depend on the state law for murder regarding that modus opperandi. And if premeditated, there would also be sentence for the accomplices in the crime.

And corporations fought very hard in the 1960s against having to do that.

Here in NYC, places like Starbucks and movie theaters are required to list the calories on what they sell. I know it's really affected what I buy. Eight hundred calories for a lousy dish of movie nachos? Fuggedaboutit.

Yeah, but New York says that you can't make that decision. They don't trust you to make that decision. You're thinking in terms of having complete information to make the decision with, which is certainly a reasonable way to look at it.

They've already decided that "they know what's best for you."

I'm asking you what you think is an appropriate punishment for women who obtain abortions. If you were in the State legislature, what would you propose for these women?

12 a year from first menstration to last. 40 years? 480 total.

Abortion is the law as is the right to own arms. How many or how often is nobody else's business. However likewise paying or financing is also nobody else's business.

yeah, they still fight it because they try to get away with using small serving sizes to fool people. it's appalling when you read some labels and realize what you're eating.
tony and i were on vacation, and spent a few days at disney world (i do NOT recommend anyone go there, it is a horrible, horrible place)...we each got a pretzel and cheese dip as a snack. i took a bite, and all i could taste was salt. looked at the cheese cup label-that cheese had 20% of your sodium intake for the day. ugh!


and liquor doesn't have labels-for now.

No, Bloomberg is proposing restricting the size of soda beverage a company may sell. There is no restriction on how much soda a person may drink, only that they may have to make the decision to go back for seconds, thirds, fourths.

Please google "Hyde Amendment." It should put to rest your fears that you are paying for abortions.

I'm not an attorney, so if I was a PART of the legislature, I would research the law on what fits if abortion loses its current exception status with regard to murder.

As a committee in the legislature, we'd have to come up with a law that fits in terms of sentencing, deterrence, and prevention of the illegal activity in the first place. That vote wouldn't be taken overnight, and I'm not about to pen that new law here either.

Logic says that it is premeditated because it requires hiring a professional to do it.

In the '60s they were against even listing ingredients.

I'm with you about Disney. Everything is very clean, very well designed and very fake.

Not quite the same. The right to bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution and explicitly stated. Abortion is "deemed" a right because a majority of Justices in 1973 found a "right to privacy" that was not written down in the Constitution, and used that as a basis for another unwritten right.

Also, abortion cannot be used in self-defense like a firearm can. 200 million plus firearms in the country and only the smallest fraction is ever used in a crime.

Every abortion means that a life was snuffed out - many of us see that as murder, regardless of the age of the victim, and regardless that there were no witnesses except the doctor who killed the victim.

All I'm doing is asking your opinion. What do you think is an appropriate punishment? You must have a ballpark idea, seeing as how you are so clear that you think it's murder. So, what IN YOUR OPINION is an appropriate sentence for a woman who obtains an abortion?

Yeah - they are restricting the size of the soda to be sold, so that you as a consumer do not have the option of selecting a larger size.

It does matter for the "on the go purchase". If you wanted a nice big soda for a long car ride, to fit in one cupholder, to have one large amount of ice to keep it cold, and even carry it to your car with one hand, you don't have that option.

Well, you'd have to find something to compare it to. So, in a typical abortion scenario - where the fetus is dismembered and flushed out, or sucked out by vaccuum and ground up -either way, this is a murder with dismemberment of the body. That's a violent act. It's also premeditated.

Compare it to the same crime if the victim was an adult - mafia style hitman, hired by someone who wants the victim dead. The hitman did the chopping up of the body and disposal. He was also paid. But the crime would not have occurred had he not been hired by the person who wanted the murder to happen.

The answer to your question depends on the relationship of both accused parties to the crime. Do we give the hiring person the same sentence as the hitman? Is the hirer an accomplice, but the hitman the prime perpetrator?

My answer would lie along those lines - the sentence must be equivalent to what is done in other similar murders - not more harsh, but not lighter in sentence either.

Google Cook County Hospital abortion costs. There's a shortfall somewhere.

No. There are legal limits on when abortions can be performed. And taxpayer dollars don't pay for any of it.

"If I wanted the government in my vagina, I'd screw a Senator".

Isn't the punishment being legally responsible for 18 years of emotional and financial expense you didn't want? Bet that's a great life for that unwanted, unplanned child!

Of course, the anti-abortion folks don't care about fetuses once they breath oxygen, and they sure as hell don't want any financial support to the mother and child after the kid is born.

Thinking sex is only for procreation is ridiculous. And the new, "no birth control for you, either!" bullshi.a.t by those that want to own women and keep them barefoot, pregnant and dependent - well, that's not gonna work, fellas.

Ronald Reagan would be a flaming liberal in todays Republican party.

The size of beer bottles, the volume of alcohol that can be served in "one serving" in bars, etc. is very heavily controlled in some jurisdictions.

Alot of death and infection from back street abortions.

Get used to this reality, Joey: I have no right to force you to take an unwanted child that needs a father as a random result of you having sex. You have no right to force a woman to abort a child. And you have no right to force women to bear a child.

You don't want women to have abortions? Then I suggest you always wear condoms, you start adopting babies like mad, and you start providing free birth control to every girl over the age of 12.

:zz: No they don't. That information is already there on the freaking bottles, Joey. Federal edict: basic nutritional information has to be available. Oh, and in restaurants, too. The horrible, nasty federales. Taking your freedomz. While you eagerly take away other people's. Heh.

So there is no limit on the number of first trimester abortions (or executions) that can be carried out? That's what I said - you can abort as many babies as you want (every baby has a first trimester), but you can't get a soda larger than 16 oz in New York City.

And what about GenuineRisk's pointing out that the money must be coming from somewhere if they are not collecting the revenue from the woman to pay for it?

As long as I'm not paying for the consequences, and nobody dies as a result, I don't care you screw.

This is one of the problems with liberals: they confuse responsibility with punishment.

Whose fault is it that the child is unplanned and unwanted?

It's not up to the pro-life people to manage the situation of the irresponsible people who get pregnant without a contingency plan for becoming a parent.

Sex is not just for procreation of course - but it does always have the risk of it resulting in that. If you cannot accept the risk, don't engage in the behavior. It's that simple.

If you cannot accept the risk, however small, of a car accident, do not ride in a car as driver or passenger. If you cannot accept the risk of a loss of capital, do not invest in the stock market. If you cannot accept the risk of losing a football game, do not play for the team.

This is only "confusing" because people are letting their loins do the thinking.

Take precautions - minimize the risk - but realize that no precaution is perfect, and in light of that should a pregnancy occur, affirm that you will not murder, and instead your life will take a different course. That is the risk.

Yes, that's a state or local level ordinance thing. But it hasn't reached the nuisance level did. I said the "shot glass" rule because Bloomberg's way of thinking can be applied anywhere, arbitrarily, and result in a nuisance for the customer.

Government ought not be promoting nuisance laws. He should have better things to do, like making sure New York City operates on a surplus and not a debt. If he did that already, great. I confess that I don't know the exact state of NYC's budget this year.

There should be a lot of risks in carrying out a murder, don't you think? And those risks should deter the act.

I don't have to start "adopting babies like mad". Get used to this reality - when the social "safety net" (that has been instead a hammock for many people) breaks, we will return to the true nature of things, where each person bears the consequence for their own actions and is forced to take responsibility since they can't shift it elsewhere.

That is reality. The social spending and the loophole allowing for legal murder only by expectant mothers is the fabrication, the artificial state of affairs.

You've got this bass ackwards.

I know it's there. I was responding to Danzig who thought that even more info could be posted there.

:tro::tro:

Somehow not included in this, they outstrip soda calories by a big margin with their drinks.

I heard initially that it was to also apply to the 20 oz "Venti" coffee size @ Starbucks. But then the stories coming out just highlighted soda.

The thing is - I for instance don't put sugar in my coffee at all - but why would Starbucks continue to carry 20 oz cups at all if the majority of the time the law would not allow them to be used because of the sugar content?

So I would be "participating" in the ban as well, even though 20 oz of black coffee still has zero calories.

it removed government intervention, but nice try. and i'm figuring you're also in favor of the all the limits placed by govt since then (waiting limits, ultrasounds, etc)-you never answered the question i asked, which tells me all i need to know.

separation of church and state is also not explicitly stated.

and many do see it as murder, but many others do not. and much like having the right to bear arms, you don't have to actively participate in a right given you.
so, joey, don't have any abortions. you have every right to your opinions. you do not however have the right to dictate to others based on your opinions. and that's exactly what the supreme court ruled back than. i know many want to have full control over women, but i guess they just don't have that right.

The intervention of the Supreme Court ruling has not been undone - unfortunately for the 40 million plus victims.

Separation of church and state is not an element of the Constitution per se - it comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. Of course nearly all of us agree with that principle.

However, the definition of when life begins is as much an element of science as it is of religion, and conservatism (NOT political conservatism - but just the reserve that goes along with making an important and irrevocable decision) dictates that if there is the slightest possibility that this is a murder, it should not be done. Period.

http://www.starbucks.com/menu/drinks...hocolate-mocha
500 calories per 16oz. I believe I will have a Coke.

you're dodging the question, because you don't want to concede you agree completely with every tactic used to thwart something you personally don't agree with.
the supreme court ruled that it's a right to privacy, and i agree with them. it's none of your business. no one is saying people should agree with the ruling, or that you can't hold your opinion. you have every right to it-but your right to your beliefs doesn't grant you leave to force others to follow your opinions.

i know full well where church and state is found-that was my point. it's not explicitly listed in the constitution, along with a lot of other things.

as for when life begins, no one has answered that question. it's your opinion of when it begins, just like i have mine, and others have theirs. i don't want policy like that set based on feeling, emotion or opinion.
don't agree that it should be done, don't do it.

and joey, i'm not trying to get you to change your mind-that would be impossible.
rather, you just need to understand that not everyone sees things the same way as you.