A jury would make a decision based upon evidence in the case of a crime committed. If Roe v. Wade says society cannot intervene in private reproductive choices, the public funding thereof violates Roe v. Wade. Many courts are already unlawfully deciding that blanket permission is granted for public involvement through public funding. (This also raises the issue, as I stated earlier, of judicial complicity in the destruction of evidence in a felony.)
Rape, incest, or molestation are not sexual behaviors. They are felonies. The age of consent in most states is 18. You did not consider the entirety of what I said. Straw man arguments.
-
(2) That system would give the incentive to women to lie and claim that they were raped. And that could lead to unfair punishment of the men involved.
The "men" and the women should both be accountable. I am not making morality calls. I think it is time "men" start treating women with respect. I'm a man and I like women just as much as any other. But because some other guy is a whoremonger and hooks up with some skank, it is not my problem if he makes poor choices in his sexual partner(s). I care not to share responsibility for another man's penis, I have enough responsibility dealing with my own. The idea that hooking up with some untrustworthy slut (who can be jailed for false accusations) is somehow an incentive, is not addressing the issues I raised. Red herrings.
If a woman were to falsely accuse, this also is a felony and should be investigated. I don't think it is unfair to ask "men" to be accountable. I also don't think it is unfair to ask women to be accountable.
-
(3) While the pregnant woman is awaiting the trial or hearing, the "unborn" is continuing to develop.
I did use the words immediate trial. I'm not willing to accept the lazy judiciary syndrome. These folks make a lot of money, you and I pay them taxes. What I am talking about is an immediate decision. These two and three hour lawyer lunches are costing me a lot of money.
The taking of a human life is a most serious matter and should be carefully considered, especially if it involves negligence and/or crimminality (i.e., rape, incest, statutory rape, parental neglect, or juvenile delinquency).
-
Above are just a few of the complications that I would predict if the courts made the decision for each woman individually.
The courts are already involved. Being a woman is not an excuse for making poor choices, neither is being a man. When public money or crime is involved, this becomes a public matter. It is also a public matter when we talk about taking a human life.
-
As a side note, I'd like to point out that a court making decisions based on a woman's sexual behavior is basing the system on "morals".
No, I am talking about both women and men, logic and the law. The ethereal emotional ideals, esotric hobgoblins, and man made morals...
"are the images which are originally and most properly called ideas and idols, and derived from the language of the Grecians, with whom the word eido signifieth to see. They are also called phantasms, which is in the same language, apparitions. And from these images it is that one of the faculties of man's nature is called the imagination. And from hence it is manifest that there neither is, nor can be, any image made of a thing invisible." (Hobbes)
Aristotle's pathos in Poetics, Plato's eternal forms, Hobbes' phantastical images, Kierkegaard's despair, and numerous other concepts are directly related to the topic of "morals" as an ethereal creation of man, a practice of idolatry or an esoteric quantity.
But, Sir Francis, juries do not make decisions based on popular opinion; rather, their decisions are based on the law. Thus, under your proposed system, the government (state or federal) would have to establish and enforce laws permitting pregnant women to obtain abortions based only on certain circumstances. (I'm sure you wouldn't want a jury making arbitrary moral decisions without consideration of law).
the public funding thereof violates Roe v. Wade.
I agree. We should stop public funding.
Rape, incest, or molestation are not sexual behaviors. They are felonies. The age of consent in most states is 18. You did not consider the entirety of what I said. Straw man arguments.
I never suggested that rape or incest were "sexual behaviors". Yes, rape and incest are felonies but are not crimes committed by the "unborn". So, if you believe that human life should be protected from the point of mitosis, why punish a baby who is the innocent victim of a crime? The baby conceived through the crime of rape or incest will develop at the same pace as the baby conceived through willing sexual intercourse. So, why the special exceptions granted to women who are victims of rape or incest? The only reason I can see is to punish the other women, the ones who conceive through willing sexual relations. That, essentially, is what the government would be doing under your proposal.
No, I am talking about both women and men, logic and the law. The ethereal emotional ideals, esotric hobgoblins, and man made morals...
You claim to base your position on "law and logic" only, but they are based on morals: (1) You are making a moral decision when you propose that all human life should be protected from the point of mitosis; (2) you're making a moral decision when you permit some women to end those "lives" if they are either minors or victims of rape or incest. There are many "emotional ideals" in your proposal. Face up to it, my friend. ;)