Gay Patriot Header Image

Why are homicide laws different for women & men?

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 8:16 pm - August 4, 2013.
Filed under: Abortion, aborting gays,Social Issues

Consider the following:

In each example, the men certainly deserve charges/punishment for other reasons; namely, for crimes of fraud, assault, kidnapping or rape.

But murder? In each case, the murder charge arose from the man having aborted his fetus (that is, the fetus created from his genes). Is that just? In each example, if the woman had aborted her fetus, she would not be charged with murder.

Why is it a crime of homicide when the father terminates the fetus, but not when the mother does? Why should the same action (killing the fetus) be a crime, or not, depending on who (which parent) did it?

If the variant were race – If we claimed, for example, that the killing of a black person is somehow not murder, when “who did it” happens to be a white person – then Bob Dylan would write protest songs about the inequality…and rightly so.

Please note, I am not expressing a stand on the above questions. I am asking them, inspired by Bruce’s re-tweet from Matthew H, “…men do not have the same rights as women. We can’t kill & call it ‘health choices’.” The tweet is correct. And why should that situation be? Has the pro-choice movement created a ‘female privilege’, a dangerous new form of legal inequality?

Share

46 Comments

  1. Feminism.

    And it’s not just in killing the baby that men face harsher sentences.

    A man can kill an already born person and get the harshest sentence. A woman can kill the same person in the same fashion and get a lighter sentence.

    Comment by Paul — August 4, 2013 @ 11:15 pm - August 4, 2013

  2. Apparently, what makes a fetus human is entirely based on whether or not its mother wants it to be born. That makes perfect sense.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — August 5, 2013 @ 1:02 am - August 5, 2013

  3. 2 – that’s the answer there in a nutshell.

    Comment by Kevin — August 5, 2013 @ 2:04 am - August 5, 2013

  4. So Kevin – in your liberal world, women should be superior before the law? Not just equal before the law, but having legal powers to kill that men don’t have?

    That’s a pretty dark vision.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 5, 2013 @ 3:42 am - August 5, 2013

  5. A man can kill an already born person and get the harshest sentence. A woman can kill the same person in the same fashion and get a lighter sentence.

    Sometimes, but not always. There are still places (in the USA; not just in extremely warm countries where both men & women wear very long clothing) where if a man kills his wife, the prevailing community view is that the b*tch musta done something to deserve it; but if a woman kills her abusive husband, she’s an ungrateful c*nt who didn’t realize what a good thing she had going.

    Comment by RSG — August 5, 2013 @ 4:52 am - August 5, 2013

  6. That’s because according to Kevin and the rest of the radical libtards, women shouldn’t be “punished” with a baby.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 5, 2013 @ 8:33 am - August 5, 2013

  7. Not just equal before the law, but having legal powers to kill that men don’t have?

    Women have plumbing that men don’t have. Carrying the fetus inside a womb is different than not. The law and justice system(s), however imperfect, recognize this. I’ve long argued that the pro-choice and latter-day Malthusians make an unholy alliance by supporting China’s one child policy of forced abortions; being pro-choice means that the mother has the choice to abort. If a father or other male were following the mother’s wishes to facilitate her abortion, then the state should prosecute both according to fetal status at the time. If the male is forcing the abortion of a mother’s fetus against her will (the killing of a wanted fetus), then the charge of murder is appropriate.

    Another angle is the abortion industry: why let some ne’er-do-well father perform the procedure, a procedure that in the aggregate rakes in millions of political dollars and thus is part of sacred liberal turf? Besides, do you really think Planned Parenthood wants everyone to have access to birth control when so much money is gained from unplanned parenthood?

    Comment by Ignatius — August 5, 2013 @ 10:10 am - August 5, 2013

  8. Women have plumbing that men don’t have. Carrying the fetus inside a womb is different than not.

    I sort of take that for granted; but “so, what?” It is just as much the father’s child as the mother’s. If (note if) she has a right to terminate, then he should also have a right to insist on termination (in legal theory – even if he can’t enforce it as a practical matter, without her co-operation). Or, coming at it from the other side: If he doesn’t have such a right – If his terminating the pregnancy is to be considered a crime of murder against the fetus (as distinct from a mere crime of assault or fraud on the mother), then, it must also be murder when she does it.

    The question is this: If abortion is a crime, against whom is it a crime? If abortion is a crime (and that may be) because it kills the fetus, then it must be a crime regardless of which parent causes it. Or, if (note if) abortion is NOT a crime for harming the fetus: then the father who imposes the abortion should only be charged with his crimes of fraud/assault against the mother, when he clearly hasn’t murdered her.

    I’m saying (now after having slept on it – going farther than in my post)that American society has a contradictory position on whether abortion is murder; grotesquely so, since it leads to unequal protection/application of the murder laws. America needs to make up its mind.

    And that left-wing feminism, rather than merely erasing ‘male privilege’, may in fact be about creating ‘female privilege’.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 5, 2013 @ 12:32 pm - August 5, 2013

  9. It is not justice. Murder is murder no matter how you cut it. Abortion is murder and every woman who has one, except, in the most extreme circumstances, such when the life of the mother is in extreme danger. should be charged as a muderess. It is such hypocrisy on the part of the left to talk about the sanctity of human life in their opposition to the capital punishment, which in most circumstances is a well deserved penalty. Yet, they close their eyes to the sanctity of the life of the unborn, whose only crime is having come into existence.

    Comment by Roberto — August 5, 2013 @ 12:51 pm - August 5, 2013

  10. On line 6 I was thinking the death penalty and mentaly I switched to capital punishment without erasing the ´the´.

    Comment by Roberto — August 5, 2013 @ 12:58 pm - August 5, 2013

  11. But, but, but didn’t you know that a baby isn’t a baby unless the mother WANTS it! Just like this cup of coffee on my desk turns into a bowl of goldfish if I decide I’ve had enough caffeine for the day.

    Comment by MeredithAncret — August 5, 2013 @ 12:59 pm - August 5, 2013

  12. […] blog of the day is Gay Patriot, who wonders why homicide laws are different for men and […]

    Pingback by If All You See… » Pirate's Cove — August 5, 2013 @ 1:01 pm - August 5, 2013

  13. I sort of take that for granted; but “so, what?”

    I don’t know what you take for granted. Saying ‘So what?’ to the considerable distinction between killing a wanted fetus and an unwanted one as well as carrying a pregnancy to term and not (male, by definition, or a female who aborts) is incomprehensible. The sexes are not legally equal because they’re not biologically equal. This may not be entirely fair either in theory or in practice but it’s inescapable; the connection is a direct one.

    Another legal area where there are often such distinctions is rape: a woman raping a man is different than a man raping a woman and the penalties are often different. This has to do with biology. It may not be entirely fair and psychological damage may be just as bad in the case where the woman is the perpetrator, but written law cannot take every possible exception or variable into consideration; such variables are for the courts.

    Comment by Ignatius — August 5, 2013 @ 1:38 pm - August 5, 2013

  14. If his terminating the pregnancy is to be considered a crime of murder against the fetus (as distinct from a mere crime of assault or fraud on the mother), then, it must also be murder when she does it.

    Yep. By saying a man who killed his enwombed child committed murder, you are assigning the fetus personhood. So, an equivalent action committed by the mother must logically also be considered murder.

    My previous comment was supposed to show how dumb the reasoning behind treating men and women different when they perform abortion, because, in that case, whether or not a fetus is considered human is completely arbitrary. But apparently that is what pro-choice people actually believe (!).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — August 5, 2013 @ 5:32 pm - August 5, 2013

  15. Meredith, I hope your comment was tongue in cheek. Just think back Beethoven´s mother thought like that, considering all the physical problems he had at birth and through his life. In our times, Tim Tebow.
    On second thought maybe we should encourage abortions, considering the majority of the women who submit to the proceedure are either leftists or a political and they will greatly reduce the radical left population. In time we will return to a sane conservative society.

    Comment by Roberto — August 5, 2013 @ 5:34 pm - August 5, 2013

  16. “And that left-wing feminism, rather than merely erasing ‘male privilege’, may in fact be about creating ‘female privilege’.”
    Gee, ya think?

    Glad to see there are a lot of red pillers on this site. This is an issue most don’t want to talk about because progressive feminism controls the conversation.

    Comment by Paul — August 5, 2013 @ 8:41 pm - August 5, 2013

  17. “Has the pro-choice movement created a ‘female privilege’, a dangerous new form of legal inequality?”

    Yes, the Feminist Hag-Stablishment is absolutely engaged in this endeavor (just as the Left is engaged in establishing legal inequality for all of its favored races, religions and sexual orientations).

    A perfect example is the bill that was introduced in the Texas Legislature in 2009 by (Margaret Sanger Award recipient) Jessica Farrar. Under Farrar’s bill, women who killed their children within 12 months of childbirth would have been allowed to offer testimony regarding their postpartum mental health during the sentencing phases of their trials. If jurors concluded that the mother’s “judgment was impaired as a result of the effects of giving birth or the effects of lactation following the birth,” they would have been permitted to convict her of the crime of ‘infanticide.’ Unlike murder, which is a capital offense in Texas, the felony of infanticide would have carried a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/when-infanticide-isnt-mur_b_279703.html

    The bill was a direct reaction to a series of highly-publicized killings of young children by Texas mothers, including Andrea Yates, and a disgusting attempt to excuse mothers for murdering their young children and further cheapen the value of human life. Luckily the bill never passed, but since 2009, the abortion-on-demand lobby is barely attempting to hide their support of ‘fourth-trimester abortion.’

    Comment by Sean A — August 6, 2013 @ 12:07 am - August 6, 2013

  18. Sean A.: If it was the father that killed the baby within 12 months of childbirth, he’d get the chair (and rightfully so).

    But of course, due to feminazi control, the mother gets special rights. After all, its FOR DA WIMMINZ.

    Disgusting.

    Comment by Paul — August 6, 2013 @ 12:42 am - August 6, 2013

  19. There are certainly biological differences between men and women; between the gestation of the human animal and the effect of pregnancy on the mother; between the consequences of rape for women as opposed to men. But to say that those differences should transcend the basic rights of others is to imply that those basic rights are mutable.

    The US Constitution pretty clearly calls out “life” as being an unalienable right for humans. Laws or court rulings that make the right to life for someone an elective choice by someone else on the basis of biology or convenience or even dramatic hardship denies, at its core, the very aspect of humanity that the Constitution was trying to preserve. None of that diminishes the aspect of biology or convenience or hardship involved…it only highlights the significant value that life has, or should have, in a free society.

    Also, the implication that rape should somehow treated as less significant by the law when a male is a victim is simply wrong. Differences in the specifics of the law based on the biological differences between men and women? Sure. Shrugging off that it’s simply unfair for men as victims? Not so much.

    Comment by dnhomeworld — August 8, 2013 @ 8:53 am - August 8, 2013

  20. Infanticide laws have existed for a very long time as a reduced form of murder available only to women. This long predated feminism. I would argue that what’s new is the notion that a woman should be charged with murder instead, like a man. Having said this, the infanticide statues I have read all cover a very limited amount of time post-birth. Twelve months is a pretty wacky extension. Also some of these infanticide laws might be so old they may predate insanity defenses altogether and could have been designed with that in mind…

    Comment by JeremiahB — August 8, 2013 @ 9:31 am - August 8, 2013

  21. Well, murder (more properly “homicide”) is legal, sometimes, and in some places.

    Reference self defense laws. George Zimmerman certainly committed homicide. But it was legally permissible homicide.

    That said, the law should be gender blind.

    Comment by Leroy — August 8, 2013 @ 9:32 am - August 8, 2013

  22. There are still places (in the USA; not just in extremely warm countries where both men & women wear very long clothing) where if a man kills his wife, the prevailing community view is that the b*tch musta done something to deserve it; but if a woman kills her abusive husband, she’s an ungrateful c*nt who didn’t realize what a good thing she had going.

    As opposed to, say, Mary Winkler, who shot her husband in the back with a shotgun while he lay in bed. Just had a copycat of that this year, not less.

    Oh, and here’s a fun tidbit, via Wikipedia:

    In August 2008, Winkler was granted full custody of her three daughters.

    She murdered her husband in cold blood in 2006. So yeah, let’s here about the examples of what you’re saying, since there are many examples of women getting the kid treatment for what they do to men.

    Comment by Deoxy — August 8, 2013 @ 9:38 am - August 8, 2013

  23. I seem to recall a case in which a female was charged with manslaughter when she hit a car carrying a woman who then miscarried. Not only that, but +here are males who give women drugs to cause them to loose their pregnancies with the women’s consent (typically known as abortions in a meical center, yes?). So that’s not what has you so worked up, either. If I (or anyone without your consent) caused you to become sterile, that would and should be a crime. If you should do that to yourself, it is not.

    Comment by Nony Mouse — August 8, 2013 @ 9:39 am - August 8, 2013

  24. @RSG: “There are still places (in the USA; not just in extremely warm countries where both men & women wear very long clothing) where if a man kills his wife, the prevailing community view is that the b*tch musta done something to deserve it; but if a woman kills her abusive husband, she’s an ungrateful c*nt who didn’t realize what a good thing she had going.”

    Please, provide some examples, because what you’re asserting sounds like a feminist fantasy rooted in the last century before the last century. Here in 21st century America, the reverse seems much more likely to be true.

    Or have are you completely unfamiliar with the “battered woman” defense?

    Comment by Bikerdad — August 8, 2013 @ 10:03 am - August 8, 2013

  25. The man should be charged with some sort of felony battery with aggravating circumstances, based on what he’s doing to the mother’s body. But as to the fetus, if the mother can end its life, so can the father.

    Comment by jeremy abrams — August 8, 2013 @ 10:24 am - August 8, 2013

  26. The bottom line rule of law in sexual matters seems to be that whatever the woman wants governs the legal outcome.

    If she kills the baby, it’s not a homicide, but if he (or anyone else) does without her consent, it is a homicide.

    If she wants the baby, the man must pay child support, even if she lied to him about birth control, and apparently even if she impregnated herself with the man’s sperm without his knowledge. (I believe there’s even a case in which a woman is suing for support from a man who donated sperm to a sperm donation center which she went to in order to get pregnant. So she doesn’t even know the man.)

    If she doesn’t want the baby, the man has no basis to object to an abortion, and if he’s married to her, he will be liable for the expense of the abortion. (Maybe an unmarried father is, too, though I haven’t seen a case on that. I believe it’s common practice for the woman to ask the man to pay for the abortion – common practice has a way of becoming law.).

    If the mother is unmarried, the father of the child is legally responsible for supporting the child. but if the woman is married and has a child by another man, the man she is married to is legally responsible for supporting the child, so she can chose which man to get support from – maybe both.

    The woman’s consent governs whether the sexual act is rape, even if the woman decides to withdraw that consent in the midst of congress, or, from a practical point of view, afterwards as a result of remorse.

    In my view, what is going on here is that the legal concept of “marriage” has been eroded to the point where it exists only to allow partners to claim benefits from the state, or allow the state to lay responsibility for supporting a child on a man who may not be the actual father. (This is the real reason, I think, for the legal rulings supporting gay marriage. Marriage is no longer about procreation.)

    Bottom line – a man gets sexually involved with a woman at his own risk. He’s at her mercy if she gets pregnant.

    Comment by punditius — August 8, 2013 @ 10:49 am - August 8, 2013

  27. Reading through the comments, it seems to me that at least half of the pro-choice comments seem to be missing the main point of the post. The main point is not that causing a woman to abort a wanted pregnancy shouldn’t be a crime. It’s that in a world of legal abortion the crime shouldn’t be murder. In each of the specific cases cited in the post there were clear crimes committed other than murder for which the man unquestionably should have been charged. I don’t think that there is any way in which a man could cause the abortion of a baby that the mother wants to keep without committing a serious crime of some sort. But if the killing of a fetus is murder under these circumstances it’s hard to see why it isn’t when a woman chooses to have an abortion. The only consistent way to make that argument is to stipulate that when a woman chooses to have an abortion that is a legally sanctioned murder.

    Comment by Hans — August 8, 2013 @ 10:51 am - August 8, 2013

  28. I think RSG might be unfamiliar with the case of Mary Winkler, who got on a chair to retrieve a shotgun from the top shelf, shot her husband in the back while he was napping (while their children were home), and then took the kids and left the state, leaving their dead or dying father. She used the “mental abuse” card, claiming her husband often “berated” her and that the shooting was an “accident”. Total jail time: 210 days. She was awarded full custody of the children about a year after release.

    Yea, we sure do treat women defendants unfairly, don’t we.

    Comment by submandave — August 8, 2013 @ 10:51 am - August 8, 2013

  29. I’m not sure. In your first example, if a jealous ex-wife had given the drug to the unsuspecting expectant mother, would it still be murder? I think probably so. Again, I guess that boils down to whether the baby was wanted.

    And yet, what about the person (man or woman) who kills a pregnant woman in order to steal the baby? It’s not clear in this instance (http://gawker.com/5848472/woman-allegedly-murdered-expecting-mother-to-steal-baby) whether the first degree murder was for the dead mother or for the dead baby. But apparently there are other examples of this as well.

    And why wasn’t the Fort Hood Islamic terrorist charged with 14 homicides, instead of 13, as one of the surviving victims lost her unborn child?

    I don’t know the answer, but I can come up with a lot more questions!

    I agree

    Comment by Stoutcat — August 8, 2013 @ 11:13 am - August 8, 2013

  30. Ah… I see the mysogynists are out……

    The fact is, women don’t cost society as much in terms of violent crimes, as men do. So, women should not be punished for the same crimes, to the same degree…

    Also, if a woman finds it necessary to kill a man, she must have had good reason. He must have been raping her or denying her money.

    All these laws are made by men, so you mysoginists blame ‘feminists’ for this just because you are losers, who are gay and can’t get a woman…

    Comment by Julia — August 8, 2013 @ 11:39 am - August 8, 2013

  31. Mary Winkler should not have faced any jail time at all. Not even the 210 days. What she did was justified due to the abuse she received, and the abuse women have received for thousands of years.

    Women should not face the same sentences as men, merely for acting in self defense. You mysoginists disgust me.

    Comment by Julia — August 8, 2013 @ 11:53 am - August 8, 2013

  32. I think the fact that the mother carries the fetus and the father does not is materially significant, but not significant enough to justify the difference between murder and nothing. Particularly in a case where there is no intent to cause harm to the fetus. That sounds more like criminal negligence causing death, to me.

    Comment by Tedd — August 8, 2013 @ 12:09 pm - August 8, 2013

  33. >The fact is, women don’t cost society as much in terms of violent crimes, as men do.

    Except, of course, for how the general us population is industrially commoditizing our genital tissue from infancy to their benefit. How much are your labia, clitoral hood, and frontmost inner vaginal skin worth to you, Julia? Can we cut them off now and resell them, just like is done to half or more of the men around you?

    You have paid less your entire life for many healthcare services and products because millions of us were sexually mutilated at birth, and our genital flesh was then used as a cash crop throughout the medical care and manufacturing industry.

    It’s not even a crime, compared to the complete outlawing of any form of genital cutting on female minors at the federal level.

    So we’re not misogynists; it’s that you’re an ignorant, bigoted, hateful exploiter of children, instead. And we’re threatening your privileged position as an exploiter of children, and so now here you are here trying to shame us into silence.

    This is the outcome of all feminism, not just “left” or “liberal” or “progressive” feminism. Those of you trying to make a distinction are focused on the wrong characteristics.

    ***It’s the difference between the prioritization of liberty and equality that matters.***

    If you break it down to “feminism” versus “women’s liberation”, it becomes a lot easier to understand and handle the exploiters. Feminism — ALL feminism — is the theory and practice of prioritizing women’s interests ahead of those of men

    AND PRIORITIZING WOMEN’S INTERESTS AHEAD OF THOSE OF CHILDREN

    and of institutionalizing those prioritizations.

    And that’s why it’s illegal for men to kill their fetuses but not women.

    Simply distinguishing between feminist exploitationism and women’s liberation usually clears up these kinds of issues.

    (Basics of gender exploitation theory: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/529619/why#post_6148918 )

    Comment by Acksiom — August 8, 2013 @ 12:18 pm - August 8, 2013

  34. The woman literally can play judge, jury and executioner, without due process of law afforded to the separate, distinct, living human entity residing within her.

    What a power trip that must be.

    No wonder why abortion is the ultimate sacrament for radical feminists.

    Comment by Leo Pusateri — August 8, 2013 @ 12:40 pm - August 8, 2013

  35. Julia, I beleive you may be being sarcastic, but I’ll take the comment seriously.

    If I said that people who were black should face harsher punishment than whites because their ethnicity is more likely to commit crimes, you would (hopefully) call me absurd and a racist.

    All adults should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

    On abortion:

    A person should have complete legal right to make decisions for anything involving their body. Abortion could be completely immoral, but abortion still be justified as legal. If we recognize that people have the right to their bodies, but that fetuses are still living entities, then it is a serious crime to ‘kill’ a fetus without the consent of the mother.

    Comment by DigDeeper — August 8, 2013 @ 1:19 pm - August 8, 2013

  36. Aborting a fetus in someone else’s body is distinguished, by these laws and rulings, from aborting a fetus in one’s own. That isn’t so hard to grasp, is it?

    Comment by Jeroboam — August 8, 2013 @ 1:24 pm - August 8, 2013

  37. Silly rabbits – pro-choice is for women, not men.

    Comment by Tom — August 8, 2013 @ 2:01 pm - August 8, 2013

  38. The fact is, women don’t cost society as much in terms of violent crimes, as men do. So, women should not be punished for the same crimes, to the same degree…

    Impeccable reasoning, Julia, and a splendid addition to our theory of jurisprudence: let’s hold the individual responsible for the actions of any group to which they may be construed to belong.

    On this principle, then, may we assume that you also recommend an extra measure of severity for black people who commit violent crime?

    Comment by Malcolm Pollack — August 8, 2013 @ 5:35 pm - August 8, 2013

  39. @Julia – “Women should not face the same sentences as men, merely for acting in self defense. You mysoginists disgust me.”

    Right. So someone shooting an unarmed person who represents absolutely no threat whatsoever should be allowed to go free because of (real or imagined – makes no difference) past actions of some form or another committed by the person who was asleep?

    When she could have simply left and sought shelter in one of the many places that are set up specifically to deal with people in her plight?

    More specifically, if an acquaintance of yours claims that you “bullied” him/her over some period of time in the recent past, then it would be perfectly reasonable for them to shoot you in the back while you sleep?

    Comment by wagonburner — August 8, 2013 @ 6:15 pm - August 8, 2013

  40. Aborting a fetus in someone else’s body is distinguished, by these laws and rulings, from aborting a fetus in one’s own. That isn’t so hard to grasp, is it?

    *THAT* it is so, is obvious; indeed, my post assumed it and gave examples of it.

    But *WHY* it is so, is not at all obvious. When the father aborts the fetus, he somehow just murdered a person. But when the mother aborts a fetus, she somehow didn’t just murder a person. That is a senseless contradiction. Which isn’t so hard to grasp, is it?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 8, 2013 @ 6:18 pm - August 8, 2013

  41. Hans wrote, “The main point is not that causing a woman to abort a wanted pregnancy shouldn’t be a crime. It’s that in a world of legal abortion the crime shouldn’t be murder.”

    Exactly. Since pro-choicers say the fetus is just “tissue”. If they consider that “tissue” just part of the woman’s body, it should not get an additional count.

    Julia wrote, “The fact is, women don’t cost society as much in terms of violent crimes, as men do. So, women should not be punished for the same crimes, to the same degree…”

    Fewer women commit such crimes. That’s why they don’t cost society as much in that way.

    “Also, if a woman finds it necessary to kill a man, she must have had good reason. He must have been raping her or denying her money.”

    Ah, a troll.

    “Ah… I see the mysogynists are out……” and “you mysoginists blame ‘feminists’ for this”

    A troll who can’t even use spellcheck.

    Comment by Nate Whilk — August 8, 2013 @ 6:28 pm - August 8, 2013

  42. But it’s even stranger than that.

    If an abortionist kills a fetus or the “mother” sanctions the killing somehow, then everything’s just fine.

    If someone else kills the fetus, then it’s murder.

    The whole thing becomes some kind of macabre “Shroedinger’s baby” where the fetus is a person and not a person at the same time until it is either born or killed. Only when the womb is opened, so to speak, do we get to find out whether a particular fetus was human or not.

    The whole thing is sick.

    Comment by wagonburner — August 8, 2013 @ 6:31 pm - August 8, 2013

  43. Yes, Hans got it. As I said in the post, “In each example [that I gave], the men certainly deserve charges/punishment for other reasons; namely, for crimes of fraud, assault, kidnapping or rape.”

    “Schroedinger’s Baby” – good one!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 8, 2013 @ 6:34 pm - August 8, 2013

  44. There is certainly a logical disconnect when women can a org yhe fetus with no legal repercussions up to week 20 or more, but a man is charged with murder if he opts to abort his fetus.

    The feminists and abortion industry have created a concept that makes the value of the fetus hinge solely on whether or not it is wanted by the mother-essentially for 40 weeks the mother is judge and jury over the personhood of the life inside her and IMO that is a problem.

    But our legal system generally treats women far more kindly than men. Simply look at cases where female teachers have molested students in their care and the punishments compared to make teachers.

    In abuse cases men are treated more harshly.

    In domestic violence-women are equally violent to men (and in a recent study of teens the girls actually were more violent) but men go to jail more often and are punished more harshly (men do cause more serious injuries but even when injury is similar men are held more accountable).

    Comment by Just Me — August 9, 2013 @ 12:32 pm - August 9, 2013

  45. I get the distinct impression Julia hates men.

    Comment by V the K — August 9, 2013 @ 3:39 pm - August 9, 2013

  46. […] Instapundit, I found a blog posting by GayPatriot (scandalous!!!) wherein the penalties for various actions are vastly different between males and […]

    Pingback by Schrödinger’s Baby | Hambone — August 10, 2013 @ 3:35 am - August 10, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.