(January 2, 2017 at 12:28 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(January 2, 2017 at 12:12 pm)pool the great Wrote: I'm not quite following why you think the public should pay in this scenario? The public didn't rape the woman. The criminal with get punished and the women will get justice. The criminal can be forced to pay the fees. Right? I just don't see the reason to get the public involved, unless I'm missing something?
So, the criminal should also foot the fees for his arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment? Virtually all democratic societies have accepted the idea of the social contract, wherein contributions to the public coffers are used for what has been deemed the public good. If part of my tax bill is used to imprison a rapist, I have no qualms about another part of my taxes going to free the victim of an unwanted pregnancy, irrespective of whether she can afford the procedure herself.
Boru
No, no, I'm not saying you shouldn't pay for the woman (in this scenario). My view is that people shouldn't be forced into paying. If you want to then great, if not, no sweat! It should generally be something people can opt out of, anyway that's my opinion.
