Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Keep abortion out of Ireland
Comments
-
joseph brand wrote: »
When I think of abortion I usually think about rape victims. These women should be allowed choose.
So you would consider the murder of the child a proportional response?
There are a number of issues when a jurisdiction allows for the killing of an unborn child conceived as the result of a rape.
Firstly there is proving a rape occurred. Is it not possible that a woman who was not raped would claim that she was so she can legally murder her child?
Secondly there is the physical and psychiatric or psychological damage than can occur as a result of the procedure to kill and remove her child.
A woman who has been raped does not need another act of violence perpetrated against her.0 -
So you would consider the murder of the child a proportional response?
A woman who has been raped does not need another act of violence perpetrated against her.
Mostly rape is about control, not about sex. A woman who has been raped does not need another act of control perpetrated againt her. It should be her choice what she does with the pregnancy.0 -
As a parent you provide a home and food for your children - those that are born - by extension of the privacy rule you so adore do you have the right to leave your children outside of your home exposed ot the elements with no access to food or water?
No, but that isn't anything to do with bodily privacy.
And can I ask you do you not "adore" the bodily privacy rule as well?
Do you think for example Christian Scientists should be forced to give blood transfusions or be forced to have treatment for say cancer against their will. I don't mean children, I mean adults. Even if it means they will die, can their consent be ignored?
If I am dying and a Christian Scientist is the only person who can save me cause they have the correct type of blood as what I need and they don't give it to me, knowing that I will die, have they committed murder? If they are forced to but then break free and stop the procedure, have they then committed murder since the procedure had already started?
Say I need a new liver, and I will die without it, and a body comes in from a car accident with a compatible liver. The person is not a donor and the family refuse, on religious grounds, to allow the organs to be removed from the body and I die. Has the family committed murder?
Most people would say no and no to both those situations, even if I died in both cases.
See bodily privacy is a pretty well enshrined in modern societies, even if adhering to such principles means people die.
I suspect like most religious people you actually care a great deal about the principle of bodily privacy, since in most cases it is used to protect religious practices.No, by scientific definition the unborn child from conception is a separate and unique entity, and in this jurisdiction is afforded a right to life.
Correct. But does that right to life come at the expense another's bodily privacy?
If yes then obviously you will see no argument here, since you don't seem to believe in the concept of bodily privacy in the first place.
But I suspect that isn't the case.
That doesn't answer the question.The uterus is a home to the unborn child - see above.Then why not grant the same rule of consent to the unborn child?
What are you talking about, there is no "same rule of consent".
If I consent to taking your blood that is irrelevant if you don't consent to letting me. It is your bodily privacy I will be invading by taking your blood. How willing I am to do that is irrelevant to whether you consent to letting me.
Would you not agree?
No, you have to get consent from the mother, since it is her body the unborn child is in.Exactly so you have to get consent form the unborn child."If" does not work. It is.
Ok, so why then does the foetus have more rights than any other individual.
You want the foetus to have the same rights as any other individual. But when it is given the same rights as any other individual you complain.
In most modern societies my right to life does not trump your right to bodily privacy. Even if it means I will die it is still the case that I (or the State acting for me) cannot control what is done to your body. They cannot force you to have a procedure on your body or forcibly stop you having a procedure on your body. Even if I die.
So why would it be any different for the foetus. Why would the foetus, who is just another individual, have the right to control what the woman does to her body when no other individual has that right?0 -
So why would it be any different for the foetus. Why would the foetus, who is just another individual, have the right to control what the woman does to her body when no other individual has that right?
Every human being demands respect. The Foetus is a Child and the Woman is a Mother.0 -
So you would consider the murder of the child a proportional response?
There are a number of issues when a jurisdiction allows for the killing of an unborn child conceived as the result of a rape.
Firstly there is proving a rape occurred. Is it not possible that a woman who was not raped would claim that she was so she can legally murder her child?
Secondly there is the physical and psychiatric or psychological damage than can occur as a result of the procedure to kill and remove her child.
A woman who has been raped does not need another act of violence perpetrated against her.
The woman is pregnant 'against' her wishes. If you tell her she can't decide on abortion you force her to have the baby 'against' her wishes. Seems like an unfair situation to be in for a rape victim.
Maybe the rape was god's will? She was destined to be raped and have said child?0 -
Advertisement
-
Correct. But does that right to life come at the expense another's bodily privacy?
If yes then obviously you will see no argument here, since you don't seem to believe in the concept of bodily privacy in the first place.
But I suspect that isn't the case.
I'm not going to deal with the rest of the irrelevancies you presented as you have conceeded that an unborn child is entitled to a right to life.
Bodily privacy is immaterial as it relates to the individual and the individual alone. In the case of a pregnant woman there are now two (or more) individuals, and the mother is not entitled to do things that are detrimental to her child(ren).0 -
joseph brand wrote: »The woman is pregnant 'against' her wishes. If you tell her she can't decide on abortion you force her to have the baby 'against' her wishes. Seems like an unfair situation to be in for a rape victim.
the woman was raped against her wishes. That cannot be undone. If she is pregnant it most likely against her wishes and that cannot be undone either.
All an abortion will do is leave the woman with memories of being raped and then memories have having murdered her own child.joseph brand wrote: »Maybe the rape was god's will? She was destined to be raped and have said child?
I don't do fatalism or pre-destination so I'm not sure what you're driving at.
You do however seem to have a Jesse Jackson mindset. It's ok for him, abortion in the case of rape was against the law when he was born, so he's here today. Perhaps he thought it was a bad idea and wishes he was aborted which is why he agrees with you now.
Perhaps you also think Kevin Spacey should never have been born?
There are so many people who grace our world who would not be here if they were subject the the law you want.
listen to them
http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/index.html0 -
-
I'm not going to deal with the rest of the irrelevancies you presented as you have conceeded that an unborn child is entitled to a right to life.
Bodily privacy is immaterial as it relates to the individual and the individual alone. In the case of a pregnant woman there are now two (or more) individuals, and the mother is not entitled to do things that are detrimental to her child(ren).
I've given you plenty of examples where other individuals relying on you, even to continue to live, does not break the right to bodily privacy. It doesn't even break the right to bodily privacy of a dead person, which is primarily a religious position (I don't give a hoot what happens to my organs after I did but the State will still assume I don't want them used unless I them I do).
It is not really my fault you can't come up with a good argument otherwise. I suspect you don't want to as you actually agree with the principle of bodily privacy, but you are already absolutely anti-abortion (without it appears a clear reason why, at least a clear reason in terms of the ethics beyond being anti-abortion).
Which is fair enough, abortion is a very emotive subject, simply associate a foetus with a happy smiling baby and I can understand why people consider it absolutely wrong but really don't understand why they consider it absolutely wrong. It is an emotional response to the concept of killing a baby, a concept we have evolved to find repugnant.
But ethics is a bit more than just what you feel or emote. You need to form reasoned argument and principle, otherwise you end up in a world of nonsense.0 -
I've given you plenty of examples where other individuals relying on you, even to continue to live, does not break the right to bodily privacy. It doesn't even break the right to bodily privacy of a dead person, which is primarily a religious position (I don't give a hoot what happens to my organs after I did but the State will still assume I don't want them used unless I them I do).
It is not really my fault you can't come up with a good argument otherwise. I suspect you don't want to as you actually agree with the principle of bodily privacy, but you are already absolutely anti-abortion (without it appears a clear reason why, at least a clear reason in terms of the ethics beyond being anti-abortion).
Which is fair enough, abortion is a very emotive subject, simply associate a foetus with a happy smiling baby and I can understand why people consider it absolutely wrong but really don't understand why they consider it absolutely wrong. It is an emotional response to the concept of killing a baby, a concept we have evolved to find repugnant.
But ethics is a bit more than just what you feel or emote. You need to form reasoned argument and principle, otherwise you end up in a world of nonsense.
Arguments from choice or privacy are immaterial and irrelevant.
It is quite simple really. Scientifically (and medically) what is in the womb from conception is a human being and entitled to the same right to life and protection we enjoy. The child is protected from birth. Why not protect it before birth? What changed at the moment of birth? Nothing but the law.
Life is a wonderful gift and it matters not whether you believe it an act of God or an accident of nature.
If we decide we are not to treat all humans equally, regardless of age or domocile, what kind of world are we creating for future generations.0 -
Advertisement
-
Arguments from choice or privacy are immaterial and irrelevant.
To everything, or just abortion? Or just immaterial and irrelevant when you don't have a counter argument.It is quite simple really. Scientifically (and medically) what is in the womb from conception is a human being and entitled to the same right to life and protection we enjoy.
But you don't want it to have the same right to life as we enjoy, since as I've already explained my right to life does not trump your right to bodily privacy (give me one of your kidneys). You want it to have extra rights. You just don't yet have a reason justifying this.The child is protected from birth.
A child's right to life does not trump his or her parents right to bodily privacy. I could not have demanded my mother give me a kidney, even if it meant I died. I could not even have demanded my mother gives me a blood transfusion, nor could the state force her to on my behalf.
This has been used many times by religious groups to avoid breaking their religious doctrines, even if it meant the death of the child. Given your history on this forum I suspect you secretly agree with all of that.
You want the foetus to have the same rights as any other individual, correct? Same right as the child of a mother who is a Jehovah' Witness? Do you really?If we decide we are not to treat all humans equally, regardless of age or domocile, what kind of world are we creating for future generations.
You don't want to treat all humans equally. You want a special case for the foetus. Again you just don't seem to have figured out a justification for that yet.
Perhaps when you do you can present a coherent argument we can actually discuss.0 -
To everything, or just abortion? Or just immaterial and irrelevant when you don't have a counter argument.
What counter argument is there to a right to life?But you don't want it to have the same right to life as we enjoy, since as I've already explained my right to life does not trump your right to bodily privacy (give me one of your kidneys). You want it to have extra rights. You just don't yet have a reason justifying this.
You are not a woman and I am not your child living and growing inside of youA child's right to life does not trump his or her parents right to bodily privacy. I could not have demanded my mother give me a kidney, even if it meant I died. I could not even have demanded my mother gives me a blood transfusion, nor could the state force her to on my behalf.
Where does any right to bodily privacy entitle a right to abortion?
Abortion destroys the body of another so the bodily privacy argument is nonsensical.This has been used many times by religious groups to avoid breaking their religious doctrines, even if it meant the death of the child. Given your history on this forum I suspect you secretly agree with all of that.
You suspect and project erroneously. The religious doctrines you imagine are not the religious doctrines of the religious group I am a member of.
Bar self defense and just war I do not agree with anything that leads to the death of another human being, much less a child.You want the foetus to have the same rights as any other individual, correct? Same right as the child of a mother who is a Jehovah' Witness? Do you really?
Children of Jehovas Witness parents are governed by law of the land, same as any other child. If you believe they get special treatment perhaps you should expand.
But do please bear in mind that the child has already been born.
Unless of course you are refering to cases where a pregnant JW is refusing treatment that would save her childs life, which would be a bit absurd giving the topic under discussion is the destruction of children, not saving them.You don't want to treat all humans equally. You want a special case for the foetus. Again you just don't seem to have figured out a justification for that yet.
Where did I say that? All I have ever said in defense of the unborn childs right ot life is that they are human beings and entitled to the same protection the rest of us are.
You're projecting again.Perhaps when you do you can present a coherent argument we can actually discuss.
After you0 -
-
philologos wrote: »It's funny that you should regard that as being simple.
Yet, the pro-abortion-by-choice position doesn't respect human life.
If I may, the pro-abortion, for any reason position, simply, doesn't respect human life, it only grudingly respects some human life.0 -
I don't agree Festus. If a mother and baby is going to die without intervention, it is better to save a life than no life. Medical emergencies are the only grounds by which I support intervention.
Unless you're saying it is more moral to allow two people to die rather than just one?
That position respects human life.0 -
philologos wrote: »It's funny that you should regard that as being simple.
Yet, the pro-abortion-by-choice position doesn't respect human life.
Maybe the :rolleyes: didn't fully communicate the sarcasm.0 -
What counter argument is there to a right to life?
I didn't ask you to a counter argument to the right to life, I asked you for a counter argument to bodily privacy.You are not a woman and I am not your child living and growing inside of you
And? So because of that it is not murder if I die? Why exactly?Where does any right to bodily privacy entitle a right to abortion?
Because a woman can do what she likes with her own body and the only one that can consent to invasion action on her body, even if that action results in the death of another individual. It is the same right you have, one you seem more than happy to have I might add. (ie Person A - give me your kidney Person B - no you don't have any right to my body).
To put if as bluntly as possible, if the foetus is simply another individual then what right does that individual have to the woman's body. No other human individual has right the woman's body other than the woman herself, so why would the foetus if it is just another individual?You suspect and project erroneously. The religious doctrines you imagine are not the religious doctrines of the religious group I am a member of.
Bar self defense and just war I do not agree with anything that leads to the death of another human being, much less a child.
So Jehovah Witnesses should be forced by the State to give blood, or submit to a medical procedures involving blood, in order to save their children, even if they refuse on religious grounds? The child has a right to the parents body? Is that what you genuinely believe?Children of Jehovas Witness parents are governed by law of the land, same as any other child. If you believe they get special treatment perhaps you should expand.
They currently don't as far as I'm aware. They can refuse to give blood if they wish, even if that results in the death of their children.
Do you disagree with that?But do please bear in mind that the child has already been born.
And? You want the foetus to be treated the same as a child that has already been born, don't you?Where did I say that? All I have ever said in defense of the unborn childs right ot life is that they are human beings and entitled to the same protection the rest of us are.
A protection that does not allow the rest of us to break another person's right to bodily privacy, even if such action would allow us to live. So why would the foetus have that right when the rest of us don't? Why would the foetus, alone above all other individuals (even the woman's other children) have a right to the woman's body and a right to overrule any action the woman wishes to take to her body.
That seems to be the bit you are struggling with. The best you seem to be able to come up with is that abortion is different to all other possible cases, but you seem unable to explain why that changes the principle of bodily privacy. Again I suspect you are arguing from an emotional rather than rational position.0 -
Regarding the rape question, one of the most difficult abortion issues there probably is, at the end of the day I believe the innocent child has not committed any crime and I believe they do not deserve to be killed and these children have as much right to life as any of us.0
-
La Petite Fleur wrote: »Regarding the rape question, one of the most difficult abortion issues there probably is, at the end of the day I believe the innocent child has not committed any crime and I believe they do not deserve to be killed and these children have as much right to life as any of us.
If the woman has the baby and brings it up as her own with love you would be fine with that I presume. As Rick Santorum put it, it would be seen as a blessing. I would presume that comes from the Christian doctrine that good can often come about after evil has been committed. I fully sympathise with where you are coming from and that you think life is sacred.
But what if the woman who is raped and threatens suicide because she cannot bear to bring the child of a man who violated her into the world? What do you do then? The woman will not be talked around because she sees the child as a monster growing inside of her. She was minding her own business and a man raped her and now she does not want to bring up the child. She does not want to adopt it because she does not want to be reminded of the rape by the existence of the child and she certainly does not want the child to grow to adulthood and return in later life demanding her love. Neither does she want to experience the often irreversible physical changes women experience from having a child - losing her figure so that every time she sees herself naked in mirror she is remind of the rape. Bad enough that every time she has sex with another man she will be reminded of the rape.
So this woman will not listen to your arguments however sincerely you want to help her and she insists she wants an abortion or she will kill herself.
Do you lock her up and force her against her will to have the child? If she does not want the child do you force her to give it up for adoption?
How could it be right to impose that on a woman who has been raped?
There has been a life changing tragedy and either way there is going to be life changing tragedy.
So surely it would be more humane to butt out and let her make her own choice.
The same could be said for any woman no matter what her circumstances may be who decided to have an abortion or not to have an abortion. It really isn't my or your business what she decides. It is up to her and presumably it is between her and God.
I really don't think I have the right or anybody else has the right to force a woman to have a child she does not want to have. Her human rights and bodily integrity come first.0 -
the woman was raped against her wishes. That cannot be undone. If she is pregnant it most likely against her wishes and that cannot be undone either.
Can. Abortion.All an abortion will do is leave the woman with memories of being raped and then memories have having murdered her own child.
The child will remind her of the rape more than the abortion. I'm not suggesting they all do it, just that they have a choice, it's their body.I don't do fatalism or pre-destination so I'm not sure what you're driving at.
Apologies. I just assumed that you might be a believer in 'gods' plan'.You do however seem to have a Jesse Jackson mindset. It's ok for him, abortion in the case of rape was against the law when he was born, so he's here today. Perhaps he thought it was a bad idea and wishes he was aborted which is why he agrees with you now.
Perhaps you also think Kevin Spacey should never have been born?
There are so many people who grace our world who would not be here if they were subject the the law you want.
listen to them
http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/index.html
I like Spacey. I can think of some politicians/ bankers/ psychics and other criminals for whom abortion would have been a godsend.0 -
Advertisement
-
But what if the woman who is raped and threatens suicide because she cannot bear to bring the child of a man who violated her into the world? What do you do then? The woman will not be talked around because she sees the child as a monster growing inside of her.
If she thinks that erronously, then it is perhaps because some less enlightened and caring people in our society have wrongly conditioned her to see it as a monster rather than an innocent child that has commited no crime. It's time society directed its efforts to quashing this erroneous and prejudiced stigma completely and utterly forever, rather than promoting the killing of an innocent child as a viable solution and remedy.She was minding her own business and a man raped her and now she does not want to bring up the child.
And it could be said the innocent child was minding its own business in the womb before she was persuaded during her vulnerablity that the best option is that it should be killed and removed.She does not want to adopt it because she does not want to be reminded of the rape by the existence of the child..
If she was wrongly persuaded that an abortion process can be forgotten, two wrongs won't make something right.She does not want to adopt it because she does not want to be reminded of the rape by the existence of the child and she certainly does not want the child to grow to adulthood and return in later life demanding her love..
No mother that gives a child up for adoption is ever required to meet that child again. 1000's of childless Irish couples would be willing to give that innocent child a loving home and life.Neither does she want to experience the often irreversible physical changes women experience from having a child - losing her figure so that every time she sees herself naked in mirror she is remind of the rape. Bad enough that every time she has sex with another man she will be reminded of the rape.
I doubt she'll forget having been wrongly persuaded that the remedy is to have an abortion and kill the innocent child either. She can remind herself that she gave life to another human being instead of taking it away, and that a much greater good came from such a traumatic event.So this woman will not listen to your arguments however sincerely you want to help her and she insists she wants an abortion or she will kill herself.
Do you lock her up and force her against her will to have the child? If she does not want the child do you force her to give it up for adoption?
How could it be right to impose that on a woman who has been raped?
I would be more intrested as to why, or by whom women in a very vulnerable position are conditioned to think in such a way. How can imposing death on an innocent child be a true, real, and genuine solution to her problem ?There has been a life changing tragedy and either way there is going to be life changing tragedy.
So surely it would be more humane to butt out and let her make her own choice.
I really don't think I have the right or anybody else has the right to force a woman to have a child she does not want to have. Her human rights and bodily integrity come first.
I believe the right to life, choice, human rights, bodily integrity of the innocent child etc. etc. are equal.0 -
La Petite Fleur wrote: »If she thinks that erronously, then it is perhaps because some less enlightened and caring people in our society have wrongly conditioned her to see it as a monster rather than an innocent child that has commited no crime.
If even an enlightened caring woman has been raped and finds herself pregnant chances are she might feel that way and there's no way you could shift her to another point of view.And it could be said the innocent child was minding its own business in the womb before she was persuaded during her vulnerablity that the best option is that it should be killed and removed.
But it is her womb.If she was wrongly persuaded that an abortion process can be forgotten, two wrongs won't make something right.
But she doesn't want to have the kid no matter how you try to persuade her then it's her decision isn't it?No mother that gives a child up for adoption is ever required to meet that child again. 1000's of childless Irish couples would be willing to give that innocent child a loving home and life.
What if she doesn't care? She says she wants an abortion and that is that?I doubt she'll forget having been wrongly persuaded that her only option was to have an abortion and kill the innocent child either.
That's just what you think. You don't know that for sure.I would be more intrested as to why, or by whom women in a very vulnerable position are conditioned to think in such a way. How can imposing death on an innocent Child be a real solution to her problem ?
Maybe you should get in contact with a crisis pregnancy counsellor and he/she could tell you? A woman might decide - I'm just not continuing with the pregnancy - and you can't persuade her otherwise.I believe the right to life, choice, human rights, bodily integrity of the innocent child are equal.
That's just what you believe. Thousands of Irish women don't take the decision to have abortions lightly and many of them probably never dreamed they would have an abortion. BUT they found themselves in the situation of a crisis pregnancy and what they might have believed before does not fit the reality of where they are at.
These women have a free choice and they take it. It's not your business what they do once they make their minds up.
You or I might try to persuade them not to but if they feel they can't go through with a pregnancy we have no right to force them to give birth against their will do we?0 -
Do you lock her up and force her against her will to have the child? If she does not want the child do you force her to give it up for adoption?
How could it be right to impose that on a woman who has been raped?
So killing a baby is the answer? How could it be right to impose that on a child who has done absolutely nothing wrong?La Petite Fleur wrote: »No mother that gives a child up for adoption is ever required to meet that child again. 1000's of childless Irish couples would be willing to give that innocent child a loving home and life.
I believe the right to life, choice, human rights, bodily integrity of the innocent child etc. etc. are equal.
Especially when, as La Petite Fleur says, 1000's of Irish (or any nationality!) couples are only crying out to adapt and give their love to a child.0 -
So killing a baby is the answer? How could it be right to impose that on a child who has done absolutely nothing wrong?
But if she doesn't want to go through with the pregnancy what then? Is she going to be forced to go through with the pregnancy?
You believe the baby is a person and it is being killed right? So should women who have abortions be tried for murder? In many states in the US, murder is a capital crime. Would you support jailing or executing women who have abortions?Especially when, as La Petite Fleur says, 1000's of Irish (or any nationality!) couples are only crying out to adapt and give their love to a child.
Thousands of women from Ireland who want to avoid the trauma of giving their children up for adoption instead abort them. They would prefer to terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible and get on with the rest of their lives as best they can. Do you suggest forcing them to have their babies and then force them to hand their children over?
I would prefer there were no abortions but unfortunately people have sex for recreation and do not have sex just for procreation and contraception is not 100% reliable and instead thousands of women with unwanted pregnancies choose abortion despite what you or I might believe.
Just how big would the prisons need to be to hold them?0 -
But if she doesn't want to go through with the pregnancy what then? Is she going to be forced to go through with the pregnancy?
Yes, of course! If you have a disease and there's a threat to your life, doctors MUST, by Irish law, intervene and save you, even if you dont want them to. In this case, they should intervene and save the baby's life.You believe the baby is a person and it is being killed right? So should women who have abortions be tried for murder? In many states in the US, murder is a capital crime. Would you support jailing or executing women who have abortions?
Eh, no. My point is to try and NOT kill people. As for jail, possibly. It still wouldnt bring the baby back, so it would be a bit pointless. Seeing as these women dont want their own kids anyway, sterilisation maybe?Do you suggest forcing them to have their babies and then force them to hand their children over?
As opposed to barbarically slaughtering them? Absolutely!I would prefer there were no abortions but unfortunately people have sex for recreation and do not have sex just for procreation and contraception is not 100% reliable and instead thousands of women with unwanted pregnancies choose abortion despite what you or I might believe.
Just how big would the prisons need to be to hold them?
Oh, so just because *lots* of women kill their children that they dont want, that makes it right does it?0 -
Yes, of course! If you have a disease and there's a threat to your life, doctors MUST, by Irish law, intervene and save you, even if you dont want them to. In this case, they should intervene and save the baby's life.
<B>Well if that's the case, surely the father should have his passport revoked until a decision is made on whether or not the child is going to be adopted, and if it's not, he shouldn't be allowed immigrate til the child turns 18. </B>
Eh, no. My point is to try and NOT kill people. As for jail, possibly. It still wouldnt bring the baby back, so it would be a bit pointless. Seeing as these women dont want their own kids anyway, sterilisation maybe?
<B>Forced sterilisation for women who may want kids in the future, well wouldn't the nazis have just adored you? </B>
As opposed to barbarically slaughtering them? Absolutely!
<B> It's not barbaric, the foetuses don't feel any pain. </B>
Oh, so just because *lots* of women kill their children that they dont want, that makes it right does it?
Sorry if I hijacked your argument, guys, but I have been reading all these posts for the past hour when the emails come through and I just couldn't hold my tongue any longer.0 -
But if she doesn't want to go through with the pregnancy what then? Is she going to be forced to go through with the pregnancy?
You believe the baby is a person and it is being killed right? So should women who have abortions be tried for murder? In many states in the US, murder is a capital crime. Would you support jailing or executing women who have abortions?
Thousands of women from Ireland who want to avoid the trauma of giving their children up for adoption instead abort them. They would prefer to terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible and get on with the rest of their lives as best they can. Do you suggest forcing them to have their babies and then force them to hand their children over?
I would prefer there were no abortions but unfortunately people have sex for recreation and do not have sex just for procreation and contraception is not 100% reliable and instead thousands of women with unwanted pregnancies choose abortion despite what you or I might believe.
Just how big would the prisons need to be to hold them?[/QUOTE]
Is Hell big enough?? Whether or not it's legal, its a sin against the 6th commandment!!!0 -
But if she doesn't want to go through with the pregnancy what then? Is she going to be forced to go through with the pregnancy?
You believe the baby is a person and it is being killed right? So should women who have abortions be tried for murder? In many states in the US, murder is a capital crime. Would you support jailing or executing women who have abortions?
Thousands of women from Ireland who want to avoid the trauma of giving their children up for adoption instead abort them. They would prefer to terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible and get on with the rest of their lives as best they can. Do you suggest forcing them to have their babies and then force them to hand their children over?
I would prefer there were no abortions but unfortunately people have sex for recreation and do not have sex just for procreation and contraception is not 100% reliable and instead thousands of women with unwanted pregnancies choose abortion despite what you or I might believe.
Just how big would the prisons need to be to hold them?[/QUOTE]
Is Hell big enough?? Whether or not it's legal, its a sin against the 6th commandment!!!
Well if the mother is single, then she's going to hell anyway. No sex before marriage, right?
If she's married legally she can't give up the kid for adoption.. If she gets divorced in order to give the child up for adoption, she's also going to hell.0 -
If even an enlightened caring woman has been raped and finds herself pregnant chances are she might feel that way and there's no way you could shift her to another point of view.
But it is her womb.
But she doesn't want to have the kid no matter how you try to persuade her then it's her decision isn't it?
What if she doesn't care? She says she wants an abortion and that is that?
That's just what you think. You don't know that for sure.
Still offers no justification or sufficient argument for killing a blameless child.Maybe you should get in contact with a crisis pregnancy counsellor and he/she could tell you?
I have, and many of them do not endorse killing an innocent child as a viable solution to any crisis.These women have a free choice and they take it. It's not your business what they do once they make their minds up.
You or I might try to persuade them not to but if they feel they can't go through with a pregnancy we have no right to force them to give birth against their will do we?
The right to life for innocent Children is every citizens 'business'
No, they should receive proper education, counseling and support that killing an innocent blameless child is not a viable remedy for any problem or crisis. I have no personal wish or desire to judge any woman placed in a difficult situation, and for me it is not about judging any individual woman that mistakenly thought, or was persuaded, mislead, confused or badly advised during a very vulnerable time, that abortion could be any type of viable solution, it is, and always will be, about the right to life of an innocent child.So should women who have abortions be tried for murder?In many states in the US, murder is a capital crime. Would you support jailing or executing women who have abortions?
Prosecution and enforcement of the law is a matter for the state, whether it personally suits individuals or not.
I do not support the death penalty for children or adults.0 -
Advertisement
-
As for jail, possibly. It still wouldnt bring the baby back, so it would be a bit pointless. Seeing as these women dont want their own kids anyway, sterilisation maybe?
Do you think it would be equally pointless to imprison a man for murder since it won't bring back the victim?
Also, a woman who aborts may well want children.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement