What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?

b3t4 · 23-01-2009 1:18pm

ntlbell wrote: »

so what you're saying is, ok they might be murdering/killing but can we not just brush that fact under the table lets ignore that part so we can get on with just doing it?

I see.

You're all in favour of forced pregnancies then. I see.

A.

Sam Vimes · 23-01-2009 1:26pm

b3t4 wrote: »

You know what I've learnt over the years. rape has not and will not go away whether there are 40 million threads like this or not. It's still there whether you like it or it. It still happens. It's been happening for thousands of years.

So, you know what I think, let's just get over it and help these vunerable rapists.

look how silly your argument looks when i replace abortion with rape. and that's because, as i keep saying, it only works if you assume there's nothing wrong with abortion. i don't accept that assumption so i won't accept any point made based on it

b3t4 wrote: »

Whatever about this 'baby' that doesn't exist in actuality, can we not simply look after the women who do or women simply mechanical incubators and nobody told me about it???

A.

and this is of course the point of contention. in the opinion of anti abortionists it does exist, so we will never agree on anything until we agree on that point

Sam Vimes · 23-01-2009 1:27pm

b3t4 wrote: »

You're all in favour of forced pregnancies then. I see.

A.

not exactly, i'm against the killing of babies. not quite the same thing

Sam Vimes · 23-01-2009 1:33pm

can you answer my question for me b3t4, no one seems to want to:

1. pro abortionists claim that the foetus is just a clump of cells, it's not a person and so killing it is not murder and there are no moral objections to it

2. but as i'm sure you will agree, having an abortion is an extremely traumatic event for the woman. she will wrestle with it and most likely feel guilt for the rest of her life and some even commit suicide

point 1 and point 2 are contradictory are they not? if it's just a clump of cells, why is it any more traumatic than getting an ingrown toenail removed? seems to me that these women don't actually believe what they're saying and are just desperately trying to convince themselves because they don't want a child.

no?

ntlbell · 23-01-2009 1:44pm

b3t4 wrote: »

You're all in favour of forced pregnancies then. I see.

A.

No like sam I am against the murdering of the innocent.

If the mothers life is not in danger then I don't see any reason for taken someone else's life

big difference.

Macha · 23-01-2009 1:51pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

2. but as i'm sure you will agree, having an abortion is an extremely traumatic event for the woman. she will wrestle with it and most likely feel guilt for the rest of her life and some even commit suicide

point 1 and point 2 are contradictory are they not? if it's just a clump of cells, why is it any more traumatic than getting an ingrown toenail removed? seems to me that these women don't actually believe what they're saying and are just desperately trying to convince themselves because they don't want a child.

no?

No. There is no conclusive evidence of "post-abortion syndrome".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28050494/from/ET/

"Based on the best available evidence, emotional harm should not be a factor in abortion policy. If the goal is to help women, program and policy decisions should not distort science to advance political agendas," added Vignetta Charles, a researcher and doctoral student at Johns Hopkins who worked on the study.

Sam Vimes · 23-01-2009 1:58pm

taconnol wrote: »

No. There is no conclusive evidence of "post-abortion syndrome".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28050494/from/ET/

i never said it was a mental illness but if they have any more remorse or feeling of guilt from an abortion than a hair cut then they don't actually believe it's just a clump of cells.

you couldn't possibly say that women generally have absolutely no problem getting an abortion and will give it no more thought than a hair cut could you?

Macha · 23-01-2009 2:01pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i never said it was a mental illness but if they have any more remorse or feeling of guilt from an abortion than a hair cut then they don't actually believe it's just a clump of cells.

Ah, fair enough. I see your point but I don't think anyone sees an abortion like getting their hair cut. What they see it as a group of cells that has the potential to grow into a human being.

Just because it's a hard decision doesn't mean it isn't the right one.

tallaght01 · 23-01-2009 2:01pm

taconnol wrote: »

No. There is no conclusive evidence of "post-abortion syndrome".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28050494/from/ET/

That study (or meta-analysis) compared longterm health outcomes.

Sam34 would know better than me, but you still still get postpartum depression (post natal depression) after an abortion if it's late enough, though it's not necessarily a long term illness.

Sam Vimes · 23-01-2009 2:09pm

taconnol wrote: »

Ah, fair enough. I see your point but I don't think anyone sees an abortion like getting their hair cut. What they see it as a group of cells that has the potential to grow into a human being.

Just because it's a hard decision doesn't mean it isn't the right one.

but then you have to ask yourself why is it a hard decision. the stated position of the pro abortionists is that it's just a clump of cells and therefore can be removed without any problems.

their entire case is based on that statement but if that statement is true then there should be no second thoughts whatsoever. it should be just like getting a haircut or an ingrown toe nail removed

if it's a hard decision for them then they don't truly believe that it's just a clump of cells so what they've actually done is made a conscious decision to kill a baby. personally i find that despicable and i can't understand how anyone can justify it to themselves

Macha · 23-01-2009 2:25pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

but then you have to ask yourself why is it a hard decision. the stated position of the pro abortionists is that it's just a clump of cells and therefore can be removed without any problems.

their entire case is based on that statement but if that statement is true then there should be no second thoughts whatsoever. it should be just like getting a haircut or an ingrown toe nail removed

if it's a hard decision for them then they don't truly believe that it's just a clump of cells so what they've actually done is made a conscious decision to kill a baby. personally i find that despicable and i can't understand how anyone can justify it to themselves

Hang on - I don't think you can lump all pro-abortionists in together. They're not a homogenous group and there are many varying opinions among them. It's very easy to critique a movement if you take the most extreme stance within that movement.

As I said earlier, I don't see it just as a group of cells but as a group of cells that has the potential to grow into a human being. That still doesn't mean I see it as a baby.

Malari · 23-01-2009 2:46pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

if it's a hard decision for them then they don't truly believe that it's just a clump of cells so what they've actually done is made a conscious decision to kill a baby. personally i find that despicable and i can't understand how anyone can justify it to themselves

Yes, I don't like to be lumped in with "pro-abortionists" because I don't agree with a lot of what's being said here on both sides.

I actually think very early term abortions are done by women who have more compassion for the unborn that women who wait around till the 23rd week.

Of course you've made a conscious decision to prevent yourself having a baby. Or kill a baby, as you say it.

It's very telling that you "can't understand" how women can justify doing it. That is the crux of it for me. You just can't understand.

Mr. Incognito · 23-01-2009 3:00pm

This thread has decended into two men dictating an over simplistic, archaic view of abortion, clapping each other on the back and interjecting the word murder in copy and paste format to anyone who tries to disagree with them.

In short, this is not a rational debate. The thread really should be locked at this stage, it'll only continue in this vein

or in vain.

thebman · 23-01-2009 3:02pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

can you answer my question for me b3t4, no one seems to want to:

1. pro abortionists claim that the foetus is just a clump of cells, it's not a person and so killing it is not murder and there are no moral objections to it

2. but as i'm sure you will agree, having an abortion is an extremely traumatic event for the woman. she will wrestle with it and most likely feel guilt for the rest of her life and some even commit suicide

point 1 and point 2 are contradictory are they not? if it's just a clump of cells, why is it any more traumatic than getting an ingrown toenail removed? seems to me that these women don't actually believe what they're saying and are just desperately trying to convince themselves because they don't want a child.

no?

You've obviously never had an ingrown toenail removed :P

Sam Vimes · 23-01-2009 3:54pm

taconnol wrote: »

Hang on - I don't think you can lump all pro-abortionists in together. They're not a homogenous group and there are many varying opinions among them. It's very easy to critique a movement if you take the most extreme stance within that movement.

As I said earlier, I don't see it just as a group of cells but as a group of cells that has the potential to grow into a human being. That still doesn't mean I see it as a baby.

ah but you see it's not something that has the potential to grow into a baby like a sperm, it's something that is currently developing into a baby. it's a potential baby in the same way as a baby is a potential adult

to me the justification of "it's ok to kill it because it doesn't yet meet my definition of a baby" is the same as "it's ok to kill a child immediately after it's born because it hasn't experienced the world yet so it's not really a person". it's just a convenient definition that fits what you want to be true. the foetus is a human being. it may not have developed a brain yet and it may not match you consider valuable as a person but it's a human being and it has human rights (or it should, unfortunately not everyone agrees). but you don't want it to have rights because that's too much hassle for you so you come up with rationalisations and convince yourself that it doesn't

edit:another example of such a convenient definition from history would be: "they're only black so they're not really people, therefore it's not immoral to enslave them". exactly the same thought processes are used to justify slavery as to justify abortion

if people don't just see it as a clump of cells, if they see it as something more, how can they justify killing it?

Malari wrote: »

Of course you've made a conscious decision to prevent yourself having a baby. Or kill a baby, as you say it.

you say that as if it's nothing. someone has made a decision to kill a baby and you don't have a problem with that

Malari wrote: »

It's very telling that you "can't understand" how women can justify doing it. That is the crux of it for me. You just can't understand.

then explain to me how someone who isn't absolutely sure that the foetus is just a clump of cells can justify killing it. i think i already do understand it. women want the foetus to be just a clump of cells because they don't want to have a child so they convince themselves that it is. evidence doesn't come into it, they want it to be true, therefore it is

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

This thread has decended into two men dictating an over simplistic, archaic view of abortion, clapping each other on the back and interjecting the word murder in copy and paste format to anyone who tries to disagree with them.

In short, this is not a rational debate. The thread really should be locked at this stage, it'll only continue in this vein

or in vain.

there's nothing over simplistic or archaic about "murder is wrong", it's a universal truth.

and the reason i use the word murder is because that's what it is

edit:also there is quite a lot of rational debate here. your description of the thread is completely inaccurate. it attempts to dismiss everything we're saying without actually proving us wrong.....because you can't prove us wrong

Sam Vimes · 23-01-2009 3:54pm

brim4brim wrote: »

You've obviously never had an ingrown toenail removed :P

you're right it's far more traumatic than any abortion

Malari · 23-01-2009 4:23pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you say that as if it's nothing. someone has made a decision to kill a baby and you don't have a problem with that

I don't have a problem with it, as long as it's in my womb and it's only about 8 weeks old. That's not to say I take it lightly. I don't want to have an abortion, but I don't want to be pregnant more.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

then explain to me how someone who isn't absolutely sure that the foetus is just a clump of cells can justify killing it. i think i already do understand it. women want the foetus to be just a clump of cells because they don't want to have a child so they convince themselves that it is. evidence doesn't come into it, they want it to be true, therefore it is

Again, I have just stated that I DON'T just see the foetus as a clump of cells, and yet you say you understand how women justify abortions by calling it a clump of cells.

Sam Vimes · 23-01-2009 4:29pm

Malari wrote: »

I don't have a problem with it, as long as it's in my womb and it's only about 8 weeks old. That's not to say I take it lightly. I don't want to have an abortion, but I don't want to be pregnant more.

right. i have a kid and i love him but i want to be carefree and go travelling more. can i kill him?

why 8 weeks? is it not a human being before 8 weeks?

edit:also, what gives you the right to decide when another human being has value and when it can be discarded?

Malari wrote: »

Again, I have just stated that I DON'T just see the foetus as a clump of cells, and yet you say you understand how women justify abortions by calling it a clump of cells.

but if a woman kills something that is not just a clump of cells, that is a human being in the process of developing (just like a baby is), then surely she has just committed premeditated murder? the only way i can see of justifying it is by completely dehumanising it, ie thinking it as a clump of cells. if you have not completely dehumanised it then you are killing a human, no?

Malari · 23-01-2009 4:43pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

right. i have a kid and i love him but i want to be carefree and go travelling more. can i kill him?

why 8 weeks? is it not a human being before 8 weeks?

edit:also, what gives you the right to decide when another human being has value and when it can be discarded?

Why do you keep asking me the same question? I keep saying, yes of course it's a human. I'm saying 8 weeks, because I'm guessing that would be about the limit of when you could be pregnant without knowing it.

The law gives me the right, in countries where I can legally travel to. Who's to say if you didn't grow up in a time when slavery was commonplace you wouldn't have a problem with it? Sure, maybe in hundreds of years time abortion will be completely outlawed and maybe if I lived in such a time I wouldn't have one, or I would take even more precautions not to become pregnant. But I don't live in those times. I live now, when abortion is not a moral absolute because if it was everyone would be against it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

but if a woman kills something that is not just a clump of cells, that is a human being in the process of developing (just like a baby is), then surely she has just committed premeditated murder? the only way i can see of justifying it is by completely dehumanising it, ie thinking it as a clump of cells. if you have not completely dehumanised it then you are killing a human, no?

In my brain, yeah I would have to say I'm killing a human, but a lot of women wouldn't say that. Not everyone thinks the same way, or needs to justify their actions with the same thought process you use. That was my initial point - not all pro-abortionists use the same argument.

Sam Vimes · 23-01-2009 5:00pm

Malari wrote: »

Why do you keep asking me the same question? I keep saying, yes of course it's a human.

i keep asking the same question because i am unable to comprehend how someone can justify killing another human being! i thought that they had just completely dehumanised the foetus so that they didn't think of it as a human but if that's not the case for some women then those women are quite simply murderers and should be punished just like any other murderer

Malari wrote: »

I'm saying 8 weeks, because I'm guessing that would be about the limit of when you could be pregnant without knowing it.

ah so the child becomes valuable as a human being immediately after the time you find out about it and kill it. now that's a very handy definition. Should a woman who finds out at 9 weeks or 10 be prevented from getting one?

Malari wrote: »

The law gives me the right, in countries where I can legally travel to. Who's to say if you didn't grow up in a time when slavery was commonplace you wouldn't have a problem with it? Sure, maybe in hundreds of years time abortion will be completely outlawed and maybe if I lived in such a time I wouldn't have one, or I would take even more precautions not to become pregnant.

we're not arguing what's legal, we're arguing what's right. Legality doesn't necessarily say anything about whether something is right or not

Malari wrote: »

But I don't live in those times. I live now, when abortion is not a moral absolute because if it was everyone would be against it.

you'll find that just because certain people don't think something is wrong does not mean that it is not 100% definitely wrong.

for the second time in this thread i point someone's attention to this group:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

they believe that children are sexual beings and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with having sex with them. they campaign to legalise paedophilia. just like people who are pro abortion, they convince themselves that what they're saying is right despite the fact that they are clearly wrong

so thinking paedophilia is wrong is not a moral absolute. does that mean we should allow them to rape children?

Malari wrote: »

In my brain, yeah I would have to say I'm killing a human, but a lot of women wouldn't say that. Not everyone thinks the same way, or needs to justify their actions with the same thought process you use. That was my initial point - not all pro-abortionists use the same argument.

i really don't know how to reply to that. you acknowledge that you're killing another human being and you can somehow rationalise that that is acceptable. did no one ever teach you that it's not ok to kill people

Macha · 23-01-2009 6:20pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

ah but you see it's not something that has the potential to grow into a baby like a sperm, it's something that is currently developing into a baby. it's a potential baby in the same way as a baby is a potential adult

to me the justification of "it's ok to kill it because it doesn't yet meet my definition of a baby" is the same as "it's ok to kill a child immediately after it's born because it hasn't experienced the world yet so it's not really a person". it's just a convenient definition that fits what you want to be true. the foetus is a human being. it may not have developed a brain yet and it may not match you consider valuable as a person but it's a human being and it has human rights (or it should, unfortunately not everyone agrees). but you don't want it to have rights because that's too much hassle for you so you come up with rationalisations and convince yourself that it doesn't

I could similarly accuse you of using "rationalisations" and trying to "convince" yourself of certain things to justify your opinion but I would consider that to be condescending.

I've put across my point of view. We can argue til the cows come home but we're never going to agree on this point.

BTW - you should read up on Peter Singer - you'd totally hate him because he's a consequentialist, not a moralist.

Edit: Damn, I think you've actually changed my mind...I can't argue that a foetus is not a living thing.

Sam Vimes · 23-01-2009 6:56pm

taconnol wrote: »

I could similarly accuse you of using "rationalisations" and trying to "convince" yourself of certain things to justify your opinion but I would consider that to be condescending.

I wouldn't say rationalisations apply to my argument. People generally rationalise when they want something to be true because they don't like the alternative but i don't like the idea of forcing women to bring babies to full term, i'd much rather believe that a foetus is a useless clump of cells because that would make life so much easier for everyone. But i just can't console my conscience with it. It's "an inconvenient truth" to quote al gore

taconnol wrote: »

Edit: Damn, I think you've actually changed my mind...I can't argue that a foetus is not a living thing.

stop the presses!!!!! This is a first in the history of internet discussion boards :P

Sam Vimes · 23-01-2009 7:14pm

Btw, I think one of the main reason's that I'm so against abortion is that my natural mother gave me up for adoption as a new born. She was in college and couldn't look after a child.

My parents (not to be confused with the woman who gave birth to me) are the best parents you could possibly hope for but they couldn't have children so my natural mother gave a childless couple the greatest gift that it's possible to give another person.

if my natural mother had thought differently, I wouldn't be here trying to convince you that abortion is wrong, I'd be medical waste.

There are thousands of couples out there just like my parents who would do anything to have a child but they're forced to search abroad because of all the women in Ireland today who are terminating their pregnancies. And I think that's an awful shame

willy wonka · 23-01-2009 11:17pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Btw, I think one of the main reason's that I'm so against abortion is that my natural mother gave me up for adoption as a new born. She was in college and couldn't look after a child.

if my natural mother had thought differently, I wouldn't be here trying to convince you that abortion is wrong, I'd be medical waste.

There are thousands of couples out there just like my parents who would do anything to have a child but they're forced to search abroad because of all the women in Ireland today who are terminating their pregnancies. And I think that's an awful shame

Agree totally - How can human beings be reduced to medical waste?

I came across this siteand it was very upsetting to read. Here are some quotes from women who have had abortions:

I had an abortion in january 2004 - i can still recall every detail and it still hurts like crazy everytime I think about it - I have gotten a lot of help since then and have come a long way but it is the biggest regret of my life and I fear I will never have amy more children of my own - I call myself angel as a nickname as that is what I named my baby afterwads - my little Angel looking down on me.

I encouraged my daughter to have an abortion. To this day she feels emotional pain. I regret for 2 reasons. The child no doubt would have been a blessing and things would have worked out. Also, killing is a terrible thing to live with, especially killing of your own blood.

i had an abortion 2 and a half years ago and it was the biggest mistake of my life, i did not want to get it done only my boyfriend said it was for the best because our relationship was only new and we might no last well we lasted up to 5 months ago when i just found out i was pregnant again and he left me.it made me realise i should of kept that baby and got rid of him!Sometimes it feels like this baby is making up for the last baby because i feel so guilty.but i no this baby still wont ease the pain.

I had the decision of having an abortion made for me and I went along with it. I can't really remember the details, maybe I've blocked them out. I can only remember the guilt, the loneliness and the smart comments and anger from my family...sorry I'm going on a bit but I've never really talked about this before. I wrote a poem which i've attached below if you'd call it that but it was something going through my head one day and so I wrote it down. I've also thought tonight that my child...wish I could have known the sex so at least I'd have a name for him or her instead of calling it nothing if you know what I mean...anyway my girl or boy would have been 19 this year and been born in the same month as my birthday. Take care.

Of course there are going to be women who didn't regret their decision but reading these was heartbreaking. As you can see ALL the women referred to the loss as a baby or a child. Why would you want women to suffer like this. I believe having an abortion must be like removing part of your soul.

Also the article refers to a report by Researchers at the University of Oslo who report the long lasting effects of abortion

jill_valentine · 23-01-2009 11:35pm

Well, I was pro-abortion in literally all cases of birth until I saw that clever use of bolding.

Macha · 23-01-2009 11:42pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

stop the presses!!!!! This is a first in the history of internet discussion boards :P

Hah, believe it or not this is about the 4th time my mind has been changed on something due to discussions with other Boardsies. I'm all about debating things.

However, my acceptance that a foetus is a living thing, doesn't mean I don't agree with abortion in some cases. I also have serious reservations over making abortion illegal as it forces women to have risky procedures, often leave the abortion until later in the pregnancy and travel away from her home to avail of the service.

Sam Vimes · 24-01-2009 12:19am

taconnol wrote: »

Hah, believe it or not this is about the 4th time my mind has been changed on something due to discussions with other Boardsies. I'm all about debating things.

However, my acceptance that a foetus is a living thing, doesn't mean I don't agree with abortion in some cases. I also have serious reservations over making abortion illegal as it forces women to have risky procedures, often leave the abortion until later in the pregnancy and travel away from her home to avail of the service.

And the counter argument i always use in that case is that heroin is illegal and it forces people to get it from scumbags who could have cut it with anything but that doesn't mean that heroin should be made legal - because heroin is a bad thing

And no one's actually forcing them to get abortions, the idea of the law is to stop them. I just think that "the law's being broken anyway so you should just make it legal" is a very poor argument because, as with most pro abortion arguments, it makes the assumption that there's nothing wrong with abortion. That statement doesn't make any sense if you apply it to any law except abortion

nacho libre · 24-01-2009 12:22am

taconnol wrote: »

Hah, believe it or not this is about the 4th time my mind has been changed on something due to discussions with other Boardsies. I'm all about debating things.

However, my acceptance that a foetus is a living thing, doesn't mean I don't agree with abortion in some cases. I also have serious reservations over making abortion illegal as it forces women to have risky procedures, often leave the abortion until later in the pregnancy and travel away from her home to avail of the service.

Interesting. I say interesting because before i read your message i was about to post asking had anyone from either side of this debate ever had their minds changed by these discussions.

Sam Vimes · 24-01-2009 12:26am

nacho libre wrote: »

Interesting. I say interesting because before i read your message i was about to post asking had anyone from either side of this debate ever had their minds changed by these discussions.

I was very surprised tbh. We're all very entrenched in our positions. It always comes back to the same few arguments and the same few rebuttals. I'm right though :pac:

Macha · 24-01-2009 12:33am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And the counter argument i always use in that case is that heroin is illegal and it forces people to get it from scumbags who could have cut it with anything but that doesn't mean that heroin should be made legal - because heroin is a bad thing

And no one's actually forcing them to get abortions, the idea of the law is to stop them. I just think that "the law's being broken anyway so you should just make it legal" is a very poor argument because, as with most pro abortion arguments, it makes the assumption that there's nothing wrong with abortion. That statement doesn't make any sense if you apply it to any law except abortion

No,I'm saying abortions shouldn't be banned just because we think that abortions shouldn't happen. It's silly and childish. You have to look at the reality of the situation, and not just look down from a moralistic perch and say "OK, I'm happy because abortions are illegal", while all around you, illegal abortions are happening, women's mental and physical health is being jeaporised and rape victims are being forced to bear children they don't want.

The reason I mentioned Singer earlier is because he's a consequentalist and so am I. I would rather that abortions don't happen. But I'm not simple enough to think that just banning them is the best thing. If a woman really wants an abortion, she will have it, regardless of whether it is illegal or not. Surely the 7,000 Irish women who have abortions every year is evidence enough of this.

So I don't think making things "illegal" just because you like the idea of a society where this sort of thing is banned and then people will stop having abortions and the whole problem will go away, is just incredibly simplistic. Has heroin gone away? No. Has making prostitution illegal made it go away? No Making something illegal or not, really doesn't make these issues just go away.

Edit: nacho libre, I've changed my opinion insofar as I cannot argue that a foetus is not a living thing but I am still opposed to making abortion illegal.

What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?

Comments