What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?

ntlbell

taconnol wrote: »

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.

No one is stupid or childish enough to think to making something ilegal will stop it, it's not illegal in Ireland and it still goes on. as does the usage of heroin but that doesn't mean we should make it legal because people are doing it.

To start saying it's ok to commit murder is going down a very dangerous road.

The same way it would be if we made heroin legal and people started growing up where it was fairly normal to go have a few pints go back to a friends house and bang up.

twisting both these arguments around is just pointless.

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

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.

You're right, heroin and prostitution etc hasn't gone away but that's not an argument for legalising it. With abortions, the victim is out of sight and out of mind. It can't look you in the eye and fight back so it's easier to convince yourself that there actually is no victim.

Pretty much every law on the statutes has been broken millions of times, from murder to rape to theft and no one would ever suggest "sure people are raping people anyway and they have to hide in dangerous bushes so lets make it easier on them and legalise it". And the reason no one would ever suggest that is because there is an obvious victim. With abortion you may not be able to see the victim but it still exists

Macha

OK look, my problem is this. I don't like the idea of the rights of a child being more important than the rights of a grown adult woman.

There are a lot of cases in the US where anti-abortion laws have been used against women, who had no intention of having an abortion. I'm just not comfortable with that concept.

And I still stand by my point on legalisation. There are no benefits to legalising murder, rape etc. However, there are clear and definite benefits to legalising drugs, prostitution and abortion.

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

OK look, my problem is this. I don't like the idea of the rights of a child being more important than the rights of a grown adult woman.

It's not that they're more important, it's that the right to life supersedes the right to comfort. The woman is not going to die by having the baby so i don't see why she should be allowed kill it out of convenience.

Could you justify a situation where you could save someone's life by getting up and walking away from the tv but you said "i have no obligation to you and your rights aren't more important than mine"?

Of course if the woman's life is actually in danger that's a whole different kettle of fish

taconnol wrote: »

There are a lot of cases in the US where anti-abortion laws have been used against women, who had no intention of having an abortion. I'm just not comfortable with that concept.

How do you mean?

taconnol wrote: »

And I still stand by my point on legalisation. There are no benefits to legalising murder, rape etc. However, there are clear and definite benefits to legalising drugs, prostitution and abortion.

there is at least one benefit to legalising murder but one you mightn't think of. If murder is illegal then murderers go to jail and leave their wives and families to fend for themselves. Often children are left with no parent because they're in jail. If murder was legal we wouldn't have this problem. But you would never suggest that murder should be made legal because the murderer has committed and heinous act and deserves to be punished for it. Again, your argument only works if you make the assumption that abortion is not wrong, which i don't accept

ntlbell

taconnol wrote: »

OK look, my problem is this. I don't like the idea of the rights of a child being more important than the rights of a grown adult woman.

how about them just been of equal importance?

would that not sit well with you?

Macha

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not that they're more important, it's that the right to life supersedes the right to comfort. The woman is not going to die by having the baby so i don't see why she should be allowed kill it out of convenience.

Sure, I don't agree with convenience but you've used the word "comfort" in a very vague way.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Of course if the woman's life is actually in danger that's a whole different kettle of fish

Ah, I was under the impression you were anti-abortion in all cases.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How do you mean?

As a woman, this video is very disturbing to watch.

I'd just like to say that my father was put up for adoption so I may be one generation removed, but I am in a similar situation to you. It still doesn't impact on my attitude towards women's rights. I think you would feel differently about this if you were a woman and genuinely experienced the notion that your body is somehow public property and the state can force you to do something with your body that you don't want to do.

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

Sure, I don't agree with convenience but you've used the word "comfort" in a very vague way.

I wasn't sure exactly what word to use. Basically i mean that the woman isn't going to die so her rights aren't being ignored, they just don't give her the right to kill someone else because their right to life is equal

taconnol wrote: »

Ah, I was under the impression you were anti-abortion in all cases.

If it's a choice between the mother and the child, i'll generally choose the mother. It's a triage situation where you have to choose one of them and anyway, in the vast majority of cases that could be considered abortion and not birth the foetus will die anyway if the mother dies

taconnol wrote: »

As a woman, this video is very disturbing to watch.

I'm not sure why the law even got involved. She wanted the child so why all the force

Also, at that stage we're not talking about a foetus that can be mistaken for a clump of cells, we're talking about a fully functional human being that can live outside the mother's body. Why should her right to not have a c section (or whatever the problem was, i didn't quite get it) supersede someone else's right to life?

taconnol wrote: »

I'd just like to say that my father was put up for adoption so I may be one generation removed, but I am in a similar situation to you. It still doesn't impact on my attitude towards women's rights. I think you would feel differently about this if you were a woman and genuinely experienced the notion that your body is somehow public property and the state can force you to do something with your body that you don't want to do.

You know you're right, if i was a woman i'd probably feel differently but that actually supports my point. A woman can't be objective because the problem directly affects her. She's terrified of having a child with all the problems that causes so of course she's more likely to support the argument that she shouldn't have to do it. That doesn't mean the argument is correct, it means fear has pushed her towards that point of view

Macha

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You know you're right, if i was a woman i'd probably feel differently but that actually supports my point. A woman can't be objective because the problem directly affects her. She's terrified of having a child with all the problems that causes so of course she's more likely to support the argument that she shouldn't have to do it. That doesn't mean the argument is correct, it means fear has pushed her towards that point of view

I would have to totally reject this. A woman may have fears and feel a lot of emotions but it does not mean that she is not capable of making a rational decision, or one that is not right for her. I could equally argue that because of your situation, your opinion on abortion is equally affected. As it stands, I don't think your opinion on abortion is invalid, just because of where you came from.

To be honest, this thread has really make me question how I feel about abortion-and I'm a self-professed feminist! I think I need to go away and think about it. Thanks for the chat.

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

I would have to totally reject this. A woman may have fears and feel a lot of emotions but it does not mean that she is not capable of making a rational decision, or one that is not right for her. I could equally argue that because of your situation, your opinion on abortion is equally affected. As it stands, I don't think your opinion on abortion is invalid, just because of where you came from.

To be honest, this thread has really make me question how I feel about abortion-and I'm a self-professed feminist! I think I need to go away and think about it. Thanks for the chat.

I didn't mean to suggest that a woman is incapable of making a rational decision, just that she's more likely to make the decision that's easier for her, the same as anyone would regardless of the issue

Thank you too

philologos

axel rose wrote: »

wow...I wonder how many of our anti abortion posters have actually been in the position of chosing whether or not to have an abortion. How many of our posters have organised adoptions for themselves?
Yea making something illegal really solves the problem :rolleyes:. Punishing desperate women is even more appropiate.........

I know this is a reductio ad absurdum argument, but this is one that has to be made.

Making stealing illegal really solves the problem? However it still warrants punishment even if the problem is not solved entirely.

Abortion is illegal in Irish law as currently the majority of the Irish population have deemed it unethical, and the Irish government has pledged to vindicate the rights of the unborn as well as those of the mother.

There are two sets of rights to be considered, the rights of the mother and the rights of the child, and arguably the rights of input from the father should also be considered so three.

I think that a prison penalty would be warranted in the case of abortions in which the mothers life is not threatened. However arguably this should be applied to the right to travel also.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What about a doctor who got heroin for someone who would have likely gone to a dealer anyway? Should he be let off?

So long as he wasn't making a profit from it I'd also hate to see him in jail cell for what you just mentioned.

As i keep saying, that logic only works if you assume there's nothing wrong with abortion, which anti abortionists don't accept

Well. . . .yes, and the title of the thread situted in humanities is "What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?". If it were a legal discussion I wouldn't have given that answer.

now that's an odd concept

You get punished or not depending on the method used to kill the foetus? Surely it either has a right to life or is a clump of cells that can be discarded? Are there ways that i can kill you without being prosecuted?

As I said, its a grey area. I guess I see the foetus as the woman's property up to a certain point. And to a woman who wants a child it's emotionally valuble property.

metrovelvet

taconnol wrote: »

To be honest, this thread has really make me question how I feel about abortion-and I'm a self-professed feminist! I think I need to go away and think about it. Thanks for the chat.

Feminism did not support abortion until the 1960s when it focused [too much imo] itself on reproductive rights. Earlier feminists such as Susan B Anthony were anti-abortion.

[QUOTE=Bottleofsmoke]
. I guess I see the foetus as the woman's property up to a certain point. And to a woman who wants a child it's emotionally valuble property.[/QUOTE]

You know the irony would be funny if it werent so tragic. Feminist use this argument to justify abortion, and its the same argument men used to justify violence towards women for decades.

thebman

metrovelvet wrote: »

Feminism did not support abortion until the 1960s when it focused [too much imo] itself on reproductive rights. Earlier feminists such as Susan B Anthony were anti-abortion.



You know the irony would be funny if it werent so tragic. Feminist use this argument to justify abortion, and its the same argument men used to justify violence towards women for decades.

Well women don't live inside men.

Macha

metrovelvet wrote: »

Feminism did not support abortion until the 1960s when it focused [too much imo] itself on reproductive rights. Earlier feminists such as Susan B Anthony were anti-abortion.

Yes. One of the reason they were anti-abortion was because they saw it as another way for men to control women's bodies and fertility. And, the argument you state below - ie they didn't want to treat any other person as their property, as had been done to women for so long.

metrovelvet wrote: »

You know the irony would be funny if it werent so tragic. Feminist use this argument to justify abortion, and its the same argument men used to justify violence towards women for decades.

Ahem..some feminists. . For the vast majority of women, it's about being in control of their own bodies and fertility and not being forced into motherhood.

I was thinking about this subject and how last year, people were talking about making it illegal for a pregnant woman to drink/smoke etc. If we are willing to force a woman to carry a baby to term, surely under the same logic, we are also willing to do this?

How do people feel about this?

metrovelvet

taconnol wrote: »

Ahem..some feminists. . For the vast majority of women, it's about being in control of their own bodies and fertility and not being forced into motherhood.

I was thinking about this subject and how last year, people were talking about making it illegal for a pregnant woman to drink/smoke etc. If we are willing to force a woman to carry a baby to term, surely under the same logic, we are also willing to do this?

How do people feel about this?

If they dont want to be mothers there is adoption.

As long as abortion is legal then there is no sense in making it illegal to kill your feotus with alcohol and cigarettes.

thebman

metrovelvet wrote: »

If they dont want to be mothers there is adoption.

As long as abortion is legal then there is no sense in making it illegal to kill your feotus with alcohol and cigarettes.

That's like saying as long as you have the death sentence, there is no point in making murder illegal.

I'll get my gun

metrovelvet

thebman wrote: »

That's like saying as long as you have the death sentence, there is no point in making murder illegal.

I'll get my gun

Why? If your argument is its her property she can do what she likes with it then she can fumigate it and drown it in alcohol if she likes.

Macha

metrovelvet wrote: »

If they dont want to be mothers there is adoption.

There are estimated to be over 40 million abortions a year? Do you really want an extra 40 million children in orphenages/state care? The world already has millions of children that are never adopted.

metrovelvet wrote: »

As long as abortion is legal then there is no sense in making it illegal to kill your feotus with alcohol and cigarettes.

Abortion is only legal in a few circumstances in Ireland.

metrovelvet

taconnol wrote: »

There are estimated to be over 40 million abortions a year? Do you really want an extra 40 million children in orphenages/state care? The world already has millions of children that are never adopted.

Your solution is genocide?

Sam Vimes

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

So long as he wasn't making a profit from it I'd also hate to see him in jail cell for what you just mentioned.

but you'd have to ask yourself why was he doing it and should he have been doing it. tbh i wouldn't like to see him go to jail either because with heroin, the person he's giving it to is a consenting adult and chooses to take it. personally i wouldn't think he'd done anything wrong at all, i used that example because most people wouldn't see it that way. but the unborn child is not a consenting adult and doesn't want to die

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

As I said, its a grey area. I guess I see the foetus as the woman's property up to a certain point. And to a woman who wants a child it's emotionally valuble property.

and that again is where we differ. as someone already said, that was the argument used to subjugate women, it was also the argument used to subjugate black people and it's now the argument used to subjugate the unborn. i sincerely hope that in a few years we look back on that argument with the same disgust as we do the other two. a human cannot be another human's property, whether they've grown a brain yet or not

thebman wrote: »

That's like saying as long as you have the death sentence, there is no point in making murder illegal.

I'll get my gun

it's really not the same thing at all tbh. firstly there would be no sentence, death or otherwise if it was legal so your statement makes no sense. and if the argument is that the foetus is the property of the woman she should be allowed to whatever she wants to it, be it kill it by sucking it out or severely injure it with cigarettes and alcohol. as pro abortionists say, it doesn't matter what it might potentially become in the future, all that matters is that right now the foetus is not a person and has no rights

taconnol wrote: »

There are estimated to be over 40 million abortions a year? Do you really want an extra 40 million children in orphenages/state care? The world already has millions of children that are never adopted.

maybe if abortion wasn't such an easy option people would be a bit more careful. and tbh, yes, i would rather that. killing 40 million human beings because it would be too much hassle to have them around reminds me of something that i don't want to mention for fear of Godwinning the thread

Rabidlamb

You can debate the morality of the issue all you want but the facts are that thousands of Irish women go through with the procedure every year.

I personally know 4 women who had abortions in their early 20's for "lifestyle" reasons & I remain friends with them all. They are your teachers, nurses, guards & your sisters. Not one of them regret it but weirdly they would rather not see it legalised in Ireland.

The fact it doesn't happen in our jurisdiction seems enough to salve most peoples guilt.

Macha

metrovelvet wrote: »

Your solution is genocide?

I just don't think you're being practical about it. Who exactly is going to look after all of these children? Even in a wealthy, developed country like Ireland, our health service is struggling to cope with the people we already have.

I just don't take the view of life, whatever the quality or cost.

SamVimes - do you have stats on the contraception habits of women who get abortions? Because you'll need them to back up that assertion.

thebman

metrovelvet wrote: »

Why? If your argument is its her property she can do what she likes with it then she can fumigate it and drown it in alcohol if she likes.

Not if she is intending on actually having the kid. If you can find a respected doctor that recommends this as a good way to have an abortion, I'll agree with you.

metrovelvet

taconnol wrote: »

I just don't think you're being practical about it. Who exactly is going to look after all of these children? Even in a wealthy, developed country like Ireland, our health service is struggling to cope with the people we already have.

I just don't take the view of life, whatever the quality or cost.

Do you know how many frozen embryos there are in storage? Do you know how many people are trying for kids on IVF? There needs to be an overhaul, a complete cultural rethinking on on all of this.

If you want to get practical about eliminating "burdens" you are getting into very dodgy territory.

metrovelvet

thebman wrote: »

Not if she is intending on actually having the kid. If you can find a respected doctor that recommends this as a good way to have an abortion, I'll agree with you.

Nope. If you follow the her body, her decision, then no, she can do what she likes.

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

I was thinking about this subject and how last year, people were talking about making it illegal for a pregnant woman to drink/smoke etc. If we are willing to force a woman to carry a baby to term, surely under the same logic, we are also willing to do this?

yes i would absolutely be willing to do this and i think it's odd that you might not. i'd also support making it illegal to smoke in your home if you have children. i've seen non-smokers who have had their voice boxes removed because of living with smokers.


would you support making it illegal to smoke in the home with your child?

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

I just don't think you're being practical about it. Who exactly is going to look after all of these children? Even in a wealthy, developed country like Ireland, our health service is struggling to cope with the people we already have.

I just don't take the view of life, whatever the quality or cost.

take your argument and think of it in terms of children that have already been born. doesn't make sense to kill them anymore does it? it comes back to the fundamental difference between pro and ant abortionists. you think a foetus is less valuable than a child that's been born but i don't

taconnol wrote: »

SamVimes - do you have stats on the contraception habits of women who get abortions? Because you'll need them to back up that assertion.

no i don't. but you know as well as i do that contraception is not used properly in a lot of places. in many places in the world they try to use coca cola to clean themselves out ffs

thebman wrote: »

Not if she is intending on actually having the kid. If you can find a respected doctor that recommends this as a good way to have an abortion, I'll agree with you.

what if she's not intending to have an abortion? what if she's just using the pro choice "my body, my choice". is it only her body, her choice if she intends to kill the baby and not maim it?

metrovelvet

Sam Vimes wrote: »

no i don't. but you know as well as i do that contraception is not used properly in a lot of places. in many places in the world they try to use coca cola to clean themselves out ffs

It was said yesterday on some godawful boring talk show on rte1 yesterday that 70% of babies are surprises.

Macha

metrovelvet wrote: »

Do you know how many frozen embryos there are in storage? Do you know how many people are trying for kids on IVF? There needs to be an overhaul, a complete cultural rethinking on on all of this.

Most definitely. I think there is an Adoption Bill coming up soon actually, funnily enough.

metrovelvet wrote: »

If you want to get practical about eliminating "burdens" you are getting into very dodgy territory.

What do you mean? We can be as philosphical about this as we like but reality counts.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

yes i would absolutely be willing to do this and i think it's odd that you might not. i'd also support making it illegal to smoke in your home if you have children. i've seen non-smokers who have had their voice boxes removed because of living with smokers.

First of all, how do you police something like this? Often, women don't know that they are pregnant for at least 4 weeks. How do you prove that they are aware?
Whatever about smoking, the science on drinking is not conclusive. Many drinks, yes of course but what about 1 drink? Are we going to be dragging women from pubs into jail?

It's just a bit too reminiscent of The Handmaid's Tale.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

would you support making it illegal to smoke in the home with your child?

I'd have to think about that one. Smoke outside/in another room - how do you police something like that?

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

First of all, how do you police something like this? Often, women don't know that they are pregnant for at least 4 weeks. How do you prove that they are aware?
Whatever about smoking, the science on drinking is not conclusive. Many drinks, yes of course but what about 1 drink? Are we going to be dragging women from pubs into jail?

how we police it isn't really the point. it's difficult to police lots of laws but that doesn't mean they should be made legal. for example to police speeding we'd have to put a camera on every street in the country at a cost of billions. what we're talking about here is whether doing it is wrong and should be punishable. how we police it is just technicalities and should be done with common sense

taconnol wrote: »

I'd have to think about that one. Smoke outside/in another room

you've hit the nail right on the head there. how does a foetus move to another room?