What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?

thebman

metrovelvet wrote: »

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

Sorry but that is not the case. Yes she can do it. There is nothing to stop her.

But I believe it is wrong to do so because there is no guarantee that she will drink until the baby is terminated. It is much more likely that the baby will be born with some sort of mental or physical problem because of the mothers actions.

I can't stop the mother drinking/smoking when being pregnant and the law can't either. I can say I don't think its right though based on the above.

Sam Vimes

thebman wrote: »

Sorry but that is not the case. Yes she can do it. There is nothing to stop her.

But I believe it is wrong to do so because there is no guarantee that she will drink until the baby is terminated. It is much more likely that the baby will be born with some sort of mental or physical problem because of the mothers actions.

I can't stop the mother drinking/smoking when being pregnant and the law can't either. I can say I don't think its right though based on the above.

so it's perfectly ok to kill the baby but not to maim it.

should we then increase the penalty for assault but legalise murder since the victim doesn't have to suffer afterwards?


or is it just that you don't care what happens to the child as long as you don't have to deal with the results? out of sight, out of mind and all that?

Macha

Sam Vimes wrote: »

how we police it isn't really the point.

Why not? Why keep avoiding a discussion of the practical implications of your proposed laws?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

"Just technicalities"? So answer me a few things here:
-how do we know that a woman knows that she is pregnant
-what happens if the woman in question is addicted to cigarettes or alcohol
-what is the current scientific consensus on alcohol and pregnancy?

You can't just say you want a particular law and not think about the "technicalities" of it! It's part and parcel of the law.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

You asked me about another idea, not about a foetus. You carry the analogy over but I don't.

philologos

metrovelvet wrote: »

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

You do realise this is the equivalent of me saying the following:

Nope. If you follow the child separate entity, has human rights (UNDCH Article 8), then no, they should live.

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

"Just technicalities"? So answer me a few things here:
-how do we know that a woman knows that she is pregnant

that's to be decided by a judge using the laws of the state. i'm neither a lawyer nor a judge so i don't presume to make that decision for them. that's why they make the big bucks. but in short, the answer to your question is: on a case by case basis in a sensible way. eg a woman 3 weeks pregnant might not know but one who's at 6 months, hasn't had a period in all that time and has a massive bulge obviously knows

edit:by technicalities, i meant details that can be ironed out. it's not so massively complex an issue that it's impossible to adjudicate it fairly

taconnol wrote: »

-what happens if the woman in question is addicted to cigarettes or alcohol

couldn't give a sh!te tbh. addiction doesn't give her a right to steal to feed her habit any more than it gives her a right to harm another human being. if a law banning smoking in the home with children was to be introduced would you make exceptions for those who were addicted?

taconnol wrote: »

-what is the current scientific consensus on alcohol and pregnancy?

i've no idea, why? also i said smoking should be illegal, not drinking

taconnol wrote: »

You asked me about another idea, not about a foetus. You carry the analogy over but I don't.

i asked you about making it illegal to smoke around your child. a foetus is your child, just in a less developed state in the same way as a baby is less developed than a teenager

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

You do realise this is the equivalent of me saying the following:

Nope. If you follow the child separate entity, has human rights (UNDCH Article 8), then no, they should live.

i think you might be missing his point. he's against abortion

Bottle_of_Smoke

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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


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

Right, I was only going by the thread title. This argument has drifted into to "is abortion right or wrong?" territory, and we all know how futile that is.

You're right. We have different opinions on the foetus, so the the mentioning of my logic being used against women & blacks in the past means nothing to me. Just as my logic means nothing to you. It's agree to differ time for me.

thebman

Sam Vimes wrote: »

so it's perfectly ok to kill the baby but not to maim it.

should we then increase the penalty for assault but legalise murder since the victim doesn't have to suffer afterwards?


or is it just that you don't care what happens to the child as long as you don't have to deal with the results? out of sight, out of mind and all that?

When abortions occur it isn't a baby IMO. Way to early in development to call it a baby. If your going down that route, you might as well go the whole hog and end up in every sperm is sacred territory which is ridiculous.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Right, I was only going by the thread title. This argument has drifted into to "is abortion right or wrong?" territory, and we all know how futile that is.

You're right. We have different opinions on the foetus, so the the mentioning of my logic being used against women & blacks in the past means nothing to me. Just as my logic means nothing to you. It's agree to differ time for me.

Agreed, this thread should be locked IMO. Your never going to convince the other side that abortion is not wrong anymore than they are going to convince me that abortion is wrong. So it stops being debate and just becomes an argument.

philologos

thebman wrote: »

When abortions occur it isn't a baby IMO. Way to early in development to call it a baby. If your going down that route, you might as well go the whole hog and end up in every sperm is sacred territory which is ridiculous.

A sperm isn't a human life in and of it's own accord. A sperm is a prerequisite for life as is the ova.

It is only when these two prerequisites are fused together that it becomes a human biological lifeform that develops until the stage of birth. i.e A human being from conception until death, conception to birth is merely the first stage.

If this is a human being, then the right to life is conferred to it, and quite rightfully if we are to stick to these human rights laws that were given unto us in 1948, it should be illegal to violate this right for the child.

I think there has to be a balance between the childs rights and the mothers rights.

thebman

Jakkass wrote: »

A sperm isn't a human life in and of it's own accord. A sperm is a prerequisite for life as is the ova.

It is only when these two prerequisites are fused together that it becomes a human biological lifeform that develops until the stage of birth. i.e A human being from conception until death, conception to birth is merely the first stage.

Yes but once viewed it isn't a human being, it has more in common with sperm than humans at that point so I can't call that human life.

It can only be something with potential to become human life. Sperm also has this potential.

BleedTheF!FtH

Unfortnately i cant watch the vid but i dont agree that it should be illegal.

Sam Vimes

thebman wrote: »

When abortions occur it isn't a baby IMO. Way to early in development to call it a baby. If your going down that route, you might as well go the whole hog and end up in every sperm is sacred territory which is ridiculous.

what you've done there is an example of the slippery slope logical fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

this is roughly the 100th time i've posted exactly the following statement on various threads:

a sperm is a component of your body. it cannot live outside your body and will never be anything more than it is. if a sperm is put inside a womb (and no fertilisation occurs at which point it is no longer a sperm) then it will die.

a zygote on the other hand, is a living being. it needs a friendly environment and food to survive just like any other living being. for the first 9 months of its life it is a parasitic being in that it uses another being (the mother) to survive but that does not make it any less a separate being and it is not a part of the mother like the egg is.

i don't try to call a zygote a baby, what i call it is a human being. it is a human being, that is a fact which is not up for debate. a zyogte is just a human being at an early stage of development, a slightly earlier stage than a baby is

i don't bestow rights on a being because it meets my convenient definition of what i consider to be important in another being, rights are bestowed on it by dint of the fact that it is a human being. they're called human rights, not baby rights

Sam Vimes

thebman wrote: »

Yes but once viewed it isn't a human being, it has more in common with sperm than humans at that point so I can't call that human life.

It can only be something with potential to become human life. Sperm also has this potential.

you really need to read back through the thread. a sperm does not at all have the potential to develop into human life. it has the potential to fuse with something else and completely change it's nature so that it is no longer a sperm and this new object can then begin the process of developing a human life.

a zygote is not a potential human life, it is a currently developing human life, just the way a baby is and that is a fact. you might not think so but i'm afraid that unlike in most cases in debates with abortion i can say you are 100% wrong because what you're saying is factually incorrect

Sam Vimes

it might not be conscious yet, it might not be called a baby, it might not meet the definition of what you consider to be valuable in a human life but i assure you it is a human life

philologos

thebman wrote: »

Yes but once viewed it isn't a human being, it has more in common with sperm than humans at that point so I can't call that human life.

It can only be something with potential to become human life. Sperm also has this potential.

How isn't it a human being? If it is made of human biological material and if it is growing, it is a human life. Growth cannot be attributed to a sperm if an of it's own accord.

Why isn't it a human life if it is a) growing, and b) comprised of human biological material?

That doesn't make sense surely?

I could argue that a toddler has more in common with a cat than with an adult, but yet the toddler is still a human being.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

How isn't it a human being? If it is made of human biological material and if it is growing, it is a human life. Growth cannot be attributed to a sperm if an of it's own accord.

Why isn't it a human life if it is a) growing, and b) comprised of human biological material?

That doesn't make sense surely?

I could argue that a toddler has more in common with a cat than with an adult, but yet the toddler is still a human being.

i'd be careful of your definition there Jakkass. a lung is made of human material and grows. i understand what you're saying but someone on the other side will just point that out (as i just did i suppose )

the definition i prefer to use is that it's a self contained being that needs only food and a friendly environment to survive and develop. it seems to take care of all the people who compare it to a sperm or a fingernail etc

Sam Vimes

and the way i see it, my definition fits the facts and can be backed up with evidence. the multitude of definitions given by pro abortionists can pretty much never be backed up with any evidence and seem to me to just be what they want to be true because it allows them to abort their children without feeling guilty about it

Macha

Sam Vimes wrote: »

On a case by case basis in a sensible way. eg a woman 3 weeks pregnant might not know but one who's at 6 months, hasn't had a period in all that time and has a massive bulge obviously /QUOTE]

edit:by technicalities, i meant details that can be ironed out. it's not so massively complex an issue that it's impossible to adjudicate it fairly

I beg to differ.

Where do you stop? Women are strongly advised to take folic acid. If a woman doesn't and her child ends up disabled as a result will we prosecute her? The children of vegetarian women have a higher rate of hypospadias, thought to be due to higher dietary intake of soy? Shall they be sent to prison?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

couldn't give a sh!te tbh. addiction doesn't give her a right to steal to feed her habit any more than it gives her a right to harm another human being. if a law banning smoking in the home with children was to be introduced would you make exceptions for those who were addicted?

Again for you, the needs of the mother are always subordinate to those of the infant. It's common throughout all your posts.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i've no idea, why? also i said smoking should be illegal, not drinking

My original question on the subject was on smoking and drinking.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i asked you about making it illegal to smoke around your child. a foetus is your child, just in a less developed state in the same way as a baby is less developed than a teenager

You have a point.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

and the way i see it, my definition fits the facts and can be backed up with evidence. the multitude of definitions given by pro abortionists can pretty much never be backed up with any evidence and seem to me to just be what they want to be true because it allows them to abort their children without feeling guilty about it

I personally take umbrage at the term "Pro-abortionist". I'm pro-choice. It's different. Again, please try to stop labelling us all one homogenous group.

My argument for abortion is not that the foetus isn't alive, but that it is not always wrong to take an innocent being's life. The preferences of the child should be weighed up against the preferences of the woman/parents and decided on.

thebman

Yeah I'm just not getting involved in this debate further, did it before on boards and it was like banging my head off a wall.

I imagine you all know my position by my line of posting anyway so the discussion is going nowhere.

metrovelvet

taconnol wrote: »

.

My argument for abortion is not that the foetus isn't alive, but that it is not always wrong to take an innocent being's life. The preferences of the child should be weighed up against the preferences of the woman/parents and decided on.

Finally some intellectual honesty from someone in the pro choice camp. Ok so you're not a pacifist. When would you say it is ok to take an innocent person's life? Genuinely curious.

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

I beg to differ.

Where do you stop? Women are strongly advised to take folic acid. If a woman doesn't and her child ends up disabled as a result will we prosecute her? The children of vegetarian women have a higher rate of hypospadias, thought to be due to higher dietary intake of soy? Shall they be sent to prison?

that's again the slippery slope logical fallacy. we use common sense in those situations and if the law is being abused then we stop the abuse but that doesn't mean the law is wrong

if someone is framed for murder and ends up in jail for 20 years for a crime they didn't commit do we legalise murder or do we say we must apply the law better?

taconnol wrote: »

Again for you, the needs of the mother are always subordinate to those of the infant. It's common throughout all your posts.

then you've misundstood my posts i'm afraid. they're not subordinate, they're equal. it's the pro abortionists who talk about subordinate. all i'm saying is they don't supersede the baby's rights

taconnol wrote: »

My original question on the subject was on smoking and drinking.

and i only answered the smoking part mostly because there isn't firm evidence that light drinking during pregnancy can harm the child

taconnol wrote: »

I personally take umbrage at the term "Pro-abortionist". I'm pro-choice. It's different. Again, please try to stop labelling us all one homogenous group.

you're a pro abortionist in that you are pro abortion in at least some cases. pro-choice is a completely misleading term to me because i could choose to kill you right now if i wanted but i have no right to. i try not to use the term

taconnol wrote: »

My argument for abortion is not that the foetus isn't alive, but that it is not always wrong to take an innocent being's life. The preferences of the child should be weighed up against the preferences of the woman/parents and decided on.

so you're saying that another being's rights are subordinate to yours, the same thing you're incorrectly accusing me of saying?

Sam Vimes

thebman wrote: »

Yeah I'm just not getting involved in this debate further, did it before on boards and it was like banging my head off a wall.

I imagine you all know my position by my line of posting anyway so the discussion is going nowhere.

tbh it'd go somewhere if you let go of your convenient definition that spares your conscience and looked at the facts. that's not to say that the opinions of all pro-abortionists are provably wrong but yours is

Macha

metrovelvet wrote: »

Finally some intellectual honesty from someone in the pro choice camp. Ok so you're not a pacifist. When would you say it is ok to take an innocent person's life? Genuinely curious.

Hey, at least I'm honest You cannot equate what I'm saying with not being a pacifist - those are two separate things. Hypothetically speaking, say someone gave you a time machine and said you could go back in time and kill Hitler when he was young, or Stalin or Pol Pot or Pinochet or whoever. Would you do it? Would that mean you're not a pacificst? I consider myself a pacifist.

I'm a consequentialist and it's not about morals (ie saying something is bad just because it is bad, not because there are any repercussions). Something has to be bad because of some sort of suffering it inflicts. Now, when you have a situation where suffering is going to be inflicted no matter what you do, you're going to have to choose the lesser of two evils. For me, abortion is one of those situations.

I haven't thought hard enough about for me where the line is drawn between the two evils and the circumstances etc. But for me, that's what every argument about abortion and the circumstances under which it should be allowed, comes down it.

Arguing that the foetus isn't alive is totally pointless. Hope that was clear As I said earlier, I'm still thinking about all this stuff and am even thinking as I'm writing!

Macha

Sam Vimes wrote: »

that's again the slippery slope logical fallacy. we use common sense in those situations and if the law is being abused then we stop the abuse but that doesn't mean the law is wrong

Well no, because what you're doing is creating a precendent.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you're a pro abortionist in that you are pro abortion in at least some cases. pro-choice is a completely misleading term to me because i could choose to kill you right now if i wanted but i have no right to. i try not to use the term

So? Didn't you say earlier that if the mother's life were in danger, you would support abortion in that case? Does that make you a pro-abortionist? I don't like the term "pro-abortionist" because it suggests that people who are pro-choice really want to have abortions, like they can't wait to get them. It's misleading and inaccurate. Pro-choice is not misleading and it is more accurate.

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

Hey, at least I'm honest You cannot equate what I'm saying with not being a pacifist - those are two separate things. Hypothetically speaking, say someone gave you a time machine and said you could go back in time and kill Hitler when he was young, or Stalin or Pol Pot or Pinochet or whoever. Would you do it? Would that mean you're not a pacificst? I consider myself a pacifist.

I'm a consequentialist and it's not about morals (ie saying something is bad just because it is bad, not because there are any repercussions). Something has to be bad because of some sort of suffering it inflicts. Now, when you have a situation where suffering is going to be inflicted no matter what you do, you're going to have to choose the lesser of two evils. For me, abortion is one of those situations.

as a consequentialist do you not take into account the level of the suffering? except in cases where the mother's life is in danger (which i consider completely separate to the debate we're having), then the suffering for the woman involves stretch marks, pain and discomfort for 9 months. how much suffering is required before that suffering outweighs the life of another being?


also, you can't argue that the child doesn't suffer because i could sedate you and the suffocate you and you wouldn't suffer but you'd still be dead

metrovelvet

I think its precarious to point to consequences as the measure or determinism of your morality when it cant always be predicted. You are also assuming there aren't devastating consequences on a woman [aside from the child] who has an abortion. There are even cases of women who have died from legal abortion.

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

Well no, because what you're doing is creating a precendent.

what you're doing is taking extreme examples of a law being misapplied to cases where it shouln't be and using that to say the law is wrong and that argument is simply wrong i'm afraid.

for example, a few weeks ago in america two 14 year old girls took nakes pictures of themselves and sent them to their 16 year old boyfriends. not only were the boyfriends arrested for possessing child porn, the girls were arrested for manufacturing child porn. that is an absolutely ridiculous situation and they're far from the only people in america who are now on the sex offenders register for retarded reasons but that's still not an argument for getting rid of the law. it's an argument for not letting retards apply it. if we are to get rid of all laws that can have disastrous consequences if applied by retards we'll just have to throw the law book in the bin

taconnol wrote: »

So? Didn't you say earlier that if the mother's life were in danger, you would support abortion in that case? Does that make you a pro-abortionist? I don't like the term "pro-abortionist" because it suggests that people who are pro-choice really want to have abortions, like they can't wait to get them. It's misleading and inaccurate. Pro-choice is not misleading and it is more accurate.

i said i'd be pro "abortion" in that case in a triage sense because it's unlikely/impossible for the foetus to survive without the mother anyway so the choice is mother or nothing. and anyway, in that case you're comparing life against life, not life against stretch marks

edit:i won't use pro-choice because imo it's not your choice to make. what other term would you prefer?

Macha

Sam Vimes wrote: »

as a consequentialist do you not take into account the level of the suffering? except in cases where the mother's life is in danger (which i consider completely separate to the debate we're having), then the suffering for the woman involves stretch marks, pain and discomfort for 9 months. how much suffering is required before that suffering outweighs the life of another being?

Well that's open for debate! I haven't thought about it yet. But I don't think that cases where the mother's life is in danger is a totally separate debate. It suits you to separate it out but there's no reason to.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

also, you can't argue that the child doesn't suffer because i could sedate you and the suffocate you and you wouldn't suffer but you'd still be dead

I used the word suffering in the general sense, not in the narrow sense of just pain or discomfort. I also consider it to incorporate mental suffering, not just physical.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think its precarious to point to consequences as the measure or determinism of your morality when it cant always be predicted. You are also assuming there aren't devastating consequences on a woman [aside from the child] who has an abortion. There are even cases of women who have died from legal abortion.

I don't-I'm pretty happy being a consequentialist. It keeps my thoughts on things grounded in reality. I'm not assuming anything, I'm just putting across my point of view.

I think it a bit risible that you start to talk about women dying from legal abortions (the cases of which are few and far between), when the direct consequence of making abortion illegal is a cast increase in back-street abortions, which have a much higher fatality rate for the mother.

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

Well that's open for debate! I haven't thought about it yet. But I don't think that cases where the mother's life is in danger is a totally separate debate. It suits you to separate it out but there's no reason to.

i separate the two because when the mother's life is in danger i'd be on the same side as you in some ways. and people tend to try to argue that since it should be allowed then it should be allowed whenever people want it

taconnol wrote: »

I used the word suffering in the general sense, not in the narrow sense of just pain or discomfort. I also consider it to incorporate mental suffering, not just physical.

fair enough. just clarifying

taconnol wrote: »

I think it a bit risible that you start to talk about women dying from legal abortions (the cases of which are few and far between), when the direct consequence of making abortion illegal is a cast increase in back-street abortions, which have a much higher fatality rate for the mother.

the intended consequence of a law is that people don't do the thing that is illegal. the law can't necessarily be blamed for the suffering of the people who don't feel like obeying it.

for example, lots of thieves are injured and killed while trying to break into other people's houses and businesses. should we make it easier for them by legalising and facilitating it?

Sam Vimes

you hear that a woman died from a dodgy abortion and you feel sorry for her and call for it to be legalised but you hear a thief died and you say good enough for him and have no sympathy

And that's because you think the law against abortion is unjust but the one against thievery is just.

This is why i keep saying that the only relevant thing in this debate is whether or not the foetus should have rights because all arguments on both sides are based on one assumption or the other