What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?

ebmma

metrovelvet wrote: »

Sure. But what I dont get is the womens right to choose brigade justifying it with its not a real person, ie its not murder, until the 24th week of gestation. If it is about the woman's right to choose, then it should make no difference how far along the pregnancy is before she has to right to abort.

If it sufficiently far along "abortion" doesn't make any sense.

38-week abortion?

It is going to be either C-section or induced labour anyway. A baby at that number of weeks is perfectly capable of surviving outside mother.

It is a baby born slightly premature. It is not an enviable foetus.



It just makes no sense.

Sam Vimes

bluewolf wrote: »

No there are plenty of other reasons to.

if you consider the foetus to be a human with rights, there are no reasons whatsoever.

bluewolf wrote: »

My toenail is innocent and has living human cells and no brain. Is it not ok to chop it off?

if i cut off your toe nail, you will still be alive. a foetus is [a]a human life[/b]. it is not a small component of a human without which the human itself can survive. if you kill the foetus, you kill the human

bluewolf wrote: »

I didn't say they weren't a life. I said they're not non-life because they're living cells, therefore life. Following on from that, there is no "start of life" because a pregnancy does not involve non-living matter spontaneously transforming into living.
Please read my post more carefully.

i read your post perfectly thank you very much. this comes back to the difference between being alive as a cell that forms part of a body, and being a life. i could kill many of your cells without doing you any harm and there would be no problem with that because you would still be alive. and if that's what abortion was i wouldn't have any problem with it. however, with abortion a human being is killed by being taken out of the environment where it can survive. it is not the same as removing a toe nail, it's more comparable to shooting you in the head

Sam Vimes

bluewolf wrote:

/facepalm
She very clearly said "people who perform abortions where they are legal".
Not "people should perform abortions legally where they were previously illegal".

she also said "rather then have them seek out unsafe back street abortions" which is the part i was responding to. so facepalm yourself lady

coffee_cake

Sam Vimes wrote: »

if you consider the foetus to be a human with rights, there are no reasons whatsoever.

And if you don't, there are.

Glad we got that cleared up.

i read your post perfectly thank you very much.

So why did you quote me saying a sperm and ova are life and reply "you're right, they're not life" ?

this comes back to the difference between being alive as a cell that forms part of a body, and being a life.
i could kill many of your cells without doing you any harm and there would be no problem with that because you would still be alive. and if that's what abortion was i wouldn't have any problem with it. however, with abortion a human being is killed by being taken out of the environment where it can survive. it is not the same as removing a toe nail, it's more comparable to shooting you in the head

So you're arguing personhood perhaps? Except at an early stage with no brain development or much of anything, it's a clump of cells, there isn't any person there. There is no "you" to remove.

Sam Vimes

ebmma wrote: »

If it sufficiently far along "abortion" doesn't make any sense.

38-week abortion?

It is going to be either C-section or induced labour anyway. A baby at that number of weeks is perfectly capable of surviving outside mother.

It is a baby born slightly premature. It is not an enviable foetus.



It just makes no sense.

imo the term abortion never makes sense. i believe that the term should be "murder" regardless of how developed the human being in the womb might be

Sam Vimes

bluewolf wrote: »

And if you don't, there are.

Glad we got that cleared up.

that's actually a point i made in the last one of these threads. the only thing that matters in these debates is whether the foetus is a clump of cells that can be discarded or a human being. any other points that are made on top of that only work if you assume one or the other to be true.

eg people say that it's traumatic for the mother but if the foetus is a human being with rights, i don't give a sh!te whatever trauma the woman might be under, it doesn't allow her to kill a human being and if pro abortionists thought the foetus had rights, they wouldn't give a sh!te either

bluewolf wrote: »

So why did you quote me saying a sperm and ova are life and reply "you're right, they're not life" ?

you're actually right, i did mis read that

the point that i made still stands though. the sperm is a cell, a component of your body. the foetus is a human being, not a disposable component of a human being

bluewolf wrote: »

So you're arguing personhood perhaps? Except at an early stage with no brain development or much of anything, it's a clump of cells, there isn't any person there. There is no "you" to remove.

no i'm not arguing personhood. personhood is what pro abortionists argue. i'm arguing that it's a human being and not the same as a finger nail

Macha

Sam Vimes wrote: »

imo the term abortion never makes sense. i believe that the term should be "murder" regardless of how developed the human being in the womb might be

What about the physical and mental health of the mother?

ebmma

Sam Vimes wrote: »

imo the term abortion never makes sense. i believe that the term should be "murder" regardless of how developed the human being in the womb might be

We heard the M-word already.

Your comment has no relation to my post to Metro

ntlbell

bluewolf wrote: »

So you're arguing personhood perhaps? Except at an early stage with no brain development or much of anything, it's a clump of cells, there isn't any person there. There is no "you" to remove.

I'm starting to tire of asking this.

How do you personally define "you" ? is it skin? bones? blood? brain waves? thoughts? eyes? hands? feelings? can you explain what you define to be "you"

Can you give us an idea at what stage of pregancy you would be ok with someone aborting it?

when the brain starts to grow? the heart? the spine? they start to have thoughts?

2 weeks? 3? 4?

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

What about the physical and mental health of the mother?

what about a woman who can't handle her 6 month old child and drowns it? should her mental health be considered in that case?


imo that is no different to abortion. the foetus is a human being and its right to life supersedes the woman's desire for good mental health

but you also say physical health. as i said, if the choice is between the life of the child and the mental health of the woman, the child wins but if it's between the life of the child and the life of the mother (ie she will die if she keeps the pregnancy), the mother wins

Sam Vimes

ebmma wrote: »

We heard the M-word already.

Your comment has no relation to my post to Metro

what do you mean, of course it does

you said the term abortion doesn't make sense at 38 weeks and i said it never makes sense. it was a relevant post

ebmma

Sam Vimes wrote: »

if it's between the life of the child and the life of the mother (ie she will die if she keeps the pregnancy), the mother wins

Just out of curiosity, why?
Why not carry it further and say to hell with the mother, she lived already, child hasn't, so it "wins" too?

karen3212

CathyMoran wrote: »

(physically, not mental health) [/QUOTE

I don't understand why people dismiss mental wellbeing so easily. What about women who've had a parent with a debilitating mental illness, and who themselves fear that the fear and stress of a pregnancy may bring about an illness in themselves?


tbh I think the vast majority of women that have abortions suffer enough as it is, I don't really see why one would punish them further.

ntlbell

karen3212 wrote: »

(physically, not mental health) [/QUOTE

I don't understand why people dismiss mental wellbeing so easily. What about women who've had a parent with a debilitating mental illness, and who themselves fear that the fear and stress of a pregnancy may bring about an illness in themselves?


tbh I think the vast majority of women that have abortions suffer enough as it is, I don't really see why one would punish them further.

what if the mother with a debilitating mental illness murdered they''re kid after they were born ? would that be ok?

Sam Vimes

ebmma wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, why?
Why not carry it further and say to hell with the mother, she lived already, child hasn't, so it "wins" too?

because no one's right to life supersedes someone else's. it is a difficult choice to make but i suppose when you have to make that decision, it's "easier" to kill the person who can't look you in the eye while you're doing it.

but that's a difficult choice made under difficult circumstances and not the same as killing a baby because it's too inconvenient to bring it to term and have it adopted

Macha

Sam Vimes wrote: »

what about a woman who can't handle her 6 month old child and drowns it? should her mental health be considered in that case?

Yes, if she is proven to have a mental illness.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

imo that is no different to abortion. the foetus is a human being and its right to life supersedes the woman's desire for good mental health

Woman's "desire" for good mental health? Does a woman not have a "right" to good mental health?

Also, why are you so sure that the carrying of the pregnancy will only result in a deteriorated mental health and not death?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

but you also say physical health. as i said, if the choice is between the life of the child and the mental health of the woman, the child wins but if it's between the life of the child and the life of the mother (ie she will die if she keeps the pregnancy), the mother wins

And what about if the woman will be seriously and permanently injured as a result of giving birth or being pregnant?

I find a lot of the extreme anti-abortionists are have a common tendency to see everything in black and white.

ebmma

Sam Vimes wrote: »

what do you mean, of course it does

you said the term abortion doesn't make sense at 38 weeks and i said it never makes sense. it was a relevant post

No. Metro was wondering why the number of weeks of pregnancy makes a difference if pro-choice people say it is woman's body and woman's choice.

I said why.

If you are very strongly pro-life there's absolutely nothing I can say or do that would make you see a different point of view.

It is an axiom - abortion=murder.

It is, however, not an axiom for a pro-choice person.

ebmma

ntlbell wrote: »

what if the mother with a debilitating mental illness murdered they''re kid after they were born ? would that be ok?

Are you serious?

I can see why a previous poster thought you might be trolling.

I don't think there's any reasoning with you.

ntlbell

taconnol wrote: »

And what about if the woman will be seriously and permanently injured as a result of giving birth or being pregnant?

I find a lot of the extreme anti-abortionists are have a common tendency to see everything in black and white.

and I find people who are pro choice or pro life come up with nonsensical scenario's to try and make pro life people "think"

lets get this clear

WE KNOW LIFE IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE

so if anyone wants to band that nonsense around again please revert back to this post WE KNOW.....

if the birth of the child is not going to end someone else's life there is no NO reason to murder it.....

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

Yes, if she is proven to have a mental illness.

well that's not really the same thing now is it? you say that someone would have to have a mental illness to get away with killing a 6 month old baby but there are no such objections if she's killing while it's still in her womb. imo they're the same thing

taconnol wrote: »

Woman's "desire" for good mental health? Does a woman not have a "right" to good mental health?

yes she does but if she has to kill a human being to get it, be it a 6 month old foetus or a 6 month old baby, then i'm afraid she's out of luck

taconnol wrote: »

Also, why are you so sure that the carrying of the pregnancy will only result in a deteriorated mental health and not death?


And what about if the woman will be seriously and permanently injured as a result of giving birth or being pregnant?

I find a lot of the extreme anti-abortionists are have a common tendency to see everything in black and white.

that's a difficult choice to make and i don't have a black and white answer for you. my objection to abortion is the idea that there's nothing wrong with it because it's just a clump of cells. when the life/physical health of the mother is at risk it's a completely separate issue

ntlbell

ebmma wrote: »

Are you serious?

I can see why a previous poster thought you might be trolling.

I don't think there's any reasoning with you.

well if a mental illness is good enough to end life before giving birth why would it change afterwards?

Sam Vimes

ebmma wrote: »

Are you serious?

I can see why a previous poster thought you might be trolling.

I don't think there's any reasoning with you.

he's trolling because he asked under what circumstances it's ok to kill a baby?

you realise that people who are against abortion see no distinction between a baby and a foetus right?

Terodil

*sigh* Read all 14 pages of posts and... /headdesk

1. All the pro-life guys in here... I doubt you can possibly imagine the pain an unwanted pregnancy can put a woman through, all your talk of mental health as if it's nothing is a clear testament to the total neglect of women beyond pure 'birth machines'.

2. I wonder where people get the audacity to want to 'graciously donate' their understanding of right and wrong to everybody else and to make it compulsory. Ok we get it, you think abortion is morally wrong. Others think differently. Both positions are founded on either of two premises ('clump of cells' vs 'life'). There's no fully convincing argument for either, so why should it be regulated as if one was true? What makes one possible premise 'true-er' than the other? Your very own personal belief? /golfclap

3. The psychological effects of an abortion are also totally neglected by the prolifers. It's not like spitting a chewing gum out; it has a very profound, and often traumatising, effect on the woman. Many bear the scars for the rest of their lives. So stop talking of it as if women needed any more deterrence. Punishments, according to our legal system, are only justified if they have two components: teaching (deterrence) and atonement. If the teaching aspect is void then there is no reason for having a punishment.

Sam Vimes

Terodil wrote: »

*sigh* Read all 14 pages of posts and... /headdesk

1. All the pro-life guys in here... I doubt you can possibly imagine the pain an unwanted 6 month old baby can put a woman through, all your talk of mental health as if it's nothing is a clear testament to the total neglect of women beyond pure 'birth machines'.

2. I wonder where people get the audacity to want to 'graciously donate' their understanding of right and wrong to everybody else and to make it compulsory. Ok we get it, you think murder is morally wrong. Others think differently. Both positions are founded on either of two premises ('clump of cells' vs 'life'). There's no fully convincing argument for either, so why should it be regulated as if one was true? What makes one possible premise 'true-er' than the other? Your very own personal belief? /golfclap

3. The psychological effects of a murder are also totally neglected by the prolifers. It's not like spitting a chewing gum out; it has a very profound, and often traumatising, effect on the woman. Many bear the scars for the rest of their lives. So stop talking of it as if women needed any more deterrence. Punishments, according to our legal system, are only justified if they have two components: teaching (deterrence) and atonement. If the teaching aspect is void then there is no reason for having a punishment.

read your post with the bolded words that i changed and tell me if it still makes sense

from my point of view you're effectively saying "ok you told us murder is wrong now stop forcing your opinion down our throats and let us go on murdering"

ntlbell

Terodil wrote: »

*sigh* Read all 14 pages of posts and... /headdesk

1. All the pro-life guys in here... I doubt you can possibly imagine the pain an unwanted pregnancy can put a woman through, all your talk of mental health as if it's nothing is a clear testament to the total neglect of women beyond pure 'birth machines'.

2. I wonder where people get the audacity to want to 'graciously donate' their understanding of right and wrong to everybody else and to make it compulsory. Ok we get it, you think abortion is morally wrong. Others think differently. Both positions are founded on either of two premises ('clump of cells' vs 'life'). There's no fully convincing argument for either, so why should it be regulated as if one was true? What makes one possible premise 'true-er' than the other? Your very own personal belief? /golfclap

3. The psychological effects of an abortion are also totally neglected by the prolifers. It's not like spitting a chewing gum out; it has a very profound, and often traumatising, effect on the woman. Many bear the scars for the rest of their lives. So stop talking of it as if women needed any more deterrence. Punishments, according to our legal system, are only justified if they have two components: teaching (deterrence) and atonement. If the teaching aspect is void then there is no reason for having a punishment.

Your first two points I don't really understand what you're trying to say? no ones right or wrong lets all just get a long? or did i miss something?

On your 3rd I understand perfectly that some women who will be psychologically scared for life, some will not. but as I stated all ready anyone who takes anyones life regardless of the circumstances have to carry that on their shoulders for the rest of their life

I get this. the point is it doesn't make it right or wrong it's just something that comes part of murdering someone for some it's a life long struggle to get over it others organise a shopping trip with the girls go over have an abortion and are drinking cocktails in a london club shortly after...

Sam Vimes

tell me Terodil, if a significant number of people came out and said they they don't think rape is morally wrong and told you to stop forcing your opinion down their throat and trying to prevent them raping people would you feel the same way?

metrovelvet

ebmma wrote: »

If it sufficiently far along "abortion" doesn't make any sense.

38-week abortion?

It is going to be either C-section or induced labour anyway. A baby at that number of weeks is perfectly capable of surviving outside mother.

It is a baby born slightly premature. It is not an enviable foetus.



It just makes no sense.

Really. It can feed, bathe itself and pay rent?

karen3212

ntlbell wrote: »

what if the mother with a debilitating mental illness murdered they''re kid after they were born ? would that be ok?

I think that would be very sad. I also think it would be very sad if the fear and stress of a pregnancy ruined a woman's mental health.

ntlbell

karen3212 wrote: »

I think that would be very sad. I also think it would be very sad if the fear and stress of a pregnancy ruined a woman's mental health.

and you think a woman should murder her unborn to protect her mental health? instead of maybe having the maybe and getting help afterwards?

Terodil

I never mentioned anything about 6 months. In fact I said nothing about time at all, but by using this time you (prima facie) cleverly underline your assumption that the clump of cells is actually a valid object of 'murder'. That, however, is the bone of contention.

You still haven't explained *why* your premise that *any* clump of cells (from the zygote onwards) *is* a human being in need of legal protection is more valid than the 'clump' premise. However I dare you do that before you 'shove laws down my throat', yes. Or do you think that a proper reasoning is too much to ask?