What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?

ntlbell

huh?

who are you talking to?

Terodil

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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?

Well that's equivalent to your first reponse where you replaced certain words to suggest murder.

However you miss the most important point: We have to weigh the highly probable and substantial impact of an unwanted pregnancy on the woman vs. the terminal effect on 'something-that-we-know-is-there-but-about-what-nature-it-is-we-cannot-reach-a-consensus'.

You haven't explained yet why the pro-life premise is more true than the pro-choice premise. I'm waiting.

And if you can't, why it should still take legal precendence.

Edit @ntlbell: The pro-choicers in this thread claiming that abortion should be outlawed 'because it's murder'.

The Corinthian

Terodil wrote: »

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'.

I would not say I am one of the pro-life guys in here, as I have tried as best as I can to argue both sides. However, while no one would wish the pain an unwanted pregnancy on anyone, neither should that give one a carte blance to do as they please to avoid it.

Of course, that does not mean that morally they are not justified, only that the pain of an unwanted pregnancy or any other misfortune in life does not automatically justify any action to remedy it.

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.

That's called civilization. The majority morality is imposed upon the minority so that we can co-exist. If you convince enough people that this is unjust, then you change it - for good or ill. Deny that right to "graciously donate their understanding of right and wrong" and you deny that possibility for change.

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.

Not in all cases. Different women are affected in different ways by it and to suggest that this is always "very profound, and often traumatising, effect" is simply untrue.

ntlbell

Terodil wrote: »

Edit @ntlbell: The pro-choicers in this thread claiming that abortion should be outlawed 'because it's murder'.

Why don't you tell us all when life becomes life?

when a human becomes human?

what defines a "you"

at what stage of pregnancy are you happy for someone to abort a pregnancy?

when does a featus in your opinion become a human life?

ebmma

metrovelvet wrote: »

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

What on Earth are you talking about?

If you cannot talk reasonably, so be it.

Sam Vimes

Terodil wrote: »

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?

no not clevery, it's the fundamental difference between pro and anti abortionists. your post only makes sense if you assume the foetus is a clump of cells and my post only make sense if you assume it isn't.


therefore your entire post is irrelevant. the only issue we should be arguing is if it is a human or not. your post is based on an assumption that i don't accept so we have to first agree on the assumption


and i have explained why it's a human being in need of protection many many many many many many many times in multiple threads on the issue. a zygote is a human life. that is not up for debate, that is a fact. pro abortionists don't think that it's a "person" until the brain is formed and therefore it's ok to kill it, i point that that they're called human rights, not person rights

Terodil wrote: »

Well that's equivalent to your first reponse where you replaced certain words to suggest murder.

However you miss the most important point: We have to weigh the highly probable and substantial impact of an unwanted pregnancy on the woman vs. the terminal effect on 'something-that-we-know-is-there-but-about-what-nature-it-is-we-cannot-reach-a-consensus'.

but you see the fact that we can't reach a consensus doesn't make it ok to kill babies.

take a look at this organisation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

they say that young boys are sexual beings and there's nothing wrong with having sex with them. they lobby to legalise paedophilia. so a consensus can't be reached there either. should we therefore allow them to rape children?

ebmma

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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?

A newborn, 6-months old, etc baby can DEFINITELY suffer and feel pain and is definitely there.

metrovelvet

^ YOu said a baby can survive outside the mother's body without the mother. News to me. Surely it would die within a few days or a week at most.

ALso - I guess you havent heard of partial birth abortions?

coffee_cake

Sam Vimes wrote:

therefore your entire post is irrelevant. the only issue we should be arguing is if it is a human or not

well nobody is arguing it's a penguin, so that's easy enough to resolve

i point that that they're called human rights, not person rights

If it's solely on human then it should apply to all human cells e.g. toenails otherwise it IS person rights

coffee_cake

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ YOu said a baby can survive outside the mother's body without the mother. News to me. Surely it would die within a few days or a week at most.

ALso - I guess you havent heard of partial birth abortions?

D&X is non-elective and done to save a woman's life only


p.s. the first part of your post makes no sense, of course babies can survive without their mothers

ntlbell

ebmma wrote: »

A newborn, 6-months old, etc baby can DEFINITELY suffer and feel pain and is definitely there.

there's many ways we could kill a 6mtnh old baby it would feel no pain and would have no idea what was happening.

what has that got to do with it?

it's not murder because it's painful.....

murph226

The-Rigger wrote: »

Abortions for all.

+1

ebmma

I'm pretty tired of this.

I tried my best to explain where I stand.

Sam Vimes

ebmma wrote: »

A newborn, 6-months old, etc baby can DEFINITELY suffer and feel pain and is definitely there.

what do you mean it's "there"? it's not some metaphysical glowing orb. of course it's there

and whether or not it can suffer or feel pain is irrelevant, it's still a human being and it's not ok to kill it. if i was to anaesthetise you so that you wouldn't suffer or feel pain would it then be ok to kill you?

bluewolf wrote: »

If it's solely on human then it should apply to all human cells e.g. toenails otherwise it IS person rights

no, it shouldn't. it's not based on being human, it's based on being a human, as in one self contained entity. a foetus needs food from it's mother and a friendly environment. given those two it will grow into a full baby with eyes and ears and toe nails. no matter how much you feed a toenail it will simply decompose. it will never become a baby because, while it contains human dna, it is not a human being

metrovelvet

bluewolf wrote: »

well nobody is arguing it's a penguin, so that's easy enough to resolve



If it's solely on human then it should apply to all human cells e.g. toenails otherwise it IS person rights

Your toenail doesnt have a human heartbeat. And it grows back once you snip it.

coffee_cake

metrovelvet wrote: »

Your toenail doesnt have a human heartbeat.

whats the difference between a human heartbeat and any other that makes it so special?

Sam Vimes

bluewolf wrote: »

p.s. the first part of your post makes no sense, of course babies can survive without their mothers

let's do an experiment. leave a baby in an apartment for three weeks. see how well it survives

coffee_cake

Sam Vimes wrote: »

no, it shouldn't. it's not based on being human, it's based on being a human, as in one self contained entity. a foetus needs food from it's mother and a friendly environment. given those two it will grow into a full baby with eyes and ears and toe nails. no matter how much you feed a toenail it will simply decompose. it will never become a baby because, while it contains human dna, it is not a human being

And under certain conditions so will a sperm.
The whole thing is potential + conditions ?

Sam Vimes

bluewolf wrote: »

And under certain conditions so will a sperm.
The whole thing is potential + conditions ?

what? no it won't. what are you talking about?

coffee_cake

Sam Vimes wrote: »

let's do an experiment. leave a baby in an apartment for three weeks. see how well it survives

I have an even better one, leave a baby in an incubator in a hospital surrounded by care without its mother and see how well it survives


which was exactly ebmma's original meaning , if i'm not mistaken, and got turned into metro to "so can it do chores" ...

Sam Vimes

bluewolf wrote: »

I have an even better one, leave a baby in an incubator in a hospital surrounded by care without its mother and see how well it survives

which would be equivalent to leaving the foetus in the "incubator" that is the womb. a baby needs food and a friendly environment to survive, just like a foetus. it would be technically possible to invent an artificial womb and bring a zygote all the way to birth. the mother doesn't necessarily have to be involved anywhere. we just don't have the technology yet just like we didn't have incubators 100 years ago

metrovelvet

bluewolf wrote: »

D&X is non-elective and done to save a woman's life only


p.s. the first part of your post makes no sense, of course babies can survive without their mothers

Are you sure about that globally?

Nevyn

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?

It is that why it is called infanticide and the first year of tending to an infant is considered to be extremely stressful and the mental and emotional stresses are taken in to consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

In the United Kingdom, the Infanticide Act defines "infanticide" as a specific crime equivalent to manslaughter that can only be committed by the mother intentionally killing her own baby during the first twelve months of its life outside the womb.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1232654658&view=ag-view&numhitsfound=1&query_rule=(($query3)):legtitle&query3=Infanticide&docid=19482&docdb=Acts&dbname=Acts&dbname=SIs&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1

No. 16/1949:

INFANTICIDE ACT, 1949



1.—(1) On the preliminary investigation by the District Court of a charge against a woman for the murder of her child, being a child under the age of twelve months, the Justice may, if he thinks proper, alter the charge to one of infanticide and send her forward for trial on that charge.
[GA]

(2) Where, upon the trial of a woman for the murder of her child, being a child under the age of twelve months, the jury are satisfied that she is guilty of infanticide, they shall return a verdict of infanticide.
[GA]

(3) A woman shall be guilty of felony, namely, infanticide if—

( a ) by any wilful act or omission she causes the death of her child, being a child under the age of twelve months, and

( b ) the circumstances are such that, but for this section, the act or omission would have amounted to murder, and

( c ) at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child

and may for that offence be tried and punished as for manslaughter.


(4) Section 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, shall have effect as if the reference therein to the murder of any child included a reference to infanticide.

metrovelvet

bluewolf wrote: »

I have an even better one, leave a baby in an incubator in a hospital surrounded by care without its mother and see how well it survives


which was exactly ebmma's original meaning , if i'm not mistaken, and got turned into metro to "so can it do chores" ...

No it certainly did not.

Sam Vimes

Thaedydal wrote: »

It is that why it is called infanticide and the first year of tending to an infant is considered to be extremely stressful and the mental and emotional stresses are taken in to consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide



http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1232654658&view=ag-view&numhitsfound=1&query_rule=(($query3)):legtitle&query3=Infanticide&docid=19482&docdb=Acts&dbname=Acts&dbname=SIs&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1

yeah i know that if a woman kills her baby in the first few months she is treated lightly by the law because of her mental state, but no one would ever say "sure it was just a clump of cells. no moral problems here" as they do with abortion

coffee_cake

Sam Vimes wrote: »

which would be equivalent to leaving the foetus in the "incubator" that is the womb. a baby needs food and a friendly environment to survive, just like a foetus. it would be technically possible to invent an artificial womb and bring a zygote all the way to birth. the mother doesn't necessarily have to be involved either. we just don't have the technology yet just like we didn't have incubators 100 years ago

Omfg.

em said there was a certain point at which feti could survive outside the womb. Metro says this is impossible.
I quote:

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

YOu said a baby can survive outside the mother's body without the mother. News to me. Surely it would die within a few days or a week at most

edit: Metro, what are you disputing here, this is what you wrote

I say ofc it's possible. You come in with "what if we leave it on its own in an apartment without its mother", presumably implying it needs a mother. Now, you have made it all the way back to the beginning to AGREEING with the ORIGINAL point that it can survive in a hospital without its mother.

... this is getting stupid, seriously.

what? no it won't. what are you talking about?

Oh right, so you're allowed to argue potential and I'm not... ?

I'm out of here, I give up.

Nevyn

As for the mental and emotional trauma in countries which do not have the same stigma surrounding abortion or such a pro life culture women are not as traumatised by having an abortion unless they do want to continue the pregnancy but can't due to medical or other reasons.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal-

Yes it is and should be taken into consideration but it is still a crime and she is either punished for it or sectioned for mental health reasons.

A new baby is so crazy making for I would say most women, that the abort because a new baby will be bad for her mental health just seems ridiculous. Then we would all be justified in both abortion and infanticide if it were about the right to good mental health. [And perhaps we would be justified in all sorts of other killings if it were about mental health - no doubt someone would have killed me by now.:pac:]

Sam Vimes

bluewolf wrote: »

Omfg.

em said there was a certain point at which feti could survive outside the womb. Metro says this is impossible.
I quote:

oh right i think i missed that bit :P

bluewolf wrote: »

Oh right, so you're allowed to argue potential and I'm not... ?

I'm out of here, I give up.

no love i'm not arguing potential. when a zygote is formed there's no more potential in terms of creating life, it has just been created. now all it needs is food and a friendly environment and it will grow into a baby.

a foetus is a potential baby. but a baby is a potential child and a child is a potential teenager and a teenager is a potential adult. but at all points in all that potential it is a human being. a zygote is a human being, albeit a less developed one just like a baby is a less developed adult. a sperm is not a human being

edit:in short, a zygote is not a "potential" human like a sperm is (if combined with an egg), it is a developing human, just like a baby

willy wonka

I havent read the entire thread so apologies if the following points have been raised before but it is a subject which I feel strongly about. [Also despite my user name, I am a woman]

I would consider myself a fairly liberal person (legalisation of drugs, prostitution, gay marriages, gay adoptions, etc) but I cannot be liberal about abortion.

Every single person on Boards.ie, in Ireland, in the World, every single person was once a clump of cells. No we werent half an egg or half a sperm, we came into existence when these two entities fused and developed into this clump of cells, the very clump of cells that have caused so much contention and animosity today. You can say that it isn't life, it has no brain activity, doesn't look like anything, but ALL of us started out as a clump of cells.

• the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
• any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, esp. during the first six months.

These are just two definitions of abortion. I think if everybody is presented with the cold hard facts, not what one wishes to see as fact, then most rational person would say an abortion is fundamentally wrong.
Someone mentioned earlier that women who have abortions go through their own type of hell (and I dont doubt that for a second), therefore one would have to agree that some kind of traumatic event preceded this.

I hate the term but I suppose I would be a feminist. BUT I dont know when or where the whole abortion argument became a woman's right to choose. I dont know how this monumental act was thrust into a woman's hands and trivialised, like choosing which shoes to wear. (The way some of my friends talk about abortion is with complete disregard really, almost like choosing to have plastic surgery done - yes you are changing a part of yourself, yes it costs a lot of money but it's so commonplace now, it's not a big deal.) I believe women should have choices; choose your career, whether you marry or not, choose to live where you want; but choose to terminate a life, come on, has the world gone mad? Apparently it has.

OK that is my opinion on the matter. The penalty for illegal abortions? I don't know.
I think people need to be properly educated on the matter.
It is unfortunate that people have to carry placards in order to "educate" people and are vilified for this - it is completely the wrong way to go about this. Education should really happen in schools along with sex eduacation. Abortion is a huge, philosophical, moral, medical, scientific matter and should be treated as such. People should be shown and told what happens in an abortion procedure. Maybe you don't agree with this, but I don't think a matter like this can be glossed over anymore.