What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?

Sam Vimes

willy wonka wrote: »

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.

on that point, pro abortionists say that the foetus is just a clump of cells, it's not a person so it's ok to kill it. if they really believe this, why is an abortion a traumatic event? why is it not like getting an ingrown toenail removed?

i think it's because deep down they know what they're doing is wrong but they put those thoughts out of their heads and convince themselves it's ok because they don't like the alternative.

The Corinthian

ntlbell wrote: »

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

I think this definition is irrelevant.

That it is alive is irrelevant. Sperm and ova are alive. So are bacteria.

That it is human individual is also irrelevant. Once fertilized, the zygote is genetically a separate human individual. It's DNA does not differ to an adult and given the right environment it will grow into a mature adult, in theory without any further assistance from the biological mother - which is actually what happens in the case of egg donated fertility treatments.

That it is 'viable' is irrelevant. None of us are 'viable' outside of the right environment. As we become more mature, the environment we can endure becomes wider, but ultimately we all have our limits in this regard.

The rest of the 'criteria' are irrelevant to the point of absurdity. Nervous system, sentience or whatever it may be will tend to be picked as a compromise solution to allow a redefinition of what is a person and what is not.

The whole "is it a person" question is a complete cop-out, simply because no one likes the idea of killing a cute little baby. As a result pro-choice advocates dehumanize the foetus and pro-life advocates promote the opposite. I would be equally critical of both groups, because ultimately the whole thing tends to boil down to one group seeking to justify an action for their self-interest and another group attempting to prevent another's action that does not interfere with their self-interest (or worse still, they project their self-interest on another).

In my mind, it's an individual human being. The only absolute proof is genetic and it fits the bill on that front. However, even if it is, this does not automatically mean it has rights, especially if those rights adversely affect the rights of another person. My right to life does not mean that another person should automatically suffer for it. This is why the 'personhood' debate is ultimately irrelevant.

If I need a lung transplant, that does not mean that a compatible doner should be forced to donate it - of course, the abortion debate is not the same as that example and there are also other examples where a right to life does supersede the rights of another.

But I'm not seeking to suggest either, only that rights are not absolute in all cases and it is this where the debate lies. Not in some endless and frankly pointless attempt by both sides to define the debate in terms of a baby or ball of cells because it'll make us feel better about being pro-choice or pro-life.

ntlbell

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think this definition is irrelevant.

That it is alive is irrelevant. Sperm and ova are alive. So are bacteria.

That it is human individual is also irrelevant..

I'm interested to know what people think themselves what a human is, where life begins etc out of curiosity

I'm not asking it so i can get a definitive answer and put the argument to bed how they think is relevant to me...

Sam Vimes

The Corinthian wrote: »

and another group attempting to prevent another's action that does not interfere with their self-interest (or worse still, they project their self-interest on another).

while i agree with most of your post i disagree there. my objection to abortion is the same as my objection to rape and murder. i don't see it as forcing my beliefs on others because "murder is wrong" is a fundamental belief of everyone on the planet. there is no debate to it as far as i'm concerned

johnnyskeleton

This is the busiest day for a humanities thread ever. 201 posts.

Sam Vimes

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This is the busiest day for a humanities thread ever. 201 posts.

since the last abortion thread :P

willy wonka

I am slowly reading through the thread and came across the cut off point for abortions being 24 weeks maximum.

So it is ok to terminate this?

[Disclaimer: Link is not an abortion, but what a 24 week old foetus/baby would look like]

Sam Vimes

willy wonka wrote: »

I am slowly reading through the thread and came across the cut off point for abortions being 24 weeks maximum.

So it is ok to terminate this?

[Disclaimer: Link is not an abortion, but what a 24 week old foetus/baby would look like]

apparently so. there have been cases of babies being born prematurely at 24 weeks and surviving:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_baby_survive_being_born_at_24_weeks

willy wonka

Sam Vimes wrote: »

apparently so. there have been cases of babies being born prematurely at 24 weeks and surviving:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_baby_survive_being_born_at_24_weeks

I have seen interviews of people who have been the results of abortions and the mind boggles. Seriously, have a look at the 24 week old foetus/baby, people. How can people justify this?

Sam Vimes

willy wonka wrote: »

I have seen interviews of people who have been the results of abortions and the mind boggles. Seriously, have a look at the 24 week old foetus/baby, people. How can people justify this?

imo the same way people justify anything when they can't use logic. they really really want what they believe to be true so they just believe it. and when people try to explain to them that they're wrong they stick their fingers in their ears and say "la la la la la"

willy wonka

You know the more I read through this thread the more disheartened I become.

A quote about the 24 weeks cut off point:

You know very well, that some sort of time needs to be decided on.
Like being 18 to drink. It is not a magic number it is just a convenient average.

Either that person is woefully misinformed or callously flippant

sam34

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

you do realise that mental illness can be fatal, dont you?
a woman's life can be in danger because of her mental health as well as because of poor physical health.

*i am not going to post my opinions on abortion. i am just trying to make a point, as on this thread people seem to think that the danger presented to a womans life by mental ill-health amounts to being unhappy/fed up.unable to cope.

Sam Vimes

sam34 wrote: »

you do realise that mental illness can be fatal, dont you?
a woman's life can be in danger because of her mental health as well as because of poor physical health.

well that's not the woman dying as a direct result of having the baby, she's dying because of a mental illness. people don't become mentally ill when they get pregnant, the illness must have already been there

but anyway that's irrelevant. abortion for medical reasons is a completely separate issue to abortion on demand. they are not the same thing and one cannot be used to justify the other

Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes wrote: »

on that point, pro abortionists say that the foetus is just a clump of cells, it's not a person so it's ok to kill it. if they really believe this, why is an abortion a traumatic event? why is it not like getting an ingrown toenail removed?

i think it's because deep down they know what they're doing is wrong but they put those thoughts out of their heads and convince themselves it's ok because they don't like the alternative.

just to pre-empt what i think will be the obvious answer to this question:

i think the answer will be that some people tell you it's wrong and make you feel guilty. but if you really, truly believe something it shouldn't matter what anyone else tells you

for example there are many people who tell me that sex before marriage is wrong so i simply ignore them and get on with my life. if someone else can make you feel guilty for something that you claim is not wrong, then imo you don't really believe what you're saying

sam34

Sam Vimes wrote: »

well that's not the woman dying as a direct result of having the baby, she's dying because of a mental illness. people don't become mentally ill when they get pregnant, the illness must have already been there

that is completely inaccurate.
any mental illness can begin during a pregnancy.
a pregnancy does not prevent mental illness for its duration.

Sam Vimes

sam34 wrote: »

that is completely inaccurate.
any mental illness can begin during a pregnancy.
a pregnancy does not prevent mental illness for its duration.

yes a mental illness can occur during pregnancy but that doesn't mean that it was caused by the pregnancy or that terminating the pregnancy will cure the illness

sam34

Sam Vimes wrote: »

yes a mental illness can occur during pregnancy but that doesn't mean that it was caused by the pregnancy or that terminating the pregnancy will cure the illness

either of those things can be the case, though.
not saying they will be valid in all cases, but they can be valid for some people.

Sam Vimes

sam34 wrote: »

either of those things can be the case, though.
not saying they will be valid in all cases, but they can be valid for some people.

ok so let's assume for a minute that pregnancy can cause mental illness and that that illness will in all cases be cured by having an abortion and cannot possibly be cured in any other way, i think it would be more acceptable. but in reality that scenario is so incredibly unlikely that it i think it's safe to say it will never occur and is so obscure that it's really irrelevant to a debate on whether abortion is ok or not. i can say abortion's ok in that case because it's never going to happen

sam34

Sam Vimes wrote: »

ok so let's assume for a minute that pregnancy can cause mental illness and that that illness will in all cases be cured by having an abortion and cannot possibly be cured in any other way, i think it would be more acceptable. but in reality that scenario is so incredibly unlikely that it i think it's safe to say it will never occur and is so obscure that it's really irrelevant to a debate on whether abortion is ok or not. i can say abortion's ok in that case because it's never going to happen

well, you can never say never (i agree the above scenario is unlikely, but its not impossible)

i guess i hijacked this a little, because i got annoyed at how easily some people dismiss mental illness, when the reality is that they havent a clue how severe and intractible and devastating mental illness can be. people often seem to think that it's "only" mild depression, but there are levels of mental ilness out there that most people in the general public cannot begin to conceptualise.

Sam Vimes

sam34 wrote: »

well, you can never say never (i agree the above scenario is unlikely, but its not impossible)

i guess i hijacked this a little, because i got annoyed at how easily some people dismiss mental illness, when the reality is that they havent a clue how severe and intractible and devastating mental illness can be. people often seem to think that it's "only" mild depression, but there are levels of mental ilness out there that most people in the general public cannot begin to conceptualise.

fair enough i see your point. people close to me have suffered mental illness so i know it's not a piece of cake

ntlbell

sam34 wrote: »

but there are levels of mental ilness out there that most people in the general public cannot begin to conceptualise.

Of course there is very serious mental illness with major chemical imbalances and need real care/drugs etc etc.

but there is also HUGE amount that are up to there eyes in anti d's handed out by GP's that have no expertise in the field with no evaluation from a psych, that have nothing wrong with them but self pitty and need a kick up the arse

all these people are diluting the seriousness of mental illness especially in the area of depression.

anyway that's another topic for another day.

willy wonka

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'.

Just for the record, I had a pregnancy scare a few years ago when I lived abroad and my boyfriend at the time pressured me into having an abortion eventhough I wouldn't consider it. I was under a lot of pressure at the time - young, miles from home, no real support network but I didnt bow to his pressure. Thankfully I wasnt pregnant but for a time believed I was (dodgy tests, missed periods, etc). It really wasn't an ideal situation, I don't know if I would call it 'unwanted' but to suggest that as a pro-lifer that I have never gone through this kind of emotional trauma is close-minded

I have personal expereience of mental health issues (without going into any great detail) and absolutely realise the gravity, despair and lack of control of such situations. I think Pro-choice people are as guilty of black&white vision as the pro-lifers

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.

This is the whole point of the argument. Pro-lifers understand the gravity of the situation. They understand that it is a huge traumatising event. That is what the pro-lifers are arguing about.

And I agree with you about Education being key.

metrovelvet

I have to agree with the above post. IT is pretty condescending to assume that to be anti-abortion, pro life, whatever you want to call it, you have no understanding or experience of the issues at hand, that somehow the stance is naive and unenlightened.

Sam Vimes

metrovelvet wrote: »

I have to agree with the above post. IT is pretty condescending to assume that to be anti-abortion, pro life, whatever you want to call it, you have no understanding or experience of the issues at hand, that somehow the stance is naive and unenlightened.

you're right of course. the statement that we don't understand the mental anguish of someone who has an abortion is actually contradictory if you think about it. from our perspective the woman has just murdered her baby so of course we understand that she's not going to feel too good about it

ntlbell

metrovelvet wrote: »

I have to agree with the above post. IT is pretty condescending to assume that to be anti-abortion, pro life, whatever you want to call it, you have no understanding or experience of the issues at hand, that somehow the stance is naive and unenlightened.

If they start think pro lifer's are rational intelligent human beings they might be led down a road where the pro lifer might have some valid opinions.

it's easier to pass the pro lifer of as some idiotic moron with no clue so they can sit comfortably in there own little bubble without considering anyone else's opinion.

metrovelvet

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you're right of course. the statement that we don't understand the mental anguish of someone who has an abortion is actually contradictory if you think about it. from our perspective the woman has just murdered her baby so of course we understand that she's not going to feel too good about it

Right, and if it is so so bad for women, how could you actually support it as a choice? So... pregnancy causes mental health problems.... but so does abortion, which is also posited as the solution to the mental health problems pregnancy causes.

Sam Vimes

metrovelvet wrote: »

Right, and if it is so so bad for women, how could you actually support it as a choice? So... pregnancy causes mental health problems.... but so does abortion, which is also posited as the solution to the mental health problems pregnancy causes.

in fact the number of suicides post abortion is very high. which brings me back to the question of why that is, since there's supposed to be nothing wrong with removing a clump of cells.....


edit:this is no fun without someone to disagree with

ntlbell

Sam Vimes wrote: »

edit:this is no fun without someone to disagree with

stfu nub...;)

Mr. Incognito

well no-one was able to have a rational debate with either one of you so they left.

let me know when the tumbleweed turns up

tallaght01

Terodil wrote: »

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?

I guess this begs the question of when does it stop being OK to kill on the basis of not being fully developed.

Say, at about 4 or 5 weeks and the neural tube is developing, and the heart is starting to do it's thing. So, you have the early precursors of the circulatory system and the brain starting to function.

Now, the brain doesn't stop developing until into childhood, and the newborn heart can take a while to "normalise" from the fetal heart and circultion, to become a mature heart.

Newborn haemoglobin is also different, with a high proportion of Haemoglobin F.

Basically what I'm saying is that the newborn born at term is certainly not the finished article.

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

Do we know this for sure? How do we measure the "culture", and have we standardised our assessment of women's trauma globally?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

people don't become mentally ill when they get pregnant, the illness must have already been there

Man, post-natal depression can literally be a killer. It really can. It may not come during pregnancy, but happens very soon afterwards. It's a really really horrible disease.

ntlbell wrote: »

but there is also HUGE amount that are up to there eyes in anti d's handed out by GP's that have no expertise in the field with no evaluation from a psych, that have nothing wrong with them but self pitty and need a kick up the arse

all these people are diluting the seriousness of mental illness especially in the area of depression.

.

I think YOU might be the one diluting the seriousness of mental illness with the assertion that there's A) huge amounts of timewasters being poorly managed in the community, with really no evidence to back the assertion up.