How do Pro Life campaigners want women who have abortions punished?

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And it, as I said, fails to do that given there is no coherent reason to protect the fetus. Calling it "innocent life" does not do it. Whatever the INTENTION behind the laws may have been, the intention was badly met and badly thought out. Protecting the interests of a non-moral agent like the fetus over the choices, desires, or safety of an ACTUAL moral agent like the mother, is simply a poor result.

With all due respect, that is waffle and demonstrably so.

Again: it makes no bloody difference if YOU see a fetus as a moral agent or not as the analogy was about the intent of abortion laws being the same as the intent of drink driving laws. Maybe you're right in that protecting the interests of a non-moral agent like the fetus over the choices, desires, or safety of an ACTUAL moral agent like the mother, is simply a poor result..... BUT SO WHAT!!. That in no way changes the intent of those creating the laws?? This is absurd. Seriously, go and think about what you're saying here.

Nope, not running from anything. I have been perfectly clear and coherent from the outset of this thread and this discussion that as the fetus ages I become more and more concerned as to when and where we should be treating it as a moral agent.

You are not going to concede this point either are you?

I kept asking you to confirm at which point you had moral concern for fetal life andd all I got were a bunch of links saying you had done so already. Sure you're still claiming you did even though today was the FIRST TIME that you mentioned 24 weeks in the context of your moral concern for fetal life. So don't give me that rubbish that you gave me clarification of this before when it's the first time you mentioned it. If you had clarified 24 weeks before, you would be quoting where you had done so.

Once again I do not think it is possible that I could be, or could have been, any clearer on the time frames and time periods in which I have set the arguments and concerns that I have espoused.

Really? So even though today was the first time you mentioned 24 weeks, despite my repeatedly asking you for clarification in that regard, you still think you could not have been any clearer?? Would you get up the garden :P

I am not sure you were given a hard time for seeking clarifications. You were given a hard time for the VAST misrepresentation of me and my views entirely. And rightly so.

And rightly so? Ha. The post which you thanked made two false assertions:

1) I shouldn't be asking you for clarification regarding when it is that you have moral concern for fetal life, as according to them, you had clearly stated it was 20 weeks many times already. But as I have shown here today, that is patently untrue as we are now talking about '24 weeks' and so they misspoke, to put it mildly.

2) Mentioning Sarah Catt was suggesting you approved of what she had done. It wasn't. You see, you had said that when women get abortions they are doing so to maximizing their own well being and their own happiness, among other things, and all I was merely pointing out was that aborting a child for those reasons doesn't make the abortion a moral one given that Sarah was trying to maximize her own well being and happiness.

I have great and well founded confidence in our sciences and our scientific knowledge. But not to the point that I would ever move to lose sight of it's current borders and the concerns we should maintain when we are on their edge.

Well, suggesting researchers even looking for 'sentience' in a 16 week old fetuses is a "nonsense" contradicts the above.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

With all due respect, that is waffle and demonstrably so.

By all means make the attempt. Nothing you have labelled "waffle" so far has been demonstrated by you to be such yet.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Again: it makes no bloody difference if YOU see a fetus as a moral agent

I am arguing for what MY moral position on abortion is, and why. So it very much does make a difference. You are shifting the conversation now from the position I have been arguing all along, to discussing the position the State holds but I would like to have my goal posts back thanks. You are so hung up on protecting a failed analogy that you have long since ceased discussing the actual topic of abortion.

A law, the intention of which is to "protect the innocent" is, for all the reasons I have argued, simply superfluous to requirements in relation to a 16 week old fetus. Because I do not see any reason, least of all from you, to consider it worthy of, or requiring, any such protections.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You are not going to concede this point either are you?

I am not in the habit of conceding to false arguments no. With the possible exception of to my mother, where it is safer for all concerned to do so.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I kept asking you to confirm at which point you had moral concern for fetal life andd all I got were a bunch of links saying you had done so already.

You did not "keep" asking that. You barely asked at all. And you did so in a post that dramatically misrepresented me and my views up to, and including, the false declaration that I hold no moral concern for the fetus at ANY stage, despite me multiple times saying precisely and clearly the opposite. Why you feel the need to dig that hole any deeper at this stage, is anyone's guess really.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sure you're still claiming you did even though today was the FIRST TIME that you mentioned 24 weeks in the context of your moral concern for fetal life.

I have been very clear on my position of 16 weeks and why I hold it. I have also been clear that incrementally after this point my concerns start to manifest and grow. The only reason 24 weeks was mentioned AT ALL was it was brought up to me, and I responded to it. You really are pontificating on trivialities now.

Once again my position is, was, and always has been that I think the fetus becomes a moral agent at SOME Point in the process between conception and birth..... I do not know exactly when that point is...... but for all the reasons I have laid out ad naseum so far I feel 16 weeks is significantly on the safe side of uncertainty.

What part of that you have an issue with at this point is entirely opaque to me and, I suspect at this point, to you too.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So don't give me that rubbish that you gave me clarification of this before when it's the first time you mentioned it.

It is not the first time I have mentioned it. It might be the first time (I have not checked) that I used that specific number, but had you bothered to actually read all my posts, and the links to them I provided, 24 weeks and beyond were already very much included in the arguments I have given, and the reasons I have given them.

Especially when you were claiming that I do not hold moral regard for the fetus at ANY stage when this is the opposite of just about everything I have said on this issue. A fact I suspect you are deflecting from now by trying to make an "event" out of the fact I arbitrarily picked one number (24) out of a RANGE of numbers which I had already dealt with. A number I only picked because YOU and others brought it up in your posts.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If you had clarified 24 weeks before, you would be quoting where you had done so.

I have already linked to MANY (but not all) of the places where I was abundantly clear on my time periods, why I hold them, and more.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

despite my repeatedly asking you for clarification in that regard, you still think you could not have been any clearer??

Finally, you are getting it. Yes, there is no position I hold at this point that I feel could have been any clearer.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And rightly so?

Yes very much so. The misrepresentation of my views which you threw out was about as egregiously false as it gets. It was very much rightly so that I, and another, pulled you up on it.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The post which you thanked made two false assertions

Take your problems with another persons posts up with that person. Not with me.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

you had clearly stated it was 20 weeks many times already. But as I have shown here today, that is patently untrue as we are now talking about '24 weeks' and so they misspoke, to put it mildly.

Not so. I have, again, been very clear on this that my moral worry grows as time goes on. I START to feel iffy and worry AROUND the area of 20 weeks. And it incrementally grows after that point. However worry is all it is and I still think we are safe at 20, and I still think we are safe at 24. And I only mention 24 rather than 23 or 25 because YOU and others brought the number up.

The reason I am not specific, and jump around in my posts between numbers 20 and later.... is that given my position on abortion is around 16 weeks when I am called upon to be specific..... anything from 20 or later is irrelevant to me and my position entirely. There is no conspiracy here, or contradictions in my positions such as you imagine. I simply see no cause to be anything but vague beyond the point I am ACTUALLY arguing in my posts. And given the VAST majority of demand for abortion is only after 12 weeks, it is rendered even more irrelevant to the positions I espouse.

So 24 is not a magic number to me, my positions, or anything I am saying. It serves only to be a magic number from which you are trying to establish some weird narrative about me which does not address me or my positions in any discernible way.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I was merely pointing out was that aborting a child for those reasons doesn't make the abortion a moral one given that Sarah was trying to maximize her own well being and happiness.

Yet at no point did I claim it does, in isolation, make it a moral one. You are engaging once again in ineffectually taking part of someones position out of the context of the REST of their position in order to rubbish it and merely looking silly as a result.

When there is only one moral agent involved, such as before 16 weeks, then I see no reason to stand in the way of the decisions of another to exercise their own autonomy and/or maximize their own well being and happiness.

The caveat of "one moral agent" is everything there and is not simply to be ignored or dodged. Someone who decides to kill the developing child at 40 weeks is engaged in an action that is entirely outside the boundaries I defined in my position.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, suggesting that researchers even looking for 'sentience' in 16 week old fetuses is "a nonsense" contradicts that.

Nice of you to ignore the clarification I have made on that point and hammer again at irrelevant trivialities that are not actually representative of my position.

It IS a nonsense for us to expect there to be sentience at that point. Everything we know about consciousness and sentience tells us this. Nothing we know suggests otherwise.

But I absolutely and entirely support ALL efforts our research scientists do to learn fully what consciousness is, how it arises, how it functions, and more. They absolutely should be doing this. And if looking at humans 1 month, 5 months, 8 months before birth, or 1 year, 10 years or 50 years after birth somehow helps them to that end, they should certainly be doing so.

But any expectation that our science is SO wrong as to be changed on this issue THAT dramatically is very badly placed and entirely unfounded. It is nonsense at this time to have any expectation that they are suddenly going to turn around and say "We have just shown 16 week old fetuses to be sentient".

We should be willing, of course, to change our positions on many things IF they do this. But expecting it to happen is certainly nonsense at this time.

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The ONLY reason bacteria was mentioned was to highlight the fact that mere response to stimulus tells us NOTHING about the consciousness and capacity for awareness the subject in question possesses.

I am well aware of the point the user was making.

Equating a auditory stimulus response of a fetus, with a auditory stimulus response of bacteria, is absurd. They are two different things entirely. A fetal response to auditory stimulus might sometimes say very little, that's true, but other times it says a whole damn lot and can be very much significant. To dismiss stimulus responses just because they occur in bacteria is, as I said, ludicrous.

As for saying response to stimulus tells us NOTHING about the consciousness and capacity for awareness.....

Hang on and I'll phone all the prenatal perception researchers all over the world and tell them they are wasting their time looking at the results of audiotory stimulus responses as they will tell them NOTHING about the fetus's capacity for awareness

I'll start with those in Ontario shall I as they appear to not to have heard about the musical loving bacteria either.

These findings provide evidence of fetal attention, memory, and learning of voices and language, indicating that newborn speech/language abilities have their origins before birth. They suggest that neural networks sensitive to properties of the mother's voice and native-language speech are being formed.

Look, as I said earlier with regards to the Spanish auditory stimulus study which included fetuses as young as 16-weeks:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The fetal movements were not pin prick type nerve impulses or muscle responses, but in fact were facial movements (mouth and tongue).

On hearing music, the fetuses responded with movements similar to those associated with vocalisation. That can not be compared to stimulus of bacteria. It's doesn't matter if on hearing the music the bacteria began doing John Travolta movements. The fact that human fetuses showed signs of awareness of the music and in turn a desire to move areas of their face in response to it, tells us that there very much is 'someone home'. People wanna call that sentience or personhood, or not as the case may be, knock yourselves out, I couldn't care less, but what I do care about is that this is yet more evidence that it is barbarous for us to allow the stilling of the heartbeats of fetuses that have reached this stage of development.

Elliott S

Was interested in reading this thread but it has been wrecked by tedious multiquote wars by dogs-with-bones.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I am well aware of the point the user was making.

At this point the thread has become so long, and has been derailed so much with your "you said / did not say" waffle, that I am genuinely becoming confused as to who said what. But I thought it was me that brought bacteria into it for the point of comparison. But you appear now to be talking about someone else who did so.

So I hasten to clarify..... perhaps his reasons and point were the same, but please do re-read my last post on it as being a clarification of why I referred to bacteria, not why anyone else who did it has done so.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Equating a auditory stimulus response of a fetus, with a auditory stimulus response of bacteria, is absurd.

Then take it up with someone who has made that comparison. I certainly have not made it.

What I WAS doing was merely showing that mere response to a stimulus is not in ANY way indicative of sentience or consciousness. But I can certainly see why the average layperson to science might think it does.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

A fetal response to auditory stimulus might sometimes say very little, that's true, but other times it says a whole damn lot and can be very much significant.

Exactly, so the goal would then be to look PAST that mere response and establish which of the two conditions you just listed it actually is. And in the case of, say, a 16 week old fetus I fully expect you will find it is almost certainly the former, and almost no chance at all it is the latter.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

To dismiss stimulus responses just because they occur in bacteria is, as I said, ludicrous.

Then, I repeat, you should take it up with someone who is actually doing that. I am not doing that, and I am not convinced anyone else here is either.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Hang on and I'll phone all the prenatal perception researchers all over the world and tell them they are wasting their time looking at the results of audiotory stimulus responses as they will tell them NOTHING about the fetus's capacity for awareness

Perhaps you should as they might be able to explain better than anyone here what the goals of their actual study is. As volchitsa already pointed out with one of your links, they were not actually looking for what you made out they were.

And I feel you are doing EXACTLY the same thing here. Because the link you lined to says NOTHING about looking for awareness or consciousness or sentience or anything like it. But "Our findings suggest that neural pathways participating in the auditory–motor system are developed as early as gestational week 16. These findings might contribute to diagnostic methods for prenatal hearing screening, and research into fetal neurological stimulation."

So by all means ring them, I just hope they correct you politely rather than simply laugh down the phone at you.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The fact that human fetuses showed signs of awareness of the music

Not in the study you linked to they did not. That was no the conclusion of the study AT ALL. And if you look for words like consciousness, sentience, awareness and so forth they are simply not in the study at all. The study showed nothing but a MOTOR response to stimulus. And as I said.... you are more than overly keen to read as much as you can into such responses on little or no basis. You talk of their "desire" to move their face out of nowhere.

Also you should remember that at the level of the brain we are all very much more prone to synaesthesia than as we age and this means we should expect response to stimulus to produce results that are surprising too.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

what I do care about is that this is yet more evidence that it is barbarous for us to allow the stilling of the heartbeats of fetuses that have reached this stage of development.

Except it is evidence of no such thing at all. If it is evidence for anything, it is your unwillingness and/or inability to distinguish emotionally OR intellectually between motor responses, and subjective awareness.

gctest50

Originally Posted by Outlaw Pete

what I do care about is that this is yet more evidence that it is barbarous for us to allow the stilling of the heartbeats of fetuses that have reached this stage of development.

Watch lab-grown heart cells beating under a scope :

thee glitz

With all this talk of rocks and bacteria, i think ill try a little analogy too, involving finance.

A company borrows 100million euro over a few years, paying 3.6% interest a year back to its 100 equal investors so they each earn 100quid interest per day.
Halfway through the last year, it suits the company to pay back the investors early, and they avail of their option to do so. So they organise payments of 1million euro + 180 days interest to their investors, but accidentally on purpose miss their deadline, so the investors receive their payment a day late. Almost none of the investors notice this. Those few that think it a little strange aren't certain that they're correct, and guess the company aren't out do them for 100quid, having just paid them a million. So the company pockets 10k just like that. Has it acted ethically?

gctest50

Originally Posted by Outlaw Pete

The fact that human fetuses showed signs of awareness of the music

This may lead to the development of newer safer abortion procedures some day

Pregnancy is considered a contraindication for rESWT ( Radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy )

thee glitz

gctest50 wrote: »

safer abortion procedures

That's an oxymoron.

Cabaal

thee glitz wrote: »

The point of this law isn't to punish those who break it,
it's to stop the problem altogether.

No law will stop abortions happening,
There will always be abortions even if women have to try create them themselves, taking away proper health care for women only makes them more desperate and puts women's lives at risk.

Cabaal

thee glitz wrote: »

Yes - I've put out the idea of a replacement for the 8th amendment a few times but never got any response on it.

?

Thats because a replacement is foolish,
Such a thing has no place in our constitution, we need legislation, not additional crap added into our constitution to replace the 8th

The 8th is a amendment from the days of when the catholic church ruled this country,

January

thee glitz wrote: »

That's an oxymoron.

No it's not.

thee glitz

Cabaal wrote: »

No law will stop abortions happening,
There will always be abortions even if women have to try create them themselves, taking away proper health care for women only makes them more desperate and puts women's lives at risk.

Who is putting women's lives at risk?

January wrote: »

No it's not.

The object of abortion is to kill the baby so making it safer would actually be counterproductive.

BarryD

Re OP, ProLife advocates will be happy if women who have terminations are punished by having a guilt trip. It's satisfying to hold the moral high ground and look down with disdain and pity on the poor sinners. And if the fallen are sufficiently repentant, they might be forgiven. That would suffice.

January

thee glitz wrote: »

Who is putting women's lives at risk?

The government for not providing proper health care for women.

thee glitz

BarryD wrote: »

Re OP, ProLife advocates will be happy if women who have terminations are punished by having a guilt trip. It's satisfying to hold the moral high ground and look down with disdain and pity on the poor sinners. And if the fallen are sufficiently repentant, they might be forgiven. That would suffice.

Not me anyway. The damage has already been done. The best outcome would be that the woman realises the error of her ways and educates others of her experiences.

January wrote: »

The government for not providing proper health care for women.

There's plenty of healthcare provided for by this government.

January

thee glitz wrote: »

Not me anyway. The damage has already been done. The best outcome would be that the woman realises the error of her ways and educates others of her experiences.



There's plenty of healthcare provided for by this government.

Pushing women into travelling for abortions or to order pills online and take them at home is not safe. Abortions will always happen. 3 abortions a day happen here in ireland. That's not hospital abortions that is women ordering pills online to perform unsafe abortions in their own homes because they cannot afford to travel to England. We need to legislate for this medical procedure to be able to be carried out safely under the care of a doctor.

BarryD

thee glitz wrote: »

The best outcome would be that the woman realises the error of her ways and educates others of her experiences.

Quite.. that is just how many prolife advocates would wish that a woman be punished and redeemed by God's grace.

thee glitz

January wrote: »

Pushing women into travelling for abortions or to order pills online and take them at home is not safe. Abortions will always happen. 3 abortions a day happen here in ireland. That's not hospital abortions that is women ordering pills online to perform unsafe abortions in their own homes because they cannot afford to travel to England. We need to legislate for this medical procedure to be able to be carried out safely under the care of a doctor.

So it's not that the government are going around feeding women dodgy pills, but that they are ordering, paying for, and consuming them themselves - putting their own lives at risk. Your solution sounds great, except fot the baby killing part.

BarryD wrote: »

Quite.. that is just how many prolife advocates would wish that a woman be punished and redeemed by God's grace.

I can't speak for pro-lifers as I haven't surveyed them all, but most people I'm friendly with are pro-life. They're good people and wouldn't wish hurt or pain on anyone. The same way the few pro-choice friends I have wouldn't either. It seems like you're looking for a fault with pro-lifers' empathy capability so the reality of what your advocating is more easily justified.

gctest50

BarryD wrote: »

Quite.. that is just how many prolife advocates would wish that a woman be punished and redeemed by God's grace.

I doubt that would be enough for some of them judging by a few of the threads here n there

Some of the anti-choice stuff is rooted back in what must have been the very lucrative baby-trade the church carried on with :

She was one of an estimated 60,000 women whose babies were given to new parents in exchange for cash donations.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/philomena-author-scandal-irelands-60000-4260186

But even though those days and people are gone ( hopefully) still some carry on trying to "maximise profits" - bit like the 5 monkeys fable :

January

thee glitz wrote: »

So it's not that the government are going around feeding women dodgy pills, but that they are ordering, paying for, and consuming them themselves - putting their own lives at risk. Your solution sounds great, except fot the baby killing part.

Except nobody is killing babies, they're having a medical procedure to end a pregnancy that might produce a viable fetus. What's with the emotive language?

And yes, they're ordering these pills online putting their own lives at risk because our government will not legislate for them to be able to go to a doctor and have a proven safe medical procedure under their care. That's the governments fault.

thee glitz

thee glitz wrote: »

Not me anyway. The damage has already been done. The best outcome would be that the woman realises the error of her ways and educates others of her experiences.
.

Would you feel the same about Alan Hawe, if he had survived?

I don't get it, are these lives equal or not?

If 'pro-life' people really believe in the equal right to life, then why not treat these women & their doctors like the killers you surely opine them to be.

eviltwin

I think it's gas that some people believe that an actual baby is being killed but don't believe these pre meditated murderers should face justice.

thee glitz

January wrote: »

Except nobody is killing babies, they're having a medical procedure to end a pregnancy that might produce a viable fetus. What's with the emotive language?

You do know it is actually killing babies though?
It's taking an innocent's life. Why the head burying in the sand? It's not emotive language, it's an emotive subject.

And yes, they're ordering these pills online putting their own lives at risk

Yep.

because our government will not legislate for them to be able to go to a doctor and have a proven safe medical procedure under their care. That's the governments fault.

The government can't do that, even if they wanted to (they don't). The procedure is not on the woman, it's something they have done to their baby.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Would you feel the same about Alan Hawe, if he had survived?

I don't get it, are these lives equal or not?

What are ye on about?

If 'pro-life' people really believe in the equal right to life, then why not treat these women & their doctors like the killers you surely opine them to be.

As I've said above, there's no need to do so. The government simply ensures that this 'facility' is not available.

gctest50

thee glitz wrote: »

................

Originally Posted by January
because our government will not legislate for them to be able to go to a doctor and have a proven safe medical procedure under their care. That's the governments fault.

The government can't do that, even if they wanted to (they don't)............

It has been done in other countries ( Canada say) why can't it be done here ?

January

gctest50 wrote: »

It has been done in other countries ( Canada say) why can't it be done here ?

Because the people have to vote but the government won't even bring it to vote.

thee glitz

Lollipops23 wrote: »

My OH was born to a 16 year old mother in the late 80s. She openly admits that she considered getting a boat to Liverpool, but couldn't get the money together.

He's still admantly pro choice and attending the rally with me in a few weeks.

That's really messed up, telling your child they might have been aborted if only cash wasn't a question. And then raising that child to be pro-abortion. Really fkd up.

January

thee glitz wrote: »

That's really messed up, telling your child they might have been aborted if only cash wasn't a question. And then raising that child to be pro-abortion. Really fkd up.

In your view. In my view its truthful that if she were in a different position she MAY have chosen a different path and bringing them up to believe that everyone should have that choice. It's not pro abortion at all.

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are shifting the conversation now from the position I have been arguing all along, to discussing the position the State holds...

The analogy compared the intent behind the drink driving laws and intent behind the abortion laws. These are the laws of the "State" and so who else's intent would be behind such laws if not the the State's?? Nobody shifted goalposts. You just finally realized the analogy wasn't about you and your views on abortion. We got there in the end anyway.

That was no the conclusion of the study AT ALL. And if you look for words like consciousness, sentience, awareness and so forth they are simply not in the study at all.

I never said anything about sentience. You know that I didn't. You even quoted me earlier today where I had said to another user that I don't claim sentience or even like to discuss it given that so many people disagree on it's definition. You said you felt similarly, but yet here you are accusing me of suggesting that I said it was present in a fetus and that a study claimed it. You have to be playing to gallery at this stage.

Except it is evidence of no such thing at all. If it is evidence for anything, it is your unwillingness and/or inability to distinguish emotionally OR intellectually between motor responses, and subjective awareness.

The researchers stated that the 16-week-old fetuses included in the study moved their mouths and tongues in response to music as if they were trying to speak. That is much different than a "blob of biological matter" moving it's muscles and/or nerves after they have been stimulated. This was very soft low level music which they reacted to. Not a pin prick.

I START to feel iffy and worry AROUND the area of 20 weeks. And it incrementally grows after that point. However worry is all it is and I still think we are safe at 20, and I still think we are safe at 24.

You do realise that babies have been born at that stage of gestation and survived. Only today there is an article about twins that were born at 23 weeks. There was a German baby born at 21 weeks a few years back. I could go on but I'm sure you'd be aware of cases like those linked to and so what is it? You still see them as "a blob of biological matter"? You don't think 'anyone's home'? Just not sure how anyone could be 'iffy' at the the stage you suggest you are.

thee glitz

January wrote: »

In your view. In my view its truthful that if she were in a different position she MAY have chosen a different path and bringing them up to believe that everyone should have that choice. It's not pro abortion at all.

In a different position, she may have done anything. What she did do was tell her child they may have been aborted, but for financial reasons. I'm not being fair though - maybe it's not her fault her child is pro-abortion, so I take that part back.