nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

rjpf1980

Since pro life campaigners believe abortion is murder wouldn't this mean women who abortions should be jailed for life or executed in many jurisdictions?

In Ireland this doesn't happen because women just travel to Britain and other EU countries where it is legal so no need to be arrested in Ireland.

Apart from a few crazies nobody in the referendum in the early 1990s wanted to prohibit women from travelling for an abortion abroad or accessing information on abortion.

In the ideal world Pro Life campaigners wish no where on earth would abortion be legal and for abortion to be murder. In an ideal world they would have women thrown into jail for life wouldn't they?

If you are pro life what is your view,?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Decent Skin

Depp wrote: »

We've been over this, a doctor who performs a procedure In Ireland thats Illegal in Ireland should be stricken from the register and punished. I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to tell you that before you understand?

The OP's question was clearly - "how?"

nozzferrahhtoo

Depp wrote: »

I have a similar reaction to your viewpoint as you do to mine

I am not so sure

My reaction was to explain what exactly I find incoherent and problematic with yours. Since you have not done the same with mine, I can not honestly say our reactions have been the same.

Depp wrote: »

My thoughts about the whole contraception thing is that while a fetus will develop into a sentient human, a sperm or an egg on its own will not.

An arbitrary distinction at best though. And not entirely accurate as a fetus "on it's own" will not develop into anything. It needs full integration with the mother to do so. You put any fetus "on it's own" and the only thing it is going to do is die, and die quickly.

But remember so far all my comments have been on how there is no reason to think the fetus has any rights at all. I have left the mother out of it. Bringing the mother into it you THEN have an issue where the fetus has no rights at all, but the mother does and should. Including the rights over what happens with, and in, her own body.

And that just compounds things further. We have someone with rights trying to implement those rights over something that should have, in my view, none. But even when it does (at whatever stage we deem that to be) they still have to be taken RELATIVE to the rights of the mother.

Depp wrote: »

theres no denying that once its heart is beating, its hard to argue that a fetus is not 'alive'

Like "Human" and "person hood" however, the word "alive" is also just as labile in terms of how fuzzy we want to be about what it means. After all a bird, a tree, a cat, a dog, an infection and so forth are all also "alive".

So when using the term "alive" we have to pull it sharply and entirely into context. And clearly, as we go around swatting flies, eating cows, and eliminating bacteria.... merely being "alive" is not enough on it's own to mediate moral and ethical concern.

Merely being alive is not enough to hang moral and ethical concern I think. That is why I hang it off consciousness and sentience. And I suspect you do too, even if you do not admit it.

For example if you find yourself have more moral and ethical concern for a fly than a bacteria, for a bird more than a fly, for a dog more than a bird, for an ape or a dolphin more than a dog, and for humans more than apes and dolphins...... then you very much already are likely to be mediating your moral and ethical concerns like I do: Proportional to the capability the entity has in question for consciousness, sentience and subjective experience.

That is the crux of my position on abortion. It is not based on anything you are not very much likely already thinking, feeling, or implementing. It merely follows those things intellectually to their conclusions where your emotions alone might simply not want them to go.

Depp

Decent Skin wrote: »

The OP's question was clearly - "how?"

If a doctor performs a an abortion in Ireland currently hes performing an illegal procedure and should be punished the same as any other doctor who performs an illegal procedure, its very simple.

rjpf1980

Depp wrote: »

how many times are you going to bang the same old drum? I think I've explaind this to you 3 or 4 times so far?

I don't agree with abortion personally but if someone does agree who am I to tell them they're wrong? My reasoning for a potential no vote is that I don't want my taxes or health insurance premiums funding it. Im not trying to oppress you or take away your ''rights'' I just think you should have to pay for your own bloody rights!

If you think it is wrong you think it is murder and if you think it is murder you must want people punished the same as any other killer?

Decent Skin

Depp wrote: »

If a doctor performs a an abortion in Ireland currently hes performing an illegal procedure and should be punished the same as any other doctor who performs an illegal procedure, its very simple.

You still didn't say how. And illegal procedures vary. As does the punishment for same.

Not all are described as "murder".

So what punishment is appropriate ?

eviltwin

rjpf1980 wrote: »

If you think it is wrong you think it is murder and if you think it is murder you must want people punished the same as any other killer?

Why are you trying to back him into a corner? Murder doesn't come into it. Even where it's illegal its not murder.

[Deleted User]

Not sure if it's yet been mentioned, but Donald Trump was subjected to enormous public criticism (and rightly so) when he suggested tightening U.S. abortion law, and punishing women who procure those illegal terminations. He was forced to row-back on that, but I don't remember anyone in Ireland pointing out that that's exactly the regime we have here.

It's a bit like the Mexican fence. We all think Trump is a brute because of his wretched fence, and at the same time, we in the European Union are erecting fences on our eastern borders. Hypocrisy is alive and well.

Depp wrote: »

If a doctor performs a an abortion in Ireland currently hes performing an illegal procedure

As of last year, there were 26 abortions in Ireland since the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act. No doubt, that figure has since risen.

Even prior to that Act, there was about a dozen abortions per year carried-out in Ireland.

Depp

rjpf1980 wrote: »

If you think it is wrong you think it is murder and if you think it is murder you must want people punished the same as any other killer?

''well if you think the sky is blue you think its made of water and if you think its made of water you want to drink it''

this has about as much relevence to your view as what you said to mine, you seem to be delusional about how this conversation is going or just completely incapable of understanding the words I'm speaking?

I've clearly and precisely explained my views on the matter to you several times now and I wont be doing it again.

Depp

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

As of last year, there were 26 abortions in Ireland since the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act. No doubt, that figure has since risen.

Even prior to that Act, there was about a dozen abortions per year carried-out in Ireland.

I didnt mean abortions that are necessary medically I've already stated in this thread abortions when a pregnancy risks the life of the mother is in danger are justified.

Depp

Decent Skin wrote: »

You still didn't say how. And illegal procedures vary. As does the punishment for same.

Not all are described as "murder".

So what punishment is appropriate ?

Its not for me to say, I don't decide punishments for people that break laws and I'm sure a punishment for doctors performing illegal abortions is already in statute and if so thats the punishment I believe should be levelled

Decent Skin

Depp wrote: »

Its not for me to say, I don't decide punishments for people that break laws and I'm sure a punishment for doctors performing illegal abortions is already in statute and if so thats the punishment I believe should be levelled

I don't get to decide punishment for people who break laws either; it still doesn't stop me from voicing my opinion that fraud or scumbaggery should be dealt with in a particular way that "already in statute" already has, because those are far too lenient.

Depp

Decent Skin wrote: »

I don't get to decide punishment for people who break laws either; it still doesn't stop me from voicing my opinion that fraud or scumbaggery should be dealt with in a particular way that "already in statute" already has, because those are far too lenient.

I don't have the technical or legal knowledge to decide fairly what sentence a criminal should have so I'm not going to try. dont think a murder charge is fair at the same time

Little CuChulainn

Decent Skin wrote: »

But they're getting to block said voters from having the louder voice, both on-air in debates (see some horrendous vile tripe posted early in the thread) and in terms of the government refusing to hold a referendum.

rjpf1980 wrote: »

They lead the Pro Life movement which operates out of Life House on Capel Street and is funded and supported by ultra right wing Irish American Catholics. A prominent family based in Munster who have hard line Irish Republican connections are the leading spokespersons for the movement.

The only reason the radicals are the ones making all the noise is because people are giving them the recognition and voice, people like the op. He's shouting down another poster who has repeatedly explained his reasoning and keeps accusing him of wanting to lock up baby killing mothers, even though it's nothing near what was said. Radicals on both sides are taking over the debate and simply shouting down everyone.

rjpf1980

Depp wrote: »

I don't have the technical or legal knowledge to decide fairly what sentence a criminal should have so I'm not going to try. dont think a murder charge is fair at the same time

If you think it's murder then it follows that a murder charge is fair? Otherwise you are pro choice. In your post you are evasive and you literally are saying now you haven't thought about it. So think about it and you will see how insane the pro life position is.

Decent Skin

I am against abortion after about 12 weeks except for certwin circumstances. Am I pro life or pro choice?[/quote]

Depends on which circumstances - do they involve a choice ?

If so, then it's pro limited choice which - if it were FFA and rape - would align fairly closely to mine; although since the other choice is up to others' conscience, I don't believe I should have a say either way and would probably abstain and thereby not block those, should the referendum be in parts.

That's why the eighth needs to go; so that there aren't a myriad of grey areas all lumped within a simplistic yes/no question.

Depp

rjpf1980 wrote: »

If you think it's murder then it follows that a murder charge is fair? Otherwise you are pro choice.

again, I believe personally abortion is wrong, however, if someone with different beliefs wants to get one and its not tax or insurance funded thats their business. If a doctor performs one in Ireland without a view to saving the mothers life he is commiting a crime and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law like any criminal. Never said I was anti choice I'm pro life theres a difference, I dont want my taxes or insurance premiums going towards something I dont agree with morally.

Now does that explain it for you at last or do you wish to continue making a fool of yourself?

Decent Skin

Depp wrote: »

again, I believe personally abortion is wrong, however, if someone with different beliefs wants to get one and its not tax or insurance funded thats their business. If a doctor performs one in Ireland without a view to saving the mothers life he is commiting a crime and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law like any criminal. Never said I was anti choice I'm pro life theres a difference, I dont want my taxes or insurance premiums going towards something I dont agree with morally.

Now does that explain it for you at last or do you wish to continue making a fool of yourself?

Believe it or not my VHi premium includes "maternity benefits", which can't be removed despite being an impossibility.

My taxes pay Children's Allowance, whereas part of me believes that people shouldn't have kids that they can't provide for by themselves now that we have a choice as to whether or not to have them and a church isn't dictating anymore.

Physical impossibilities trump personal choices as to moral compass, and taxes are used for all sorts of things we aren't happy with; none should influence the fundamental rights though.

Depp

Decent Skin wrote: »

Believe it or not my VHi premium includes "maternity benefits", which can't be removed despite being an impossibility.

My taxes pay Children's Allowance, whereas part of me believes that people shouldn't have kids that they can't provide for by themselves now that we have a choice as to whether or not to have them and a church isn't dictating anymore.

Physical impossibilities trump personal choices as to moral compass, and taxes are used for all sorts of things we aren't happy with; none should influence the fundamental rights though.

You're being very glib here. At this current moment in time any Irish woman has the right and the ability to get an abortion without any legal recourse, but she has to pay for it. If you had the chance to vote for whether or not your taxes not to be spent on something you don't agree with, what way would you vote? At the moment my taxes and premiums don't fund abortions and if I have a chance to vote in a referendum so they stay that way I will vote against it.

Decent Skin

Depp wrote: »

You're being very glib here. At this current moment in time any Irish woman has the right and the ability to get an abortion without any legal recourse, but she has to pay for it. If you had the chance to vote for whether or not your taxes not to be spent on something you don't agree with, what way would you vote? At the moment my taxes and premiums don't fund abortions and if I have a chance to vote in a referendum so they stay that way I will vote against it.

The current legal position means she has to pay more for that. If you deny her rights because of your preference then it could be argued that you should thereby help foot the bill for travel.

We do that for some medical procedures anyway, with the HSE funding trips for stuff that isn't available here: to make up for the problem incurred by an individual because of Ireland's limitations.

What way would I vote ? If it were a basic human right then funding wouldn't come into it. I'd sort that out afterwards; which I already said - I wouldn't vote against the "right to a home" just because someone hadn't told me how it would be paid for - that's a separate issue.

eviltwin

rjpf1980 wrote: »

If you think it's murder then it follows that a murder charge is fair? Otherwise you are pro choice. In your post you are evasive and you literally are saying now you haven't thought about it. So think about it and you will see how insane the pro life position is.

The law disagrees. Whatever your own views on abortion the law doesn't recognise it as murder therefore no woman will ever be charged as such. I haven't seen any of the anti choice voices ever mention widening the definition of murder to include the unborn.

animaal

The OP question refers to "pro-life campaigners" rather than to people who will vote against constitutional change. From what I see, the campaigners on both sides are the people with the strongest views, and they tend to be extreme in those views.

On one hand: "All human life from conception needs to be protected. All who disagree are murderers". On the other: "My body, my choice, right up to birth. All who disagree are right-wing nutters, brainwashed by the church".

Based on this, I would guess that there are quite a few pro-life campaigners who would want abortion treated the same as any other crime, with legal proceedings. However, I doubt many would advocate being "jailed for life" or "executed". I think the suggestion shows the OP to be somewhat extreme in his own opinions.

Abortion isn't a simple issue - any legal framework, or lack of one, will lead to some outcomes that I consider to be undesirable. I don't accept that human life is sacred from the moment of conception. But I also don't accept that abortion should be allowed at any time up to birth for all reasons. E.g. I definitely wouldn't like to see abortions allowed after there's a chance of viability outside the womb. Before that, it's various shades of grey. After it can feel pain? After it has a recognisable brain?

A question for the OP - If a scumbag kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach, ending her pregnancy, should he only be charged with a simple assault? It was only a clump of cells, right?

Depp

Decent Skin wrote: »

The current legal position means she has to pay more for that. If you deny her rights because of your preference then it could be argued that you should thereby help foot the bill for travel.

We do that for some medical procedures anyway, with the HSE funding trips for stuff that isn't available here: to make up for the problem incurred by an individual because of Ireland's limitations.

What way would I vote ? If it were a basic human right then funding wouldn't come into it. I'd sort that out afterwards; which I already said - I wouldn't vote against the "right to a home" just because someone hadn't told me how it would be paid for - that's a separate issue.

no rights are being denied though? why should I have to foot the bill? I didn't get her pregnant? Outside of when a woman is in danger an unchecked abortion is a non-essential procedure, not a basic human right and theres nothing stopping them from travelling.

Depp

animaal wrote: »

The OP question refers to "pro-life campaigners" rather than to people who will vote against constitutional change. From what I see, the campaigners on both sides are the people with the strongest views, and they tend to be extreme in those views.

On one hand: "All human life from conception needs to be protected. All who disagree are murderers". On the other: "My body, my choice, right up to birth. All who disagree are right-wing nutters, brainwashed by the church".

Based on this, I would guess that there are quite a few pro-life campaigners who would want abortion treated the same as any other crime, with legal proceedings. However, I doubt many would advocate being "jailed for life" or "executed". I think the suggestion shows the OP to be somewhat extreme in his own opinions.

Abortion isn't a simple issue - any legal framework, or lack of one, will lead to some outcomes that I consider to be undesirable. I don't accept that human life is sacred from the moment of conception. But I also don't accept that abortion should be allowed at any time up to birth for all reasons. E.g. I definitely wouldn't like to see abortions allowed after there's a chance of viability outside the womb. Before that, it's various shades of grey. After it can feel pain? After it has a recognisable brain?

A question for the OP - If a scumbag kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach, ending her pregnancy, should he only be charged with a simple assault? It was only a clump of cells, right?

if that makes you suspect it i think its fair to say the rest of her posts confirm it

Decent Skin

Depp wrote: »

no rights are being denied though? why should I have to foot the bill? I didn't get her pregnant? Outside of when a woman is in danger an unchecked abortion is a non-essential procedure, not a basic human right and theres nothing stopping them from travelling.

Control over the autonomy of your own body is an indisputable human right.

You helping foot the bill is because you'd vote to deny that right.

Depp

Decent Skin wrote: »

Control over the autonomy of your own body is an indisputable human right.

You helping foot the bill is because you'd vote to deny that right.

but its not her own body its the kids? I'm not getting into this again I've explained why I disagree with it. I will under no circumstances vote in such a way that will make it so I have to fund it. Look at the nhs for example, with free abortions termination of a pregnancy is seen by some (not all) as a viable alternate to a condom. If a girl doesn't want to use proper protection and get an abortion every time she gets pregnant thats perfectly fine, as long as shes prepared to pay for it.

I've said again and again, I don't agree with abortion personally but if someone who does wants one they should be able to have one, but it shouldn't be free.

Decent Skin

Depp wrote: »

but its not her own body its the kids? I'm not getting into this again I've explained why I disagree with it. I will under no circumstances vote in such a way that will make it so I have to fund it. Look at the nhs for example, with free abortions termination of a pregnancy is seen by some (not all) as a viable alternate to a condom. If a girl doesn't want to use proper protection and get an abortion every time she gets pregnant thats perfectly fine, as long as shes prepared to pay for it.

I've said again and again, I don't agree with abortion personally but if someone who does wants one they should be able to have one, but it shouldn't be free.

What kids ? There are none.

Little CuChulainn

Decent Skin wrote: »

Control over the autonomy of your own body is an indisputable human right.

You helping foot the bill is because you'd vote to deny that right.

It's a decent argument if you choose to ignore the main belief of pro life voters, that the fetus is a human life that deserves protection.

Decent Skin

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It's a decent argument if you choose to ignore the main belief of pro life voters, that the fetus is a human life that deserves protection.

That wasn't their stance though, as they aren't "one of THOSE pro-life"; they only wanted to ensure that they didn't have to pay for it.

Donald Trump

Decent Skin wrote: »

The current legal position means she has to pay more for that.

No. You won't find any Irish laws which state that a woman must pay for an abortion herself.

Decent Skin wrote: »

If you deny her rights because of your preference then it could be argued that you should thereby help foot the bill for travel.

Rights me hole. Who is denying what right? Just because you want something doesn't make it a "right" :pac:

It's a bit like saying the state is denying rights because the local social welfare officer won't give money for flights to Amsterdam for people to smoke some hash :pac:

Grayson

animaal wrote: »

The OP question refers to "pro-life campaigners" rather than to people who will vote against constitutional change. From what I see, the campaigners on both sides are the people with the strongest views, and they tend to be extreme in those views.

On one hand: "All human life from conception needs to be protected. All who disagree are murderers". On the other: "My body, my choice, right up to birth. All who disagree are right-wing nutters, brainwashed by the church".

Based on this, I would guess that there are quite a few pro-life campaigners who would want abortion treated the same as any other crime, with legal proceedings. However, I doubt many would advocate being "jailed for life" or "executed". I think the suggestion shows the OP to be somewhat extreme in his own opinions.

Abortion isn't a simple issue - any legal framework, or lack of one, will lead to some outcomes that I consider to be undesirable. I don't accept that human life is sacred from the moment of conception. But I also don't accept that abortion should be allowed at any time up to birth for all reasons. E.g. I definitely wouldn't like to see abortions allowed after there's a chance of viability outside the womb. Before that, it's various shades of grey. After it can feel pain? After it has a recognisable brain?

A question for the OP - If a scumbag kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach, ending her pregnancy, should he only be charged with a simple assault? It was only a clump of cells, right?

That bit I bolded..... That's not the case. You won't find a single pro choice organisation in Ireland that says that and 99.99999% of the pro choice people would disagree too. All pro choice recognise that there has to be a cut-off point and that at some point there's a baby in there. The difference is that we don't see a small cluster of cells as being a baby. We do see a baby later. There will be some debate as to when it is. Personally I say it's sometime after week 16 when brain activity starts. So I'm in favour of it up to week 14 with it being allowed afterwards as a medical intervention to save a life. But you'd be hard pressed to find anyone involved in a pro choice organisation that will say any time up to birth and everyone else would admit that the person who says it is crazy/an idiot.