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

Discodog

So, for those that oppose abortion, if a fetus won't survive after birth then should those preventing an abortion be charged with causing unnecessary suffering & what should their punishment be ?

Decent Skin

Depp wrote: »

but that also have a heartbeat and resemble human features? sorry but to compare a fetus to a tumor is truly despicable

Heartbeat and resemble human features ? As in a chimp ? How "resemble" are we talking ?

Decent Skin

Widdershins wrote: »

Have you ever been pregnant?If so have you ever had a difficult pregnancy?
Have you ever been pregnant and had to explain to all and sundry, and your children, that you're intending to adopt (people do of course engage women in conversation about their pregnancy).
Would you be confident that the baby would be adopted, and that they'd be adopted to a good home, and that they wouldn't spend the rest of their lives dealing with the fact of their adoption?

And finally are you aware that you cannot give a child up for adoption if you are married? (Something I myself only found out recently, via Boards)

Your comparison is so flippant I can only assume you're joking. A pregnant woman doesn't have the rest of her life to deal with her pregnancy if she can't continue it. She doesn't have an array of options like private gyms vs a walk in the park. You don't comprehend the complexities of womens lives when a pregnancy is added in, and the impact of an unwanted pregnancy on their futures and their families. If you did, you wouldn't have made that kind of comparison.

Seriously ? :eek: That's NUTS!!

Donald Trump

Widdershins wrote: »

Here is where you suggest women declare themselves unfit mothers so they can adopt a baby out.

There is a lot to stop them. They may already be very fit and loving mothers to existing children, and not want to be on record as unfit mothers, risking their existing family. They might want to have a family at a later date and not want that mark against their name, and to be monitored and suspected of being unfit.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of why those mechanisms are in place. The family unit of the married couple and child is enshrined in constitution. Argue about that elsewhere. The fact is that it is there. So it is difficult to legally break that. So if the child is in care, legally it still holds that getting back with it's family in a good environment is the preferred outcome

Now, I take it that we can all agree that being adopted is preferable for a child than being continually fostered until they are 18.

So where it appears that a child may, or should, never go back to it's parents, a judge can make the decision to allow the child to be adopted and break up that family unit.

That is why that provision is there. It is to prevent a natural parent from preventing its child being adopted even when there is zero chance of them ever taking care of the child.

It is not there to force the father to go on the sex offenders register. :pac:

Little CuChulainn

GritBiscuit wrote: »

I'd argue being adopted will have far greater ramifications for a child than ending a life they weren't actually aware they were going to have. I say that as an adoptee...

You believe you would have had a better life if you were aborted? That's pretty sad for you but it can hardly be considered to be the situation for everyone.

AbusesToilets

Depp wrote: »

but that also have a heartbeat and resemble human features? sorry but to compare a fetus to a tumor is truly despicable

I think the context of someone who is in a situation where they desire an abortion, it is entirely apt. An unwanted growth in their body, with life changing implications.

Widdershins

Depp wrote: »

but that also have a heartbeat and resemble human features? sorry but to compare a fetus to a tumor is truly despicable

An unsurprising reaction to an emotive description though.

Depp

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You are referring to the self replicating grouping of cells that lack any form of consciousness, not too dissimilar to say a tumor in that respect.

but that also have a heartbeat and resemble human features? sorry but to compare a fetus to a tumor is truly despicable

AbusesToilets

You are referring to the self replicating grouping of cells that lack any form of consciousness, not too dissimilar to say a tumor in that respect.

Widdershins

Well it's the mother who has to do the adopting out in the scenario that was suggested.

If you read the thread you'll see a number of views on the status of feotus/unborn child and the issues around sentience, heartbeat, brain activity etc. I don't feel I have anything extra to contribute on top of what others have said about that.

Donald Trump

Widdershins wrote: »

Do you think your suggestion even if it didn't require the woman to self identify as incapable, incompetent or abusive,is a healthy, reasonable, compassionate thing to tell women to do?

What will you suggest next? The father and husband asks to be put on the sex offenders register so mum can adopt the baby out?

LOL. following up on your edits.

They wouldn't have to be incapable or incompetent and I don't see a special category on that page for sex offenders.

They can already have kids and give the new one over to care saying we can't care for it. If someone want to adopt the child, the prospective adopter can apply to the judge to adopt. The judge can declare that the birth parents have failed in their duty of care towards that child. Which they have. They don't have to make a declaration on the intelligence/competency or otherwise of the original parents. Especially if they have waived all rights and declared they will never want the child or care for it

Widdershins

Donald Trump wrote: »

Even if they were there is nothing stopping a married couple saying "we don't want this child and won't/can't look after it". The child will be put into care. A judge could then easily dissolve their rights for "failing in their duty of care" . Unless they are going to appeal. Which they won't do if they want the kid to be adopted

Here is where you suggest women declare themselves unfit mothers so they can adopt a baby out.

There is a lot to stop them. They may already be very fit and loving mothers to existing children, and not want to be on record as unfit mothers, risking their existing family. They might want to have a family at a later date and not want that mark against their name, and to be monitored and suspected of being unfit.

Widdershins

Donald Trump wrote: »

Huh??

You were saying that a married couple cannot give up a child for adoption. I pointed out that was not strictly true.

Now you're trying to imply I want women to kill themselves. Because I pointed out that you were incorrect?

No you are incorrect. A living mother who is married to her baby's father cannot adopt her baby out unless she is classed as unfit. You stooped low enough to say she should tell a judge and/or social workers she's an unfit mother so they'll 'allow' her to adopt it out. Your suggestion shows no regard for her dignity, mental wellbeing, reputation or the security of her existing children if any. at all.

Donald Trump

Widdershins wrote: »

It absolutely does rule out the women who want to end their pregnancy and are not abusive and not planning to kill themselves to orphan the baby so it'll be eligible for adoption! Unless you're suggesting that they do! Or that the woman should go through pregnancy and birth and then nominate herself as an incompetent or abusive parent so as to convince a judge and social services to allow her to adopt out the baby she's just carried for 9 months and given birth to. Nevermind the implications of this on any existing children, whose mother is now considered an unfit parent.

You seem to have no concern for these women whatsoever, to suggest such things as options.

Huh??

You were saying that a married couple cannot give up a child for adoption. I pointed out that was not strictly true.

Now you're trying to imply I want women to kill themselves. Because I pointed out that you were incorrect?

Widdershins

Donald Trump wrote: »

No it doesn't.

It lists some circumstances under which a child can be adopted.

It doesn't say that they are exhaustive.

Even if they were there is nothing stopping a married couple saying "we don't want this child and won't/can't look after it". The child will be put into care. A judge could then easily dissolve their rights for "failing in their duty of care" . Unless they are going to appeal. Which they won't do if they want the kid to be adopted

The thing about the high court judge is that the adoption service cannot just "give" legal parental responsibility to another person if the mother and father are still alive and married. That legislation is there to allow adoption to take place in the exceptional circumstances where the natural parents could or might come back looking for the child as maybe they never consented ro the child being placed into care

It absolutely does rule out the women who want to end their pregnancy and are not abusive and not planning to kill themselves to orphan the baby so it'll be eligible for adoption! Unless you're suggesting that they do! Or that the woman should go through pregnancy and birth and then nominate herself as an incompetent or abusive parent so as to convince a judge and social services to allow her to adopt out the baby she's just carried for 9 months and given birth to. Nevermind the implications of this on any existing children, whose mother is now considered an unfit parent.

You seem to have no concern for these women whatsoever, to suggest such things as options.

Do you think your suggestion even if it didn't require the woman to self identify as incapable, incompetent or abusive,is a healthy, reasonable, compassionate thing to tell women to do?

What will you suggest next? The father and husband asks to be put on the sex offenders register so mum can adopt the baby out?

Donald Trump

GritBiscuit wrote: »

I'd argue being adopted will have far greater ramifications for a child than ending a life they weren't actually aware they were going to have. I say that as an adoptee...

Ah for feck sake. Sure why don't we just euthenise all the orphans and put them out of their misery

Donald Trump

Widdershins wrote: »

That confirms that in a typical situation you can't adopt a child out if you're married to its father.

No it doesn't.

It lists some circumstances under which a child can be adopted.

It doesn't say that they are exhaustive.

Even if they were there is nothing stopping a married couple saying "we don't want this child and won't/can't look after it". The child will be put into care. A judge could then easily dissolve their rights for "failing in their duty of care" . Unless they are going to appeal. Which they won't do if they want the kid to be adopted

The thing about the high court judge is that the adoption service cannot just "give" legal parental responsibility to another person if the mother and father are still alive and married. That legislation is there to allow adoption to take place in the exceptional circumstances where the natural parents could or might come back looking for the child as maybe they never consented ro the child being placed into care

GritBiscuit

Donald Trump wrote:

If a man with a 6-month old loses his job and his business and he's going to jail for fraud and he doesn't want the 6-month old to have that quality of life.........

I don't think infanticide is the same thing as forcing women to see out pregnancies they don't want, having decided in the very early stages of pregnancy...perhaps if I was advocating late term abortion there would be a correlation...but I'm not.

It only works if you believe life begins at conception and the rights afforded to children who no longer require their mother as an incubator are equal to those that do...and that both those rights supercede the rights of said unfortunate incubator.

Widdershins

Donald Trump wrote: »

That's not true in all circumstances.

Reference

That confirms that in a typical situation you can't adopt a child out if you're married to its father.

And adoption is not a desirable outcome for many people. An adopted person has just said similar, before this comment.

Donald Trump

Widdershins wrote: »

And finally are you aware that you cannot give a child up for adoption if you are married? (Something I myself only found out recently, via Boards)

That's not true in all circumstances.

Reference

TheInterWebLinkAbove wrote:

Children eligible for adoption

The law permits the adoption of:
(a) orphans, and
(b) children born outside marriage, including in certain circumstances, children whose natural parents subsequently marry each other.

In addition, in exceptional cases, the High Court may make an order authorising the adoption of children whose parents have failed in their duty of care towards them. Children born within marriage may be adopted under this provision.

A child born outside marriage who is legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the natural parents is eligible for adoption provided his/her birth has not been re-registered.
A child born to a married woman but whose husband is not the father, is eligible for adoption provided the facts of the child's paternity can be proven to the satisfaction of the Adoption Authority of Ireland.
The child must reside in the State, be at least six weeks old and under 18 years of age. The child need not have been born in this country. An agency cannot place a child for adoption until the child is at least four weeks old.
In making an adoption order the Adoption Authority of Ireland must regard the welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration.

GritBiscuit

Depp wrote:

just cause you're not in the position to raise a child doesnt mean you have to deprive them of life, there are plenty of couples with conception problems and same sex couples that would only be too delighted to have the chance to adopt and raise the child as their own. I can't afford a child right no isn't a valid excuse for me personally. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I just want you to see where I'm coming from.

I'd argue being adopted will have far greater ramifications for a child than ending a life they weren't actually aware they were going to have. I say that as an adoptee...

I'd consider The idea that the lives, wishes and rights of people that actually do live in the here and now should be automatically bulldozed to make way for the rights of a non-sentient cluster of cells is, to my thinking, just bizarre...and if that were truly the case here would require a whole new moral, ethical and legal approach to contraception.

It's a difficult, emotive topic. Legislation affects one gender over the other which adds further divisive fuel. I'm mostly pro choice...pro choice with a couple less caveats I guess...so it's really all the same spectrum just standing at slightly different junctures...

Good discussion â˜ºï¸

AbusesToilets

Burial. wrote: »

What a ridiculous statement. You couldn't be any further from the reality.

No, it really is. Having been party to few in my time, I would feel confident in that observation.

Widdershins

Donald Trump wrote: »

In my analogy I'm too lazy to do it on my own. I need a gym and personal trainer. I didn't change my diet and I used to be slim. I never realised how far I had gone until it happened. Also, I had an accident and fella and hurt my leg which stopped me from exercising a few years back :pac:

A pregnant woman can give birth and give the baby up for adoption if she doesn't want to raise it. That's the "free exercise" option for her if you want

Have you ever been pregnant?If so have you ever had a difficult pregnancy?
Have you ever been pregnant and had to explain to all and sundry, and your children, that you're intending to adopt (people do of course engage women in conversation about their pregnancy).
Would you be confident that the baby would be adopted, and that they'd be adopted to a good home, and that they wouldn't spend the rest of their lives dealing with the fact of their adoption?

And finally are you aware that you cannot give a child up for adoption if you are married? (Something I myself only found out recently, via Boards)

Your comparison is so flippant I can only assume you're joking. A pregnant woman doesn't have the rest of her life to deal with her pregnancy if she can't continue it. She doesn't have an array of options like private gyms vs a walk in the park. You don't comprehend the complexities of womens lives when a pregnancy is added in, and the impact of an unwanted pregnancy on their futures and their families. If you did, you wouldn't have made that kind of comparison.

Donald Trump

GritBiscuit wrote: »

I'd argue deciding now isn't a good time to bring a child into the world is every bit as grown up and responsible...particularly when the quality of life that can be offered to any child produced is taken into consideration. Life at all cost regardless of the cost isn't really a logic I can wrap my head around...

Should that logic end at birth?

If a man with a 6-month old loses his job and his business and he's going to jail for fraud and he doesn't want the 6-month old to have that quality of life.........

Whether or not you are pro-abortion, you have to recognise that adoption is also another option at least if you can't afford, or don't want to raise a child or maybe even if you just want to appear on Big Brother

Decent Skin

Depp wrote: »

just cause you're not in the position to raise a child doesnt mean you have to deprive them of life, there are plenty of couples with conception problems and same sex couples that would only be too delighted to have the chance to adopt and raise the child as their own. I can't afford a child right no isn't a valid excuse for me personally. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I just want you to see where I'm coming from.

All true. Which is why the whole thing should be dealt with here, offering all counselling and options with the support of those here at home.

Depp

GritBiscuit wrote: »

I'd argue deciding now isn't a good time to bring a child into the world is every bit as grown up and responsible...particularly when the quality of life that can be offered to any child produced is taken into consideration. Life at all cost regardless of the cost isn't really a logic I can wrap my head around...

just cause you're not in the position to raise a child doesnt mean you have to deprive them of life, there are plenty of couples with conception problems and same sex couples that would only be too delighted to have the chance to adopt and raise the child as their own. I can't afford a child right no isn't a valid excuse for me personally. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I just want you to see where I'm coming from.

Depp

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I think you are misrepresenting the poster again. Or you are confusing their motive with their stance. If we're talking about the same posts that is. But my understanding is that the poster is opposed to abortion on moral grounds, i.e. protection of fetus, and would not like tax payer money going to fund abortions for this reason.

thats exactly whats going on same as rjpf1980 ignore what I'm actually saying and invent wild fantasies of what my views actually are. Its quite frustrating, if I was a pettier man I'd consider the ignore button :rolleyes:

GritBiscuit

Depp wrote:

on should and one shouldnt isnt really that many, it is real lifepeople make unplanned pregnancies work every day, its not that hard you just have to grow up and accept some responsibility

I'd argue deciding now isn't a good time to bring a child into the world is every bit as grown up and responsible...particularly when the quality of life that can be offered to any child produced is taken into consideration. Life at all cost regardless of the cost isn't really a logic I can wrap my head around...

Decent Skin

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I think you are misrepresenting the poster again. Or you are confusing their motive with their stance. If we're talking about the same posts that is. But my understanding is that the poster is opposed to abortion on moral grounds, i.e. protection of fetus, and would not like tax payer money going to fund abortions for this reason.

Already discussed. I don't like my taxes going to fund lots of things, but wouldn't deny someone basic human rights on that basis.

Decent Skin

Depp wrote: »

ah the ignore button, the trusty refuge of someone whos bullsh!t has been called out

And where people end up when they make vile posts joking about rape.