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

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.

I'm putting on a bit of weight.

I'd like to regain autonomy over my body.

I can't afford a gym membership and a personal trainer along with an expensive customised diet with specially prepared meals and shakes.

And the government won't pay for it for me? Stop eating the kebabs they say? The bastards. Denying my rights

Time for people to understand the concept of personal responsibility. Not everything is somebody else's fault or respinsibility

(Of course I anticipate what you are going to wheel out next)

Widdershins

Donald Trump wrote: »

I'm putting on a bit of weight.

I'd like to regain autonomy over my body.

I can't afford a gym membership and a personal trainer along with an expensive customised diet with specially prepared meals and shakes.

And the government won't pay for it for me? Stop eating the kebabs they say? The bastards. Denying my rights

Time for people to understand the concept of personal responsibility. Not everything is somebody else's fault or respinsibility

(Of course I anticipate what you are going to wheel out next)

Nobody is denying your bodily autonomy in that analogy. It's your choice alone to excercise or not. You have the option of taking any cost free exercise or eating less. Your situation arose through cumulative overeating and under activity, not one mistake, contraceptive failure or assault.

By the way having an abortion oftem IS about taking personal responsibility for your future or your dependents/ family's future.

animaal wrote: »

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?

The above is something I alluded to in an earlier post.

There have been cases where an ex boyfriend purposely assaulted a pregnant girl so that she would miscarry or lose the child.

This is a different issue to abortion. People have to realise though that making a law can and will have effects outside their narrow scope of vision.

Decent Skin wrote: »

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.

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?

read back through the thread before you say what my stance is/isn't, I discussed at length how I have a personal disagreement with abortion as I see the fetus as a growing human child not as anything else, I then expanded that if someone else sees it differently they can live their own life and do as they wish, but my objection to it being legalised is cause I dont want my taxes funding it. In my opinion an abortion outside of extreme circumstances is a premature ending of a viable human life unnecessarily and its not something that I could ever in good conscience involve myself in. But thats my opinion and I'm not going to force it on anyone. I won't however, vote for a constitutional change that adds unrestricted free abortions to what my tax is spent on. I hope I have been clear and concise enough that you can understand this at last as I'm sick and tired of explaining it at this stage.

Widdershins wrote: »

Nobody is denying your bodily autonomy in that analogy. It's your choice alone to excercise or not. You have the option of taking any cost free exercise or eating less. Your situation arose through cumulative overeating and under activity, not one mistake, contraceptive failure or assault.

By the way having an abortion oftem IS about taking personal responsibility for your future or your dependents/ family's future.

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

Donald Trump wrote: »

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

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:

That is a load of tosh. You know well that I was referring to the extra cost of travel, not the abortion. I clearly said so.

If that hash was for a medical condition then I'd support it (apparently it's better than standard meds for some health problems) But there's no fundamental human right that provides for "not having a medical condition", because that's not possible.

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

Jesus H - you're really equating being lazy with the cases I outlined that I'm in support of like rape ?

Decent Skin wrote: »

Jesus H - you're really equating being lazy with the cases I outlined that I'm in support of like rape ?

have a look out for the 'extreme circumstances' bit we're all mentioning, you seem to be missing it somehow

Decent Skin wrote: »

That is a load of tosh. You know well that I was referring to the extra cost of travel, not the abortion. I clearly said so.

What's the difference. There is still no law saying she must pay for that herself.

Decent Skin wrote: »

If that hash was for a medical condition then I'd support it (apparently it's better than standard meds for some health problems) But there's no fundamental human right that provides for "not having a medical condition", because that's not possible.

Well it could be for mental health. It might make the person happy :pac:

The people on waiting lists for cancer treatment and other operations are far far further up any list of priority.

Decent Skin wrote: »

Jesus H - you're really equating being lazy with the cases I outlined that I'm in support of like rape ?

You're in support of rape? :eek:

Donald Trump wrote: »

You're in support of rape? :eek:

:rolleyes:

You're incapable of reading ?

As with some other poster earlier who made rape jokes and interferences, that's me out.

Have a nice life.

Edit: Actually holy crap - the other vile one was yours too! How did I get sucked back in ?

Thank **** for the ignore button, which is about to be used.

Donald Trump wrote: »

(Of course I anticipate what you are going to wheel out next)

Decent Skin wrote: »

Jesus H - you're really equating being lazy with the cases I outlined that I'm in support of like rape ?

Donald Trump wrote: »

I think that it is a scumbag thing to do to use women who have been raped as a tool to try to push your own angle. It's completely scummy and vulture-like. Do those type of people sit around in a room hoping that a woman will be raped and impregnated so that they can use her as a poster girl?

If you are in favour of abortions, just say it. It is fine to have an opinion. Don't hide behind tragedies of women who are raped. Give them some respect

Decent Skin wrote: »

:rolleyes:

You're incapable of reading ?

As with some other poster earlier who made rape jokes and interferences, that's me out.

Have a nice life.

bit rich considering your last few posts :rolleyes:

Decent Skin wrote: »

That is absolutely horrendous to see typed. I'm out.

Decent Skin wrote: »

You're incapable of reading ?

As with some other poster earlier who made rape jokes and interferences, that's me out.

Have a nice life.

You'll be back. They always come back

GritBiscuit

Donald Trump wrote:

Time for people to understand the concept of personal responsibility. Not everything is somebody else's fault or respinsibility

Maybe the baby daddy could be forced to pony up to meet his share of obligations? Or does personal responsibility in these situations lie solely with women?
Just curious...

GritBiscuit wrote: »

Maybe the baby daddy could be forced to pony up to meet his share of obligations? Or does personal responsibility in these situations lie solely with women?
Just curious...

As far as I know, in some countries, the father is legally responsible for providing for the child until the child is 18.

Of course that means legally proving who he is. So you'd need a mechanism for that too which would be difficult and unpopular. And there would be some difficult cases.

Depp wrote: »

bit rich considering your last few posts :rolleyes:

Guilty as charged considering I didn't realise that I had resumed debating with an aptly-usernamed poster!

Ignore button used since though, so won't be making that mistake again.

GritBiscuit wrote: »

Maybe the baby daddy could be forced to pony up to meet his share of obligations? Or does personal responsibility in these situations lie solely with women?
Just curious...

father of the child is equally as responsible as the woman, you get a girl pregnant you man up and deal with it same if you get pregnant, outside of extreme circumstances its your mistake and you have to deal with it, there shouldn't be some government sponsored get out of jail free card. If you choose to take the easy way out like that you should have to pony up the cash

Decent Skin wrote: »

Guilty as charged considering I didn't realise that I had resumed debating with an aptly-usernamed poster!

Ignore button used since though, so won't be making that mistake again.

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

GritBiscuit

Depp wrote:

father of the child is equally as responsible as the woman, you get a girl pregnant you man up and deal with it same if you get pregnant, outside of extreme circumstances its your mistake and you have to deal with it, there shouldn't be some government sponsored get out of jail free card. If you choose to take the easy way out like that you should have to pony up the cash

Awful lot of "should"'s there...pity real life is so different

GritBiscuit wrote: »

Awful lot of "should"'s there...pity real life is so different

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

Little CuChulainn

Decent Skin wrote: »

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.

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.

Decent Skin wrote: »

Guilty as charged considering I didn't realise that I had resumed debating with an aptly-usernamed poster!

Ignore button used since though, so won't be making that mistake again.

Awwwww. I love you too :pac:

And now you'll never know :pac:

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.

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.

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...

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 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 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.