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

AbusesToilets

feargale wrote: »

I must remember that the next time I see my two Nigerian non-citizen neighbours. I could do with a pair of slaves.

The rights of citizens are defined by the state. Non-citizens have less rights.

Your point is intentionally specious, as slavery is crime.

AbusesToilets

No, I don't feel that it is morally just to force a woman to carry to term a baby she does not want.

A fetus is not a person nor a citizen. It should not have rights ascribed to it that place it's importance ahead of it's mother.

Grayson

So what about 10 weeks or 5 weeks? You'll find few pro choice people here that want it up to 26 weeks. How about 5 weeks? And what should the punishment be for the woman if she takes an abortion pill at that stage?

feargale

Decent Skin wrote: »

If you like labels then yes. I don't know anyone who's "anti-life" though.

I'll rephrase it. You're against abortion in some circumstances?

P.S. Thanks for answering my original question btw. I'm sorry others didn't

AbusesToilets

People have rights, cells do not. Should a tumor have rights? It is alive, self replicating and reacts to stimuli.

The Specialist

Because to apply human rights you kind of need to be a human person.

eviltwin

What's your fixation on 26 weeks?

The Specialist

What is this 26 weeks emotive bull**** you keep going on about? The debate is around FFA and early term unwanted pregnancies. Nobody i know in favour of this would agree with near full term abortion and thats not what this topic is even about. Typical over emotive bull**** from the pro life side.

thee glitz

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No, I don't feel that it is morally just to force a woman to carry to term a baby she does not want.

Do you have any concept of responsibility?

AbusesToilets

Repeating yourself doesn't make your post any less silly.

The actions of the Nazis has no bearing on a discussion about abortion in Ireland and the rights afforded to a woman therein.

Grayson

People have rights, human cells don't. I have a right to vote, my arm if it gets chopped off doesn't even though it's a collection of cells. Likewise if I become brain dead the machines can be switched off because technically I am dead and not a person. If I was in a coma and not brain dead I would still have rights and the machines keeping me alive would not be switched off.

eviltwin

What are the specifics of this case? Why did the woman wait until 26 weeks

AbusesToilets

thee glitz wrote: »

Do you have any concept of responsibility?

You find it to be more responsible to force mothers to bring unwanted children into society. Children who would possibly then go on to become burdens upon society in one fashion or another?

Grayson

why? What's your deciding factor. For me it's brain activity. A functioning brain is what makes us human. You can replace every other organ without destroying the person. Replace my brain with say yours and I'm effectively you.

eviltwin

Oh really? After 26 weeks she just decided out of the blue she didn't want to be pregnant?

Decent Skin

Because only people can have human rights ?

Little CuChulainn

The Specialist wrote: »

No it's pretty much fact.

It's quite clearly an opinion.

Decent Skin wrote: »

Wouldn't trust a government in a million years, but that won't stop me voting the way I believe is right.

And if they introduce something more restrictive then you would have wanted?

Decent Skin

Hence the need for proper support services beforehand where such things are clearly outlined.

Throwing them in as if someone was so immature as to change their mind on a life-changing decision overnight on a whim is disingenuous.

Be it keeping it or carrying it or giving it for adoption aborting it NEITHER decision should be taken lightly or without proper support.

Decent Skin

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It's quite clearly an opinion.

And if they introduce something more restrictive then you would have wanted?

Anything is an improvement on what we have at present, so I'd take it.

feargale

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The rights of citizens are defined by the state. Non-citizens have less rights.

Your point is intentionally specious, as slavery is crime.

It is, but no more than your original post which implied that the unborn have no rights - wrong in law, and wrong in morality.

I'm p1ssed off posters shouting about human rights every time they want to shout down those they disagree with. Too many here don't seem to comprehend the concept of conflicting rights, something any pair of neighbouring sheep or goat farmers on the Kerry Mountains could educate them about.

Decent Skin

Or - as happened here - the abortion was delayed against her wishes until such time as it was objectionable and she was induced.

Absolutely disgusting to then land her with the consequences of such an imposition.

AbusesToilets

feargale wrote: »

It is, but no more than your original post which implied that the unborn have no rights - wrong in law, and wrong in morality.

I'm p1ssed off posters shouting about human rights every time they want to shout down those they disagree with. Too many here don't seem to comprehend the concept of conflicting rights, something any pair of neighbouring sheep or goat farmers on the Kerry Mountains could educate them about.

I have said that the rights of the woman should outweigh any afforded to the fetus. Which you seem to have missed somewhat ironically, given your last paragraph.

PucaMama

AbusesToilets wrote: »

People have rights, cells do not. Should a tumor have rights? It is alive, self replicating and reacts to stimuli.

A tumour has no potential at all to develop into anything resembling a human life, whereas every day the unborn is alive it develops. The unborn deserve at least a chance at life.

Decent Skin

I'd missed this! Again I'm stunned; we're on the same page.

Why are we arguing the crazy scenarios and discussing people who change their mind on a whim @ 26 weeks (which if it happened in most contexts where the right support had been given would actually prove that they were too immature to have the child in the first place) ?

thee glitz

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You find it to be more responsible to force mothers to bring unwanted children into society. Children who would possibly then go on to become burdens upon society in one fashion or another?

Carrying a child to birth is not some kind of punishment - it's the reason we're all here. If you're lucky enough to have it happen, you should have that baby's interests at heart. Whether that involves raising him or her, or putting them up for adoption.

AbusesToilets

There is no right to life in nature, it is a fallacy to suppose that such a right exists.

Society should place the rights of its current citizens ahead of potential future ones. That is the moral choice.

The Specialist

thee glitz wrote: »

Carrying a child to birth is not some kind of punishment - it's the reason we're all here. If you're lucky enough to have it happen, you should have that baby's interests at heart. Whether that involves raising him or her, or putting them up for adoption.

And in the case where a woman is raped, is she also lucky for this blessing?

AbusesToilets

PucaMama wrote: »

A tumour has no potential at all to develop into anything resembling a human life, whereas every day the unborn is alive it develops. The unborn deserve at least a chance at life.

Gametes have such potential, should they also be protected?

Widdershins

thee glitz wrote: »

Carrying a child to birth is not some kind of punishment - it's the reason we're all here. If you're lucky enough to have it happen, you should have that baby's interests at heart. Whether that involves raising him or her, or putting them up for adoption.

For you. In YOUR view. That's not a universal truth, it's your opinion.

AbusesToilets

thee glitz wrote: »

Carrying a child to birth is not some kind of punishment - it's the reason we're all here. If you're lucky enough to have it happen, you should have that baby's interests at heart. Whether that involves raising him or her, or putting them up for adoption.

Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child would absolutely be a punishment.