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

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Can I steer this thread back to my OP?

How do pro life campaigners want women who have abortions punished?

Unless she's pregnant because of rape or abuse, unless the child is dead or definitely dying, or unless the mother is dying then why not have a punishment for abortion

Donald Trump

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Can I steer this thread back to my OP?

How do pro life campaigners want women who have abortions punished?

I don't think that they do.

I think they want the woman just not to have the abortion in the first place

Hence no need for punishment.

Simples

Decent Skin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

We, because I could easily end up in such a situation, have the option to give up the child.

Isn't it great to have a choice ?

The choice has to be responsible tho, if everyone was able to have access to the choice of adoption unlike married couples maybe less abortions would be happening?

Counter productive like no abortions but no other choices either are what causes unnecessary suffering. Why be against abortion if you also are against contraception? And adoption? Or against supporting single parents on welfare?

rjpf1980

Can I steer this thread back to my OP?

How do pro life campaigners want women who have abortions punished?

PucaMama wrote: »

I have already said I'd want the law against married people putting their children up for adoption gone.

It's very unreasonable to be against both having it and adoption, people have to be realistic

????

What is unreasonable about that ? And what "realistic" are you talking about ? Who gets to decide what's "unreasonable" and what's "realistic" ?

Widdershins wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

We, because I could easily end up in such a situation, have the option to give up the child.

And if you're married and can't do so, without presenting yourself for the scrutiny of social services and the courts, declaring yourself negligent or unfit and *Asking*if they will allow you to give the child up? With absolutely no guarantee that your request will be granted, or simply result in not only an unwanted child for life but the added interference and judgement of social services, or serious repercussions for existing or future children?

And what if you think adoption is immoral?

What if you're unwilling to carry and birth a baby and also unwilling to adopt?

If that was an option, why are women putting themselves through the mill to go to the UK, to abort.

I have already said I'd want the law against married people putting their children up for adoption gone.

It's very unreasonable to be against both having it and adoption, people have to be realistic

Can anyone remember the last time the topic in the OP was even vaguely referenced ?

It seems like potential and reality diverged somewhere along the line.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

The "bunch of cells" stage is over a lot earlier than you seem to think.

Have you information as to the generally accepted point of fetal viability?

At 10 weeks the fetus has organs like the liver in place and beginning to function, even if not complete yet. The brain is there also not entirely complete. This is obviously past the bunch of cells phase as those cells have developed on into the organs.

PucaMama wrote: »

The "bunch of cells" stage is over a lot earlier than you seem to think.

Have you information as to the generally accepted point of fetal viability?

Edit: from what I have read, it is generally considered to be around 20+ weeks.

Widdershins

PucaMama wrote: »

We, because I could easily end up in such a situation, have the option to give up the child.

And if you're married and can't do so, without presenting yourself for the scrutiny of social services and the courts, declaring yourself negligent or unfit and *Asking*if they will allow you to give the child up? With absolutely no guarantee that your request will be granted, or simply result in not only an unwanted child for life but the added interference and judgement of social services, or serious repercussions for existing or future children?

And what if you think adoption is immoral?

What if you're unwilling to carry and birth a baby and also unwilling to adopt?

If that was an option, why are women putting themselves through the mill to go to the UK, to abort.

PucaMama wrote: »

We, because I could easily end up in such a situation, have the option to give up the child.

Isn't it great to have a choice ?

It is the mother's life we are weighing against the fetus'. Life is more than the mere act of respiration, it is what you do with it. Forcing a mother to irrevocably alter hers to accommodate that of a fetus is wrong.

PucaMama wrote: »

Not by themselves they don't and I know very early pregnancy isn't much more but at least it has potential who are we to take away that potential

Sperm and eggs have potential too. It's one of the reasons the church frowned on masturbation (self or mutual) until they were kicked out of people's bedrooms (or couches or back gardens or nearby forests or sand dunes, but those are stories for a different thread

AbusesToilets wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Not by themselves they don't and I know very early pregnancy isn't much more but at least it has potential who are we to take away that potential

Why should the abstract potential future of a bunch of cells be valued more than that of the woman?

The "bunch of cells" stage is over a lot earlier than you seem to think.

Widdershins wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Not by themselves they don't and I know very early pregnancy isn't much more but at least it has potential who are we to take away that potential

'We' or rather they, are the women who would have to carry, birth and support the eventual person for the rest of THEIR life. Potential is no more than an idea.

We, because I could easily end up in such a situation, have the option to give up the child.

Widdershins

PucaMama wrote: »

Not by themselves they don't and I know very early pregnancy isn't much more but at least it has potential who are we to take away that potential

'We' or rather they, are the women who would have to carry, birth and support the eventual person for the rest of THEIR life. Potential is no more than an idea.

PucaMama wrote: »

Not by themselves they don't and I know very early pregnancy isn't much more but at least it has potential who are we to take away that potential

Why should the abstract potential future of a bunch of cells be valued more than that of the woman?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

We are (mostly) not at the mercy of nature now. We can protect both current citizens and potential ones.

To an extent, but that potential doesn't supersede the actual, existing individual and their right to self determination.

No it doesn't but we can end the pregnancy early and look after both

AbusesToilets wrote: »

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?

Not by themselves they don't and I know very early pregnancy isn't much more but at least it has potential who are we to take away that potential

PucaMama wrote: »

We are (mostly) not at the mercy of nature now. We can protect both current citizens and potential ones.

To an extent, but that potential doesn't supersede the actual, existing individual and their right to self determination.

eviltwin

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.

Quick question. Have you ever been pregnant?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

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.

We are (mostly) not at the mercy of nature now. We can protect both current citizens and potential ones.

A statement which would be true in isolation but changes completely when the two are interlinked, as it is morally abhorrent - for example - to force someone who is raped to carry the result and bring it up as a constant reminder of that event.

By all means - as I've repeatedly said - provide the support for someone to make the right decision as early as possible and support them through it. They may even choose to keep it (the concept of choice works both ways) and/or give it up for adoption or raise it themselves.

But it is a choice that only they should make for themselves; none of my business.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.