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

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 09:56PM

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.

PucaMama · 05-09-2016 09:56PM

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.

eviltwin · 05-09-2016 09:56PM

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 · 05-09-2016 09:59PM

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.

PucaMama · 05-09-2016 09:59PM

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 · 05-09-2016 10:00PM

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 · 05-09-2016 10:01PM

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?

Widdershins · 05-09-2016 10:01PM

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 · 05-09-2016 10:03PM

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.

PucaMama · 05-09-2016 10:04PM

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.

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 10:05PM

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 · 05-09-2016 10:05PM

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.

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 10:06PM

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 ?

Widdershins · 05-09-2016 10:06PM

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.

AbusesToilets · 05-09-2016 10:07PM

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.

PucaMama · 05-09-2016 10:10PM

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.

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 10:10PM

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.

PucaMama · 05-09-2016 10:12PM

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

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 10:14PM

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" ?

rjpf1980 · 05-09-2016 10:15PM

Can I steer this thread back to my OP?

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

PucaMama · 05-09-2016 10:16PM

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?

Donald Trump · 05-09-2016 10:18PM

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

PucaMama · 05-09-2016 10:18PM

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

rjpf1980 · 05-09-2016 10:20PM

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.

If the woman refuses to do so should she be strapped to a gurney until she gives birth?

If she tried to procure an abortion before being detained would she be tried for attempted murder?

In jurisdictions with the death penalty do you think women who have abortions should get the same punishment as other killers?

In short have you thought through the full implications of your beliefs on others?

Widdershins · 05-09-2016 10:20PM

PucaMama wrote: »

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

Because it doesn't warrant any.

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 10:20PM

PucaMama wrote: »

The choice has to be responsible tho

Depends on who gets to define responsible. As you said, the church being against both was highly irresponsible.

In light of the OP's request above I'll leave the reply at that.

eviltwin · 05-09-2016 10:23PM

PucaMama wrote: »

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

What kind of punishment would be appropriate in your opinion?

PucaMama · 05-09-2016 10:23PM

Widdershins wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

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

Because it doesn't warrant any.

In your opinion. Mine is only an opinion too. In reality do I think they would be punished. Not a chance.

captbarnacles · 05-09-2016 10:25PM

Depp wrote: »

I suppose its not that I dont understand where you're coming from its that I have a similar reaction to your viewpoint as you do to mine but i guess everyone cant agree on everything!

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.

the more I think about it, while its an an importiant factor, its not neceserily the brain activity that matters to me the most But I dont think a fetus that has a heartbeat should be aborted because sentient or not, theres no denying that once its heart is beating, its hard to argue that a fetus is not 'alive'

The grim Jahi McMath case shows where that can lead to.

rjpf1980 · 05-09-2016 10:25PM

PucaMama wrote: »

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

1. What kind of punishment? Life sentence or death?

2. Are you going to pay for the vast prisons plus the wardens police and soldiers needed to detain thousands and thousands of women and their friends and family who has helped them murder their babies?

3. Don't you think it would be a better idea to let women make their choice and butt out?

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

Comments