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

Widdershins

Donald Trump wrote: »

Widdershins wrote: »

Well you're justifying my earlier point then that so called pro-lifers aren't necessarily calling for punishments!

Glad you think so! For your information any deterrent would do even more harm to women, and still would not prevent abortions.

eviltwin

PucaMama wrote: »

Did I say they did or did I compare it to care given when people say they don't want it?

You responded to the question of a woman telling you they don't want support they want an abortion by talking about mental health. Who were you referring to then?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Widdershins wrote: »

You don't think inducing a miscarriage or undergoing surgery is unpleasant enough that women still need a deterrent? You can't deter someone from this decision, it's a form of coersion and totally immoral.

The people for whom the eighth amendment is the most effective deterrent (the very young, very poor, very alone) are the people the more moderate pro-life proponents would see as grey areas anyway. The people who have 'life style abortions' (love that phrase for a handy guide to who just doesn't have a fcuking clue), in practical terms, they're the ones who are least deterred by it.

Married woman in her thirties, good health, good support systems, good career? She can get an abortion, it's just made more difficult so she knows what a bad, dirty girl she is and that Johnny Joe down the country doesn't agree with her shenanigans. Suicidal teenaged asylum seeker? The family of a brain dead woman? Collateral damage, apparently, in the great quest to stop abortions happening make abortions more expensive and traumatic for people who are going to have them anyway.

PucaMama

Decent Skin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

I'm not 100 percent on the rights of fathers so I won't wade in on that one much. There could be a lot more done in that area in making fathers support children not only financially but having and getting access as a parent

There could and should. But therein lies an issue related to the topic too; what if the man doesn't want to be a father ? Is it then a choice by the mother that she should get no support, or should she be able to "make them support a child they never wanted" ?

The whole thing is a mess.

If nature had any ethics then procreation would only be possible deliberately; "both have to flick a switch each before having sex" or something.

Well, I had a father who "didn't want to be a parent". The man is dead now, never made contact/wasn't interested/never cared etc but him never careing didn't change the fact that he created a life and should atleasr have supported my mother financially instead of leaving her a single mother in 80s Ireland. I recently read someone commenting on a pro choice thread on another forum that they think we should no longer say children are a consequence of sex. Because it sounds like a punishment for having sex. This sounds to me like people are so out of touch with the nature of sex and reproduction. It's always there a risk of pregnancy and adults should at least try to be responsible.

Cienciano

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Pro lifers call abortion murder. They say it constantly. They make constant comparisons between abortions and Nazi genocide.
The most extreme of these maniacs advocate shooting abortion doctors.
Clearly they want to throw anyone who has an abortion in prison.
They want to force their ultra conservative views on society.

It's not to hard to see where they're coming from to be honest. If you thought a clinic down the road from you was murdering children, would you ignore it or try and do something about it?

Donald Trump

Widdershins wrote: »

Donald Trump wrote: »

Glad you think so! For your information any deterrent would do even more harm to women, and still would not prevent abortions.

I responded to a question asking what punishment pro-lifers thought women who get abortions should get.

I said I don't think that they necessarily think they should be punished.

Then someone took me to task on that assertion and said that there had to be a deterrent.

I said of course there has to be a deterrent against any crime.

I did not rule out that the deterrent could be having to go through the operation itself.

None if the above invalidates the proposition that that "pro-lifers" don't necessarily want any specific punishment.
It doesn't prove that all pro-lifers are against punishment of course. That would be a stupid thing to say

PucaMama

eviltwin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Did I say they did or did I compare it to care given when people say they don't want it?

You responded to the question of a woman telling you they don't want support they want an abortion by talking about mental health. Who were you referring to then?

Do you understand a comparison? I compared 2 situations where people are treated against their wishes.

eviltwin

PucaMama wrote: »

Do you understand a comparison? I compared 2 situations where people are treated against their wishes.

There's no need to be patronising. You didn't word your comment clearly enough for that so called comparison to be obvious.

PucaMama

eviltwin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Do you understand a comparison? I compared 2 situations where people are treated against their wishes.

There's no need to be patronising. You didn't word your comment clearly enough for that so called comparison to be obvious.

I said twice that it was a comparison, and I never said the words women who have abortions have mental health problems, so I thought it was clear enough

thee glitz

PucaMama wrote: »

It's always there a risk of pregnancy and adults should at least try to be responsible.

Some people want to live in a consequence free world where you just do whatever ye like.

Decent Skin

PucaMama wrote: »

Well, I had a father who "didn't want to be a parent". The man is dead now, never made contact/wasn't interested/never cared etc but him never careing didn't change the fact that he created a life and should atleasr have supported my mother financially instead of leaving her a single mother in 80s Ireland.

80s would have been a whole other case due to the lack of contraception and the strangehold that the church had (ironically with zero interest in protecting the living kids under their own roof, post-birth, but that's a whole other topic).

I recently read someone commenting on a pro choice thread on another forum that they think we should no longer say children are a consequence of sex.

I'd have to see the quote in context but they're not completely wrong. Contraception etc means that they're certainly not an almost automatic consequence or major worry of same, whereas in 80s Ireland if a married couple were lucky they managed non-pregnant sex once a year; how many families do you know with kids spaced 10 or 11 or 13 months apart ?

Because it sounds like a punishment for having sex. This sounds to me like people are so out of touch with the nature of sex and reproduction. It's always there a risk of pregnancy and adults should at least try to be responsible.

Most do, and make the risk as negligible as it can be. But despite their best efforts it does happen. And if it happens there should be a window of a few weeks at least where the couple can decide what the best option for them is. Two of them. Before a third exists.

Genetic engineering might solve it in our lifetime, creating that switch that I was on about whereby you would only create a child when ready and able.

And I know that might sound hurtful or inflammatory to yourself, based on your story - I don't mean it as such, because I have no idea whether or not I was planned or just seen as a consequence of sex. Probably the latter given the late 60s.

And if I weren't here then I'd know no different and wouldn't - and couldn't - be pissed off or hurt by it.

But God forbid if I was a consequence of rape I reckon I'd be

won't say for fear of putting ideas in people's heads or touching a nerve with anyone vulnerable reading - not worth the risk for just an Internet discussion

in the morning; not suggesting others couldn't or shouldn't handle it, and fair f**ks to them if they could. But it wouldn't be something I could handle at all.

PucaMama

Decent Skin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Well, I had a father who "didn't want to be a parent". The man is dead now, never made contact/wasn't interested/never cared etc but him never careing didn't change the fact that he created a life and should atleasr have supported my mother financially instead of leaving her a single mother in 80s Ireland.

80s would have been a whole other case due to the lack of contraception and the strangehold that the church had (ironically with zero interest in protecting the living kids under their own roof, post-birth, but that's a whole other topic).

I recently read someone commenting on a pro choice thread on another forum that they think we should no longer say children are a consequence of sex.

I'd have to see the quote in context but they're not completely wrong. Contraception etc means that they're certainly not an almost automatic consequence or major worry of same, whereas in 80s Ireland if a married couple were lucky they managed non-pregnant sex once a year; how many families do you know with kids spaced 10 or 11 or 13 months apart ?

Because it sounds like a punishment for having sex. This sounds to me like people are so out of touch with the nature of sex and reproduction. It's always there a risk of pregnancy and adults should at least try to be responsible.

Most do, and make the risk as negligible as it can be. But despite their best efforts it does happen. And if it happens there should be a window of a few weeks at least where the couple can decide what the best option for them is. Two of them. Before a third exists.

Genetic engineering might solve it in our lifetime, creating that switch that I was on about whereby you would only create a child when ready and able.

And I know that might sound hurtful or inflammatory to yourself, based on your story - I don't mean it as such, because I have no idea whether or not I was planned or just seen as a consequence of sex. Probably the latter given the late 60s.

And if I weren't here then I'd know no different and wouldn't - and couldn't - be pissed off or hurt by it.

But God forbid if I was a consequence of rape I reckon I'd be
won't say for fear of putting ideas in people's heads or touching a nerve win anyone vulnerable reading - not worth the risk for just an Internet discussion
in the morning; not suggesting others couldn't or shouldn't handle it, and fair f**ks to them if they could. But it wouldn't be something I could handle at all.

He made it quite clear what he wanted and I'm very glad my mother stood her ground or I wouldn't be here (to be pig headed about my opinions lol) but what you wrote is very well written but I'm goin to move on from mentioning him now because it's upsetting. He hadn't even met me and he wanted me gone.

Decent Skin

PucaMama wrote: »

He made it quite clear what he wanted and I'm very glad my mother stood her ground or I wouldn't be here (to be pig headed about my opinions lol) but what you wrote is very well written but I'm goin to move on from mentioning him now because it's upsetting. He hadn't even met me and he wanted me gone.

One very quick reply. You didn't exist, so it wasn't possible for that to be personal, and had he actually met you as you come across here .... well that's a whole different scenario, and comparing how we started off on this thread and how we're chatting now I've a feeling it'd be a different story; we'll disagree on bits but it certainly seems your mum deserves a pat on the back!

PucaMama

Decent Skin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

He made it quite clear what he wanted and I'm very glad my mother stood her ground or I wouldn't be here (to be pig headed about my opinions lol) but what you wrote is very well written but I'm goin to move on from mentioning him now because it's upsetting. He hadn't even met me and he wanted me gone.

One very quick reply. You didn't exist, so it wasn't possible for that to be personal, and had he actually met you as you come across here .... well that's a whole different scenario, and comparing how we started off on this thread and how we're chatting now I've a feeling it'd be a different story; we'll disagree on bits but it certainly seems your mum deserves a pat on the back!

She does she's the best

Decent Skin

PucaMama wrote: »

She does she's the best

Ooooh - challenge! Mine's a gem too!

Will we call it a draw ?

PucaMama

Decent Skin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

She does she's the best

Ooooh - challenge! Mine's a gem too!

Will we call it a draw ?

I'll consider a draw

[Deleted User]

PucaMama wrote: »

He hadn't even met me and he wanted me gone.

My parents were teenagers when my mam became pregnant with me, my father wanted her to have an abortion, she couldn't do it.
It was the 70's!!!
Anyway, fast forward 40 odd years, I'm here.
Couldn't care less that my father wanted an abortion. In fact I reckon my mother's life would have been so much better had she not had me.
She did, and it is what it is, but all of us, me, my Mam, and my dad, believe in womens right to choose.

Donnielighto

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Still not a person though.

But it is seen as a life by many. At what point is that line drawn? For me it's brainwaves.

Donald Trump

bubblypop wrote: »

My parents were teenagers when my mam became pregnant with me, my father wanted her to have an abortion, she couldn't do it.
It was the 70's!!!
Anyway, fast forward 40 odd years, I'm here.
Couldn't care less that my father wanted an abortion. In fact I reckon my mother's life would have been so much better had she not had me.
She did, and it is what it is, but all of us, me, my Mam, and my dad, believe in womens right to choose.

Well in this day of equality, what about the fathers right to choose?

It doesn't only extend to when the woman is carrying the child.

There have been court cases in the past (maybe in other countries) where embryos have been fertilized and frozen and the couple breaks up and the man wants them destroyed.

Do you support the father's right to choose?

Ave Sodalis

PucaMama wrote:

Want an abortion because you will be a single mother? No single mother in Ireland in 2016 is without support so make that support obvious and accessible and try and tackle the prejudice against single mothers

I really don't believe that. Being a single mother, even now, is still very tough. You're not shunned but you certainly have to put up with a lot of crap still. Even just a quick look through AH makes for painful reading regarding the subject. Welfare wise, lone parent and other financial support cuts off long before the child has grown up. Maintenance is still a big problem because as far as anyone is concerned, paying a tiny amount a week, even if it barely covers the cost of raising the child, is maintenance. And then there's still the fact they have to raise the child themselves, consuming their entire life. There are plenty of single parents who have no support from family members or the other parent etc and don't get a moment to themselves anymore.
So there's more support than there was, but it's still very tough and not something I would wish on anyone (straight off the bat anyway, obviously it's better than certain circumstances and I would never suggest parents stay together for the sake of the kids).

Donald Trump wrote:

There have been court cases in the past (maybe in other countries) where embryos have been fertilized and frozen and the couple breaks up and the man wants them destroyed.

In which case, I fully believe the man should be allowed to either destroy them, or sign a document which gives him zero responsibility towards any resulting children.
However, if the woman is pregnant and wants an abortion, then I think that the father has the right to express an opinion on it, but he does not have the final say.

nozzferrahhtoo

Depp wrote: »

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

No, it is not. Comparisons made without judgement can be informative and helpful. It depends upon what basis you are comparing them on. For example when I explained the basis for my thinking the fetus at, say, 12 weeks is the moral and ethical equivalent to me of a rock..... someone MIGHT moan that comparing a fetus to a rock is despicable, but that would be to miss the point and basis of the comparison.

If the fetus is a "self replicating grouping of cells that lack any form of consciousness" then the comparison of it to a tumor on that basis is not erroneous, nor is it negated by you merely having an emotional reaction to that comparison.

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.

That has the sound to it of merely forcing people to be incubators to appease those who can not do it themselves. And that IS, to use your own terms, "truly despicable".

Plus your argument here, once again, is rendered silly when you think of things like contraception. People not in a position to raise children use contraception. They too, therefore, are "depriving life" from otherwise potentially healthy human beings purely because of their own situation.

Depp wrote: »

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.

As I said before, right up to the point where you simply stopped replying to me, I think we are perfectly aware of where you are coming from. We are just also aware of the internal incoherence and inconsistencies of that position.

Depp wrote: »

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

Coming from the guy who are decided to simply ignore my last post.

Depp wrote: »

I see the fetus as a growing human child not as anything else

Except at one point you were talking about how it was going to develop into one. Now you are talking about it as if it is one. It seems, despite your "not as anything else" qualifier you are quite happy to move the goalposts of your language and terms to suit yourself at any point you like.

Depp wrote: »

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.

The issue being that you appear unwilling, or unable, to really rigorously qualify what you even mean by "Human Life" in this context. It is a very fuzzy and labile term which can be shifted and warped to mean whatever you want, when you want, as you want.

Yet when I myself did bring some intellectual rigor to the terms I found that when talking about rights, like the right to life, or considering things like what we hang moral and ethical concern off.... there was no valid way to press terms like "Human Life" into service onto a zygote or 12 week old fetus.

Depp wrote: »

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.

Yet people like myself do not require you explain it. Your position and what it is is perfectly understood. What is not being shown or explained is a coherent BASIS for that position. So you are merely repeatedly explaining what is already understood.... at the expense of explaining what people are actually asking about.

Depp wrote: »

no rights are being denied though? why should I have to foot the bill?

Why should we have to "foot the bill" on anything then? Why do we foot the bill when someone gets cancer after a life time of smoking? I did not light their cigarettes for them.

Maybe because the well being of people who actually exist, rather than people who might potentially exist, should be the focus of our health system???

Further who exactly gets to declare and assert what an "essential procedure" even is? To take a random example, what of people with Apotemnophilia? Their entire existence and well being is hampered by the absolute fundamental desire to have one of their limbs removed. They are in misery and even pain because of this.

Yet seemingly in your world view, and the world view of many who simply can not get into the head space of people with such conditions, footing the bill to have a fully functional limb removed would be "non essential" because you appear to make it sound like "essential" procedures are only those that prolong the life of the recipient.... their mental health and well being and quality of life be damned.

Now I too admit I am fuzzy on where to draw the line on what is essential and non-essential. I do not mean to offer any pretense to expertise on this subject. But suffice to say..... much like your dilute and labile application of terms like "human life"............ it is massively more nuanced than the black and white situation you paint.

Depp wrote: »

If you had the chance to vote for whether or not your taxes not to be spent on something you don't agree with, what way would you vote?

I would take my personal disagreement out of it for a start and realize, as I wish most of humanity would, that "I do not personally agree with, or want to avail of X" is massively different from "No one else should either!". And I would realize if I wanted to support the latter position, I should at least be capable of arguing that position.

As for which way I would then vote, I would vote in the direction that maximizes the well-being of actual people who actually exist, rather than imagining potential people who do not exist and give them priority over reality.

And all that said, in general I try to do what is right regardless of the cost. Because doing what is right is an end in itself. Sure, where necessary reality invades and we have to mediate what we do in light of the reality of our ability to fund it.... but that does not mean the ideals are any less real.

The cost of abortion is low, it maximizes the well being of actual people who actually exist, and in the long run it is financially cheaper on the Health Service and Tax service of a society who would otherwise have to support unwanted children who would otherwise not have existed.

So the financial argument you propose is self serving at best, and simply holds no water at worst.

[Deleted User]

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well in this day of equality, what about the fathers right to choose?

It doesn't only extend to when the woman is carrying the child.

There have been court cases in the past (maybe in other countries) where embryos have been fertilized and frozen and the couple breaks up and the man wants them destroyed.

Do you support the father's right to choose?

Oh he did choose.........
He left us & didn't pay a penny towards my upbringing.
He also chose in the case of his other 3 children, where he walked away from them also & they didn't cost him anything either.

I don't believe frozen embryos should be used by one parent without the consent of the other.

animaal

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Pro lifers call abortion murder. They say it constantly. They make constant comparisons between abortions and Nazi genocide.
The most extreme of these maniacs advocate shooting abortion doctors.
Clearly they want to throw anyone who has an abortion in prison.
They want to force their ultra conservative views on society.

If you read back over this thread, you'll see both sides engaging in a thoughtful discussion of a complex, divisive topic. None of what you describe. Amazingly for a conversation like this, spread over 30 pages, there's been no need for any mod action to reign in fanatics on either side. It's a credit to all concerned.

You mention maniacs. If not quite maniacal, wouldn't you consider posts like the one above to be somewhat hysterical?

nozzferrahhtoo

Polar Bear wrote: »

It is perfectly reasonable to want laws in place to protect the lives of those which youndeem worthy of proetection.

Sure, I never said otherwise. All I have done is inquire as to why the person in question thinks X is worth of protection.... and have alas received the noise of intellectual crickets in return.

A Little Pony

Anyone who thinks a referendum on abortion would go like Gay marriage is mistaken. You would be amazed at how many people hate the idea of abortion who could not give a ****e about God.

Decent Skin

A Little Pony wrote: »

Anyone who thinks a referendum on abortion would go like Gay marriage is mistaken. You would be amazed at how many people hate the idea of abortion who could not give a ****e about God.

Then why not hold it so we can find out ? Why the fear and blocking if it's such a dead Cert ?

nozzferrahhtoo

A Little Pony wrote: »

Anyone who thinks a referendum on abortion would go like Gay marriage is mistaken. You would be amazed at how many people hate the idea of abortion who could not give a ****e about God.

There are going to be massive differences and massive similarities I expect.

Subjectively so far it.... feels the same. I can not explain what I mean by that but the ground swell of demand for a referendum, the way the media is treating it, the kinds of noises we see on forums and social media, the shrill and abrasive nature of the "anti" campaign and more. It just FEELS similar to me in ways that have me daring to be optimistic, but also worried about things being rushed.

Further, like the anti marriage referendum crowd, actual coherent arguments against the morality and ethics of abortion are thin on the ground. We have seen that on the threads that have popped up recently on the subject, including this one. The people against it hold a "I am because I just FEEL it is wrong" opinion and little else.

Which suggests we may be subject to another ad hominem and mis-information based campaign by those against it which, lets face it, did half the "yes" campaigns job for them last time too. With their personal invective, their red herrings about gay adoption, and more..... they did little to promote their side and much to push people to the opposite.

So really I just do not know. I would not dare to presume to call it. I see many reasons to be optimistic that we will modernize our countries stance on abortion, but plenty to be cautious about.

I would hope should any referendum become a reality that the people against abortion will work harder to come up with coherent arguments other than what boils down to "It just feels wrong" and "Here are some photos of what abortion looks like, vote no because it looks ikky".

And I would hope they come up with informative and TRUE statements unlike the kinds of things we hear about where people seeking abortion are advised that "breasts and ovaries were connected and that when a pregnancy ended unexpectedly a woman’s reproductive system could be damaged, causing breast cancer…and that abortion could lead to women abusing their children in the future."

A campaign of misinformation, lies, red herring and emotive nonsense did not work in the last referendum, and I do not really expect it to work much better in the next.

Little CuChulainn

Decent Skin wrote: »

Then why not hold it so we can find out ? Why the fear and blocking if it's such a dead Cert ?

Because if a simple repeal does not pass then the issue will not be touched by politicians for a long time. This would prevent the passing of legislation to cover cases where fatal foetal abnormalities are found as they would need at least an amendment to the Constitution to be passed.

Decent Skin

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Because if a simple repeal does not pass then the issue will not be touched by politicians for a long time. This would prevent the passing of legislation to cover cases where fatal foetal abnormalities are found as they would need at least an amendment to the Constitution to be passed.

Fair point. I think I took it from the other angle when replying; that those objecting were the ones holding it back, denying the democratic right to make a call on it and put it to bed.

steddyeddy

I actually wish it was easier and safer to break this backward law. It's as ethical as arresting gay people for being gay.