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

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

So the baby has no rights then?

steddyeddy

A Little Pony wrote: »

So the baby has no rights then?

Yes babies have rights.

A Little Pony wrote: »

Im an Atheist and hate the concept of abortion. Morally wrong.

Because you say so, or do you have any coherent arguments upon which that position is actually based?

A Little Pony wrote: »

So the baby has no rights then?

You would have to be clear on what you mean by "baby". I certainly see no coherent basis at all to ascribe rights to a fetus between 0 and 16 weeks. Do you?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Im an Atheist and hate the concept of abortion. Morally wrong.

Because you say so, or do you have any coherent arguments upon which that position is actually based?

A Little Pony wrote: »

So the baby has no rights then?

You would have to be clear on what you mean by "baby". I certainly see no coherent basis at all to ascribe rights to a fetus between 0 and 16 weeks. Do you?

I think the baby does have rights between that timeline, certainly. But then some people don't care for life.

A Little Pony wrote: »

I think the baby does have rights between that timeline

I suspected that is what you think alright. It was the BASIS for your thinking it that I was curious about, rather than a restatement of the belief itself.

A Little Pony wrote: »

But then some people don't care for life.

That is quite disingenuous but certainly par for the course on the kind of comments we expect on the subject.

The more nuanced reality outside your black and white painting of it is that we all "care for life" but we have entirely different ideas on what that means. Clearly as we go around swatting flies, eating cows, and annihilating millions of bacteria..... mere "life" is not what mediates our moral and ethical concerns at the best of times.

So what exactly we mean by "life" is highly relevant and simply painting one side as being "pro-life" and the other side as not caring for it at all is mere propaganda hateful nonsense when and where it occurs.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

I think the baby does have rights between that timeline

I suspected that is what you think alright. It was the BASIS for your thinking it that I was curious about, rather than a restatement of the belief itself.

A Little Pony wrote: »

But then some people don't care for life.

That is quite disingenuous but certainly par for the course on the kind of comments we expect on the subject.

The more nuanced reality outside your black and white painting of it is that we all "care for life" but we have entirely different ideas on what that means. Clearly as we go around swatting flies, eating cows, and annihilating millions of bacteria..... mere "life" is not what mediates our moral and ethical concerns at the best of times.

So what exactly we mean by "life" is highly relevant and simply painting one side as being "pro-life" and the other side as not caring for it at all is mere propaganda hateful nonsense when and where it occurs.

I just told you. The right of the baby regardless if it is one week or 16 weeks. It is not me who believes in the murder of babies, it is you who believes and wants that.

A Little Pony wrote: »

I think the baby does have rights between that timeline, certainly. But then some people don't care for life.

If you had left out the "care for life" part in that I might have thanked it.

Always a step too far to allow the reaching of agreement on the bits that deserve to be in muddied, which is why people fail to meet in the middle.

A Little Pony wrote: »

I just told you. The right of the baby regardless if it is one week or 16 weeks.

Again you are restating the position and not actually answering my question. You are telling me that the fetus at 1 week has rights, I am asking you for the basis of that opinion, and you are merely repeating at me that the fetus at 1 weeks has rights.

Repeating the position at me does not answer my questioning what the BASIS for the position is.

A Little Pony wrote: »

It is not me who believes in the murder of babies, it is you who believes and wants that.

You might want to actually read my posts rather that misrepresent me that completely. Actually my position on abortion is, was, and always has been that I would like 100% choice on it but 0% implementation. I would like to live in a world where abortion is accessible to those who want it, or need it.... but no one ever actually avails of it.

THAT is the idea world for me and is entirely different from the position you merely invent for me and shove into my mouth. Don't do that: I have enough words of my own without you shoving your own in too.

A Little Pony wrote: »

I just told you. The right of the baby regardless if it is one week or 16 weeks. It is not me who believes in the murder of babies, it is you who believes and wants that.

One week old babies ? Isn't that when people are calling in to say congrats and bringing cute baby clothes ?

Because a few days before is too soon due to the mother getting rest and settled into a routine after coming home from the maternity ward.

Donald Trump

bubblypop wrote: »

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.

What he did for you was analogous to what the effective outcome (for him) had he given you up for adoption. Do you think he should have had the right to have you aborted even if your mother wanted to keep you?

You say that one "bunch of cells" i.e. frozen embryos, should not be allowed to be used without the consent of both parents. Does your opinion on this change when that "bunch of cells" is inside the mothers womb?

[Deleted User]

Donald Trump wrote: »

What he did for you was analogous to what the effective outcome (for him) had he given you up for adoption. Do you think he should have had the right to have you aborted even if your mother wanted to keep you?

You say that one "bunch of cells" i.e. frozen embryos, should not be allowed to be used without the consent of both parents. Does your opinion on this change when that "bunch of cells" is inside the mothers womb?

Once the embryo is inside a womb, it is then dependant on the mother.
It cannot survive outside the womb until a certain point in the pregnancy.
If science ever find a way to replicate the womb, that they could keep a pregnancy going & end up with a live baby, then things would be different.
Until such a time as that, then it is the woman's choice.

Donald Trump

bubblypop wrote: »

Donald Trump wrote: »

What he did for you was analogous to what the effective outcome (for him) had he given you up for adoption. Do you think he should have had the right to have you aborted even if your mother wanted to keep you?

You say that one "bunch of cells" i.e. frozen embryos, should not be allowed to be used without the consent of both parents. Does your opinion on this change when that "bunch of cells" is inside the mothers womb?

Once the embryo is inside a womb, it is then dependant on the mother.
It cannot survive outside the womb until a certain point in the pregnancy.
If science ever find a way to replicate the womb, that they could keep a pregnancy going & end up with a live baby, then things would be different.
Until such a time as that, then it is the woman's choice.

That's a very "pro-life" angle that the cells are treated differently once they are in the womb

I think that fathers should be held responsible for their kids until the kids are 18. But you you have that, and you have abortion, then fairness dictates that the father should have equal choice as the mother. So if you are pro-choice for the mother, you should be pro-choice for the father.

And let us take the other possibility - surrogacy. Those embryos can be implanted into a different woman who will carry them until born.

seamus

Donald Trump wrote: »

I think that fathers should be held responsible for their kids until the kids are 18. But you you have that, and you have abortion, then fairness dictates that the father should have equal choice as the mother. So if you are pro-choice for the mother, you should be pro-choice for the father.

The "choice" is not about the right to decide the fate of a pregnancy but about the right of a person to make decisions about their own body.

And let us take the other possibility - surrogacy. Those embryos can be implanted into a different woman who will carry them until born.

Not with our current level of technology.

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actual coherent arguments against the morality and ethics of abortion are thin on the ground.

That's not true though. Or nearly true. Or true in any way other than you wanting it to be.

thee glitz wrote: »

That's not true though. Or nearly true. Or true in any way other than you wanting it to be.

Except it is completely true. I have asked time and time and time and time again for the basis of holding moral and ethical concern for a 12 week old fetus, or affording it a right to life.

And I get the sound of crickets in response. Simple as. Some people, to use your own words here, simply want it to be.

If you think it is not true then by all means lay out the arguments you feel I have missed rather than merely assert their existence by implication. I am agog. A. Gog.

[Deleted User]

Donald Trump wrote: »

That's a very "pro-life" angle that the cells are treated differently once they are in the womb

I think that fathers should be held responsible for their kids until the kids are 18. But you you have that, and you have abortion, then fairness dictates that the father should have equal choice as the mother. So if you are pro-choice for the mother, you should be pro-choice for the father.

And let us take the other possibility - surrogacy. Those embryos can be implanted into a different woman who will carry them until born.

Yep, personally I have no issue with those frozen embryos being donated to others, or even surrogate mothers, so long as both parents agree.

It's not a case of being pro choice for both parents, it's impossible for a father to become pregnant & grow a pregnancy.
I'm pro choice for women because it's their body that the foetus depends on. That's why frozen embryos are different, they are not feotuses, they are not growing & cannot without relying on a womb.
I don't believe it's possible for pregnant to donate their feotus to other women?

Donald Trump

seamus wrote: »

Donald Trump wrote: »

I think that fathers should be held responsible for their kids until the kids are 18. But you you have that, and you have abortion, then fairness dictates that the father should have equal choice as the mother. So if you are pro-choice for the mother, you should be pro-choice for the father.

The "choice" is not about the right to decide the fate of a pregnancy but about the right of a person to make decisions about their own body.

And let us take the other possibility - surrogacy. Those embryos can be implanted into a different woman who will carry them until born.

Not with our current level of technology.

Well the justification for the choice of abortion has variably been given under a number of scenarios including the quality of life that the child would have. If you want to take the view of "A woman can decide to have the child aborted/removed under her own whim at any stage up to 9 months" then that is at least consistent. When you start drawing lines (as most people do) then that is where the argument starts.

As for your second point, it was related to frozen embryos which I asked about in the previous post. Yes, they do have that technology.

Suppose a man and woman have some embryos frozen. Then they find a surrogate who will carry the baby to birth. Then the man and the woman break up. Do either of them have the right to have the pregnancy aborted?

thee glitz wrote: »

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

Perhaps SOME people do but I think they are thin on the ground. However many of us start from a foundation precept of "innocent until proven guilty". And under that precept if an action can not be shown coherently to be immoral then there is no reason to be against that action.

And since I can not see a single coherent argument, much less on this thread, for affording rights or moral concern to a 12 week old fetus, I can see no basis for being against abortion.

And that has nothing to do with wanting a "consequence free world". It has everything to do with having moral and ethical concern for the people who are alive and real today.

thee glitz wrote: »

I've thought about it quite a bit.

Great then perhaps you have the arguments and reasoning offer that is so sorely lacking in all those others I have spoken to. Even Depp, who is so far the most coherent speaker against abortion I have encountered on boards.ie to date is essentially affording rights and moral concern to the fetus because he simply feels that is the way it should be.

Perhaps you can offer something more coherent, or ask some people at those Iona breakfast meetings you attend if they have any material you could use?

thee glitz wrote: »

Do you have any concept of responsibility?

Yes, which is why we wish to afford women the ability to make a responsible choice about their own reproductive cycles. As early as possible, and before such time as the fetus develops the faculties of sentience and consciousness which make it an entity or moral and ethical concern.

I believe she is carrying the blue print for the formation of a real human being within her and she has the responsibility to decide whether to allow that blue print actualize itself.

So yes I have every concept of responsibility, and a large part of that is making sure people have the right options open to them, and are fully informed about those options. Which includes combating the mis-information catholic linked agencies spread about them such as abortions causing breast cancer or future child abuse.

K-9

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.

The Constitutional Convention is discussing it. The Government will hope a centrist compromise will be reached that will sideline the extreme arguments on both sides, basically moderate people will have a platform to get behind and ideally it won't be hijacked by those with agendas.

Outlaw Pete

rjpf1980 wrote: »

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?

Some would.. some wouldn't.

People with 'prolife' beliefs have no more of a hive mind than those with 'prochoice' beliefs.

If you are pro life what is your view,?

Well, I'd be considered as someone who was prolife by many but also as prochoice by others, given that I don't believe second trimester abortions should be legal but do agree with repealing the 8th ( and also with first trimester abortions being made legal here ).

As for what punishment I would like to see here for those who procure late term abortions, or provide a late term abortion service: imprisonment?

K-9 wrote: »

The Constitutional Convention is discussing it. The Government will hope a centrist compromise will be reached that will sideline the extreme arguments on both sides, basically moderate people will have a platform to get behind and ideally it won't be hijacked by those with agendas.

That'd be great if true but unfortunately I suspect it's merely optics and can-kicking.

seamus wrote: »

Donald Trump wrote: »

I think that fathers should be held responsible for their kids until the kids are 18. But you you have that, and you have abortion, then fairness dictates that the father should have equal choice as the mother. So if you are pro-choice for the mother, you should be pro-choice for the father.

The "choice" is not about the right to decide the fate of a pregnancy but about the right of a person to make decisions about their own body.

And let us take the other possibility - surrogacy. Those embryos can be implanted into a different woman who will carry them until born.

Not with our current level of technology.

If you go down that route then people should be allowed to decapitate themselves or cut off their arms. Certain things should not be allowed in a civil society.

A Little Pony wrote: »

If you go down that route then people should be allowed to decapitate themselves or cut off their arms. Certain things should not be allowed in a civil society.

And yet people are allowed to mutilate themselves in other ways such as piercings and tongue studs - do you want to ban those too ?

Is there even a law against cutting off your own arms ?

Actually - is there even a law against decaptiating oneself ? I thought the stigma and criminal classification of suicide was long-gone ?

Edit:

Since 1993 the act of suicide (the taking of one’s own life with criminal intent) by itself is no longer a crime

A Little Pony wrote: »

If you go down that route then people should be allowed to decapitate themselves or cut off their arms. Certain things should not be allowed in a civil society.

I am unclear how you hope to PREVENT people intent on doing those things. Good luck with that.

That said however there ARE people who want to have limbs removed and I think they very much should be allowed to do it.

Firstly because it is, after all, their body. If possession is to mean anything in this world at all.... then what can we say we own if not our very own self?

But secondly because there is a very real condition that causes people misery, depression and even physical pain related to a desire to have a limb removed. Apotemnophilia and other forms of BIID are very real, and we have made many inroads into understanding their cause. And in our current absence of a treatment for it, who exactly is to say that lopping off limbs is not the right thing for them to do? You?

All that said however, these things are barely analogous to abortion and it is unclear why you even bring them up. The comparison is spurious at best and bordering on a red herring canard. There is a world of difference between self-harm and wishing to have full autonomy over ones reproduction cycle.

Outlaw Pete

seamus wrote: »

The "choice" is not about the right to decide the fate of a pregnancy but about the right of a person to make decisions about their own body.

But when is a pregnancy not a person's "own body" though?

I mean, if someone believes a pregnancy is ALWAYS a woman's "own body" and that they should be able to do what they want with it as a result, then they are saying (whether they like it or not): that women should be able to abort pregnancies mere days before they are due to give birth.

Now, before anyone jumps down my throat: I am NOT saying anyone wants to do that (well, not too many anyway, thank God) but this point needs to be made (continuously it would seem) in order for some people to see that they do not believe many of the things they are saying and mostly they are just very hollow mantras.

If everyone would just admit that they don't believe women should always be able to have an abortion, that it isn't about "women's bodies" and what they do with them, then the abortion debate could be a much more honest one.