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

A Little Pony wrote: »

So the baby has no rights then?

Yes babies have rights.

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.

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?

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.

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: »

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.

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?

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 wrote: »

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.

And we do have a user who espouses that very position on this forum, though thankfully he managed to back it up with no arguments other than his impression Hilary Clinton agrees with him. I would be aghast if there were coherent arguments for such a horrible position. Especially as I am someone who would adopt a coherently argued position, regardless of how distasteful it is to me.

But yes I do think there is SOME point in the process between conception and birth that we have to afford human rights, and ethical and moral concern, towards the child. And I am myself not 100% clear on when that point is or should be.

But I think it is a red herring to even discuss it because we can certainly coherently identify points where this is NOT the case. And I find that those points are actually LATER in the process than MOST abortions actually occur. 90%+ of abortions occur after 12 weeks. The arguments I would level for abortion go as far as 16 and even 20 before things become fuzzy.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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

I trust that my arguments and posts have established that I, at least, am not one of those people and I do not suffer from the inconsistencies or contradictions you feel you have uncovered in others. I think my position on abortion addresses your concern quite roundly and completely.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

Certainly abortion when most people actually have them..... 90% before 12 weeks as I said..... very much is about "women's bodies and what they do with them"..... given there is no reason at this point to afford any concern to the fetus at all, let alone in the same way or relative to the concerns of the mother.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

Strictly speaking, they are. In fact scheduled C-sections are pregnancies that are "aborted" a week before the due date.

This is why the issue needs to not get bogged down in the emotional.

The intention of the act of abortion is to end the pregnancy. The destruction of a foetus is incidental because the foetus is not viable outside of the pregnancy.