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

rainbow kirby

thee glitz wrote: »

Yes - I've put out the idea of a replacement for the 8th amendment a few times but never got any response on it.

The constitution was never the place for dealing with abortion - it's something that should have only been dealt with through legislation. It doesn't need to be replaced, it needs to be removed, followed by completely rewriting the current legislation.

thee glitz

Clandestine wrote: »

Anyone else sick of the black and white narrative there seems to be with abortion?

Yes - I've put out the idea of a replacement for the 8th amendment a few times but never got any response on it.

gctest50 wrote: »

And that works so well - there are no addicts on the streets, no overdoses, no one with any drug probs

I think you've missed my point. It was about crime prevention vs retrospective punishment.

rainbow kirby wrote: »

The constitution was never the place for dealing with abortion - it's something that should have only been dealt with through legislation. It doesn't need to be replaced, it needs to be removed, followed by completely rewriting the current legislation.

Why?

gctest50

thee glitz wrote: »

.....
I think you've missed my point. It was about crime prevention ....

I think you've missed my point

Making something illegal doesn't make it go away

eg.
Fraud is illegal - still happens

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which is why the analogy fails, because at the point where most people WANT to argue for abortion, say 12, 16, 20 weeks, there is no "innocent life" to protect OTHER than that of the mother. So analogies to situations where law or morals are established to protect other moral agents simply miss the mark, regardless of how emotionally invested you appear to be in that analogy.

For the last time: You said my analogy "entirely failed" as (in your opinion) there was no second moral agent. I pointed out to that saying that implies that they analogy would be sound if it solely concerned fetuses that were at an age where you did have moral concern for them and ever since you have been running from that point.. and doing mental gymnastics in a attempt not have to concede that it. In the UK women can have abortions up until 24 weeks, you have now clarified (at last) that you have moral concern for fetuses at 20 weeks+ and so that means my analogy is perfectly sound in that context (for at least four weeks).

By the way, the analogy is always sound as the laws in this country consider all stages of fetal life as "innocent life" to be protected and so it doesn't matter if you decide that you don't see a fetuses life below 20 weeks as a moral agent, as the analogy isn't about you, it's about the legislation and what the intention of it is.......... but just in regard to your good self, I'll happily concede that the analogy is only sound for four weeks in the context of the what is available in the UK to women travelling from Ireland. Can you extend that much? That the analogy doesn't "entirely" fail?

I have said this to you directly more than once..

Not to me you didn't, otherwise I wouldn't have asked you to clarify it. If you can find any post you made to me, where you clarified that you had moral concern for 20+ week old fetuses, then quote (not link) it. Cheers. Either way, I am not aware of it.

I mention and mentioned the age(s) of the fetus I am referring to many many times. Simply trawling through all my posts looking for the ONE or TWO times that I failed to do so does not indicate my position has changed on the matter, especially when it has not.

You're complaining that I cited the 'one or two times' where you failed to mention the age of a fetus when saying you had no moral concern for them, but yet you had no problem lecturing me, over and over and over again the 'one time' I didn't emphasize that you were 'speaking morally'. Talk about rich. Maybe if you don't always remember to emphasis every single word, you shouldn't expect others too.

I have been nothing BUT clear on the time periods I use in all my arguments, and to pretend or presume otherwise is remarkably dishonest and disingenuous of you.

My first post on this thread was the 472nd reply on the thread, so maybe I missed it. The reason I asked for clarification was because the first time you equated rocks with fetuses, with regards to your moral and ethical concern for them (or lack thereof) you made no reference to their gestational stage.

Here is the FIRST time on the thread you made the equation:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My own position on abortion was formed when I decided to not only sit down and REALLY understand what I mean by those words.... but specifically what I mean by them in the context of a fetus or the subject of abortion.

And what I realized is there is no coherent way to ascribe person-hood or "humanity" to a fetus. All the things I would hang moral or ethical concern off..... say the faculty of human consciousness and sentience for example..... are simply ABSENT in the fetus. And in the absence of these things I have no basis to hold any moral or ethical concern for a fetus over, say, a rock.

In the last line of the above you stated that you had "no basis to hold any moral or ethical concern for a fetus over, say, a rock" but at no time did you talk about the age of the fetuses to which you were referring. Now, granted, at the end of that post you went on to briefly reference a 16 week old fetus but you did so only in the context of saying that you believe it "a nonsense" to even attempt to seek sentience and consciousness in fetuses of that age.

Clearly you don't, but I am just pointing out that this is not coherent or intellectually rigorous. You are observing autonomic responses that do not in any way indicate sentience, or the faculty of sentience, in a fetus from 0 to 20 weeks, for example. By that stage sure, it is human shaped, making very human movements, and I GET IT that this lights up the moral centers of your brain.

Thank you for clarifying the 0-20 weeks in this post at least but no, my opinions are not just based on things which 'light up the moral centres' of my brain. I understand your position though, it's quite a common one for someone with your views to take, to just assume people are not as considered as you are and that their views are just emotion based. It has been pointed out to you many times on this thread now that some people have a moral concern for fetuses based not just on what they are but also for what they are in the process of becoming. You refer to these arguments as incoherent but they are not. In any case, who are you to decide that lack of sentience is the point at which all arguments regarding moral concern for fetal life stop being coherent?

Except they do believe it. But the context you insist on ignoring is that BEHIND that slogan is a wealth of detail on what they mean by it, when they apply it.

That is the whole point of slogans. They are meant to grab the attention and invite further discourse on the topic of the slogan. They are not meant to be taken on their own, with no context, and with no assumption that there is a LOT more thought, caveats, context and detail behind them.

Again, I am fully aware of the context in which these slogans are used. What you need to understand is that there is a difference between someone 'ignoring' something and 'disagreeing with it'. When a person (man or woman) says (in the context of the abortion debate) that it's 'HER BODY, HER CHOICE' what they are doing is making a fundamental statement that they believe nobody should have a right to tell a pregnant woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. Now, if that person then turns around and says that they think that society should be able to tell pregnant women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies (just at a slightly stage of fetal development than the people they were ranting at five minutes ago) ..... well then that's just blatant hypocrisy and no amount of nonsense about context will make it any less so.

Absolutely not, I entirely agree. It is perfectly reasonable, perfectly understandable, and perfectly justifiable. It just happens to also be entirely wrong, misplaced, misleading and unsubstantiated.

Believing in things which are unsubstantiated doesn't mean they are wrongheaded let alone incoherent. Some of us allow our opinions to be informed by science and then there are some of us that are slaves to it, refusing to hear anything else unless it has been backed up by rigorous scientific study and that is as illogical as praying to rain Gods for a good harvest. The scientific consensus changes, often, and so to hang your opinions on it, all the damn time, is foolish. Only recently I was watching a docu about Prof Adrian Owen who has communicated with patients thought to be in a vegetative state and now as a result of his research the medical consensus is far different than what it was before. Normal of course but if change is so common, why hold so damn tight to it and sneer at others that do not?

we KNOW the fetus reacts to stimulus. Even a bacteria reacts to stimulus. A single celled bacteria will move away from a needle if pricked. And yet you think it compelling that a complex multi cellular creature would ALSO do so? Have a little perspective here please.

You are comparing fetuses to single celled bacteria, and you're telling me to have perspective? Just because bacteria move away from needle pricks, doesn't mean it's happening for the same reason and even if it was, we are talking about human fetuses and so it's illogical to suggest that we should have the same moral regard for the same behavior in both.

Because the position I have espoused is not emotionally fueled or driven, that's why.

Of course it is. You speak of women getting on with their lives, bettering themselves, their well being, their happiness... how is that any less emotive than when others say it's abhorrent to abort a 16-week-old fetuses because their life needs to be given regard? It isn't. Not that there is anything wrong with there being an emotional aspect to forming an opinion on such issues. I would vote to repeal the 8th as I feel women deserve better treatment if their life is in danger when they are pregnant. I would vote to make abortion on demand legal for up to 12 weeks, maybe a little more, because I see what happens in counties where there is no option to pop on a plane, have an abortion and come home like we have here. All those decisions were arrived at because of how I felt emotionally when reading about those things in the media over the years, as I have empathy and so I find it ludicrous that I (or anyone for that matter) should be ridiculed if and when they allow how they feel to inform their views on an aspect abortion with respect to a devolving fetus. Fine to have empathic feelings for pregnant women considering abortion, but not for the developing fetus it would seem .

If an young athlete, or a medical student is in an accident in which the other party is deemed to be at fault, then when it is being considered how much compensation the court should award them, what they were on their way to becoming will be considering relevant as we value humans not just on where they are currently, but their potential also. So why should we not have a similar regard for what developing fetal life in the womb is on the way to becoming? too What is that not of value? And I know saying something is going to be something is saying that it is not that yet, but pointing that out misses the point that a person's potential is something humans put value on and there is no reason why we should not also afford the potential of a developing fetus is becoming as of being of some value also.

Nice of you to catch up with me

I didn't 'catch up' with you. This happens a lot on forums. Person X's understanding of what person Y was actually saying changes..... person X assumes (often falsely) that this is because person Y has caught up with them.

It appears, in the absence of you presenting evidence to the contrary, that you are. You have merely asserted the movement is in response to sound, yet you have not established this assertion in any way.

I asserted nothing. Studies have all but confirmed that fetuses as young as 16-weeks respond to auditory stimuli:

Fetal facial expression in response to intravaginal music emission

At present, our data appear to suggest two interpretations: that intravaginal application, with fewer obstacles, could be more effective in transmitting music to the fetus, and that the fetus might perceive these higher frequencies at an earlier age than reported to date. In this regard, we observed a response to IVM in fetuses of all ages from as early as week 16.

Cochlea and middle ear are already formed at week 15, although they are traditionally considered to become functional at week 20.

However, such an early response registered in our study suggests the involvement of anatomical elements and neural substrates formed at an earlier stage. Thus, our results suggest possibly earlier functioning, although the intensity or quality of the perception remains unknown.

thee glitz

gctest50 wrote: »

I think you've missed my point

Making something illegal doesn't make it go away

eg.
Fraud is illegal - still happens

This is really simple. Abortion is illegal and requires the provision of specialised 'services'. The state bans the provision of such in a proactive manner, thus ensuring it doesn't happen.

gctest50

thee glitz wrote: »

This is really simple. Abortion is illegal and requires the provision of specialised 'services'. The state bans the provision of such in a proactive manner, thus ensuring it doesn't happen

It will happen anyway even if it is illegal

Jayop

thee glitz wrote: »

This is really simple. Abortion is illegal and requires the provision of specialised 'services'. The state bans the provision of such in a proactive manner, thus ensuring it doesn't happen.

Services like medication you can easily buy online and have delivered to Ireland?

It happens plenty in Ireland

thee glitz

Jayop wrote: »

Services like medication you can easily buy online and have delivered to Ireland?

It happens plenty in Ireland

But how to punish it if a deterrent is required?
It's a difficult one, but the likelihood of reoffending would have to be determined. A difficult question itself.

Jayop

thee glitz wrote: »

But how to punish it if a deterrent is required?
It's a difficult one, but the likelihood of reoffending would have to be determined. A difficult question itself.

How about not punishing it and allowing the services to be available locally with proper advice and supervision if needed.

thee glitz

Jayop wrote: »

How about not punishing it and allowing the services to be available locally with proper advice and supervision if needed.

Abortion on demand is reprehensible to me, so I wouldn't support that.

Jayop

thee glitz wrote: »

Abortion on demand is reprehensible to me, so I wouldn't support that.

There you have it so. We've no middle ground so there's not much point talking.

thee glitz

Jayop wrote: »

There you have it so. We've no middle ground so there's not much point talking.

I'll agree with you there.

wonderfullife

There's not much point in this debate. The numbers of women in Ireland who have "home-made" abortions, "back-street" abortions is tiny.

Smaller still is any of these cases coming to light. Anybody having gone down this road, as opposed to getting a flight to england, isn't exactly going to take a full page ad out in the Indo.

Is there a point in setting an example? A deterrent?

There really isn't.

As for the rest of the general debate, i find it beyond LAUGHABLE the amount of young men (17-25), college-going mostly, who have injected themselves into the Pro-Choice brigade.

I take it none of them get the concept of irony.

I can't think of a more ironic thing to do than for a young man to campaign for repealing the 8th amendment.

In a non-ironic world, a man campaigning for Pro-Choice would be campaigning for a man to have A CHOICE in whether the woman aborts his future child or not.

But nope. He just wants the woman to have a choice.

That to me, is the definition of irony.

All this baloni about men campaigning out of respect for women is total bull. I've no idea what their agenda truly is but it's nauseating.

Geuze

I'm anti-abortion, but I have never, ever considered that women who have abortions should be punished. The thought never crossed my mind.

Why would you even suggest it?

They should be supported.

Now, I am a pragmatist, and in light of the fact that there are thousands of couples looking for babies, willing to pay huge money for IVF, surrogacy, etc., I suggest that we match these couples with women with unwanted babies.

The woman may not want her baby, but somebody else will.

Instead of killing the unborn child, give it to somebody else, who for various reasons can't have children.

This saves couples having to travel to India, etc.

If some money needs to change hands to cover costs all round, then okay.

Nobody dies, everybody benefits.

Ave Sodalis

Geuze wrote:

Nobody dies, everybody benefits.

Except the woman who has to go through pregnancy and all the physical distress that causes, before giving away the baby and all the emotional distress that causes.
Not to mention the fact many IVF couples want their own child.

kidneyfan

Would there be much support for having them act as forced surrogates?

eviltwin

kidneyfan wrote: »

Would there be much support for having them act as forced surrogates?

When you're giving women no other option but to have the baby and then telling them they can just give it up for adoption that's basically what we are reducing these women to.

kidneyfan

eviltwin wrote: »

When you're giving women no other option but to have the baby and then telling them they can just give it up for adoption that's basically what we are reducing these women to.

Hadn't thought of that. So how would you propose making it clear that these women were engaging in forced surrogacy as a punishment and not not because they are following a deeply ingrained cultural norm.

rainbow kirby wrote: »

The constitution was never the place for dealing with abortion - it's something that should have only been dealt with through legislation. It doesn't need to be replaced, it needs to be removed, followed by completely rewriting the current legislation.

Do you think that the most appropriate thing to do would be to remove the 8th amendment from the constitution? I have heard that some people think that abortion should be legal in Ireland. Some other people ask if the dead babies should have a vote (this seems impracticable).

thee glitz

sup_dude wrote: »

Except the woman who has to go through pregnancy

Imagine, the horror, becoming pregnant and then being expected to nourish a little fetus until it can survive independently.

and all the physical distress that causes

which is undertaken by 100million women every year. and is also voluntary.

before giving away the baby and all the emotional distress that causes.

So don't?

Not to mention the fact many IVF couples want their own child.

Not sure where this comes into it. Isn't that a tautology?

Ave Sodalis

thee glitz wrote:

Imagine, the horror, becoming pregnant and then being expected to nourish a little fetus until it can survive independently.

It can be a horror...

thee glitz wrote:

which is undertaken by 100million women every year. and is also voluntary.

But not voluntary for so many women.

thee glitz wrote:

So don't?

Yes, and ignore the multiple reasons a woman may not want/cannot keep the child.

thee glitz wrote:

Not sure where this comes into it. Isn't that a tautology?

No? There was a suggestion that women with unwanted pregnancies give their child to a couple under IVF treatment.

thee glitz

sup_dude wrote: »

It can be a horror...

Mostly not though.

But not voluntary for so many women.

In the vast majority of cases it is. Like nearly all.

Yes, and ignore the multiple reasons a woman may not want/cannot keep the child.

Get informed, consider it carefully, and either do it or don't .

No? There was a suggestion that women with unwanted pregnancies give their child to a couple under IVF treatment.

Oh right, it seems that adoption and IVF were being confused.

eviltwin

Just because women choose to become pregnant doesn't mean it's a walk in the park. Pregnancy can be difficult enough when you want the baby, I can't imagine how much harder it is emotionally when you want a termination but don't have the option.

Put it this way, I love having sex but if my partner made me do it against my will I'd probably end up with a lot of issues.

thee glitz

eviltwin wrote: »

Just because women choose to become pregnant doesn't mean it's a walk in the park. Pregnancy can be difficult enough when you want the baby, I can't imagine how much harder it is emotionally when you want a termination but don't have the option.

It's harder because you can't just throw your hands up and say "fk this, i'm not letting any dependent i created ruin my life, not even for 9months. No happy ending for you buddy". Not having the option of abortion actually makes things simpler. Like Man Utd v Man City is on tv later, Celtic v Rangers too. If only one match was, i wouldn't have to choose between them.

Put it this way, I love having sex but if my partner made me do it against my will I'd probably end up with a lot of issues.

Same as yourself. I'm going to guess you're female, so forced sex could result in an involuntary pregnancy. Given chances of conception, contraception and availability of the morning after pill, this must be rare.

Outlaw Pete

eviltwin wrote: »

Put it this way, I love having sex but if my partner made me do it against my will I'd probably end up with a lot of issues.

Should a person's wish not to be pregnant or have to give birth, supersede a baby's chance of having a life, if health concerns are not a factor and the pregnancy has reached the second trimester?

thee glitz

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Should a person's wish not to be pregnant or have to give birth, supersede a baby's chance of having a life, if health concerns are not a factor and the pregnancy has reached the second trimester?

No.

gctest50

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Should a person's wish not to be pregnant or have to give birth, supersede a baby's chance of having a life, if health concerns are not a factor and the pregnancy has reached the second trimester?

The whole abortion with no restrictions thing in Canada seems to work really well

thee glitz

gctest50 wrote: »

The whole abortion with no restrictions thing in Canada seems to work really well

Not for the babies.

volchitsa

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Should a person's wish not to be pregnant or have to give birth, supersede a baby's chance of having a life, if health concerns are not a factor and the pregnancy has reached the second trimester?

Is this an argument against contraception, or are you equating an embryo to a baby? If so, you should one aware that not everybody accepts that opinion as fact.

thee glitz

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Should a person's wish not to be pregnant or have to give birth, supersede a baby's chance of having a life, if health concerns are not a factor and the pregnancy has reached the second trimester?

I didn't mean to jump in there.

volchitsa wrote: »

Is this an argument against contraception, or are you equating an embryo to a baby? If so, you should one aware that not everybody accepts that opinion as fact.

He said second trimester, so not an enbryo.

gctest50

thee glitz wrote: »

................

Given chances of conception, contraception and availability of the morning after pill, this must be rare.

If all those were that good there wouldn't be any women needing to travel