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

thee glitz wrote:

Sorry, I don't know what point you're making. It should be a pleasure to raise your own child. Of course it's not always easy and involves some unpleasant aspects, but it's the best thing ever, apart from naybe hoke and cookers.

My first point is you, like Depp, seem to be changing what you're saying.
The second was that just because you are in a position where it is a pleasure, doesn't mean everyone else is. There is a wide variety of reasons for getting an abortion.

sup_dude wrote: »

My first point is you, like Depp, seem to be changing what you're saying.

I don't think so, speaking for me anyway.

The second was that just because you are in a position where it is a pleasure, doesn't mean everyone else is. There is a wide variety of reasons for getting an abortion.

I'm guessing, with confidence, that you don't have a child.

thee glitz wrote:

I don't think so, speaking for me anyway.

One minute you're talking about from the child (now adult) point of view, next you've switched to the parent.

thee glitz wrote:

I'm guessing, with confidence, that you don't have a child.

I'm guessing, with confidence, that the fact your wife struggled to get with child (congrats by the way) has skewed your perception, and that you've never had to deal with anything other than happy family therefore can't comprehend anything else.

seamus wrote: »

It's in the majority being used by women who already understand the "joy" of having children and the hardships and difficulty that brings, and making the choice to terminate the pregnancy for the sake of themselves and their family.

Maybe if there are fetal abnormalities but the vast majority of abortions are not carried out for such reasons. I can understand such decision being taken at 0-12 weeks (maybe a little longer) but after that I really can't. Some things in life have to be taken on the chin and unless the mother's health is at risk, or there are fetal abnormalities, then concern for the quality of life of family members is a poor excuse to take the life of an unborn defenseless child in the womb.

It's naive and arrogant to think that because the child you have brings so much joy to your life, the same is true of everyone.

Joy, or lack thereof, at the prospect of giving birth is of no relevance to whether or not we as a society should allow child destruction, which currently is legal in the UK (for three weeks of a pregnancy) and with the advancement of science, that time period is only likely to increase, unless the disgraceful laws in the UK are amended.


On a side note. I'll vote to repeal the 8th (with the hope of it leading to abortion law reform - as I feel it's much needed) but I really wish the Pro Choice movement would get it into their heads that all adults thus far have been allowed to vote in Ireland's abortion referendums, not just "old men". Yet again we see feminists exploiting the abortion debate just so they can play the martyrs.

...and that's why I support there being another referendum, but that still doesn't justify the suggestion that "old men" are responsible for the 8th amendment, they are not, no more than old women are. It's just being used as yet another chance for feminists to play the nonsense that is the patriarchal oppression card.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The analogy compared the intent

And your inability to give up a failed analogy is at this point lacking in interest for me any more. If you want to discuss the intention of laws you can do it with someone else as ALL I have been discussing until now is the moral implications of Abortion in and of itself. And I am not going to bore the readers any further here going round and round on issues entirely tangential to what I have actually been discussing.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I never said anything about sentience. You know that I didn't.

Actually the only thing I "know" is that you are not being coherent here. You are producing links to studies, at least 2 at this point, showing responses in the fetus to stimulus.

Then on one hand you are saying that this shows "someone is home".... but on the other hand denying you are saying anything about sentience. So what you ARE saying, or THINK you are saying, is really opaque to me at this point. And I suspect possibly to you too, but this is only suspicion at this juncture.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The researchers stated that the 16-week-old fetuses included in the study moved their mouths and tongues in response to music as if they were trying to speak.

I admit I only read the study in it's entirety twice. And I remember they discussed Mouthing and Tongue expulsion multiple times. But I recall no point at which they added the value judgement "as if trying to speak".

Is that from them? Could you quote it for me, as I genuinely do not recall it and do not wish to read the study a third time. It is a startling unprofessional conjecture if it is there.

Or did you invent this bit yourself perhaps in order to make what was observed more emotive than it actually is?

However as I said above I genuinely do not know what your point is. We KNOW the fetus at various stages responds to stimulus of varying kinds. What are you trying to read into that?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You do realise that babies have been born at that stage of gestation and survived.

I do. And that is a testament to the wonders of the ever increasing sophistication of the medical technology of our species. What you think this means in terms of a point related to abortion however, I am similarly baffled at for most of the same reasons as above..... in that you cite observations of this kind.... but do not really seem to coherently link them back to a point.

Not one aspect of my position on abortion takes viability..... natural viability or artificial viability under the ministrations of our medical technology......... as a foundation. So comments about viability are not a rebuttal or reference to anything I have thus far espoused.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

They should. I'm on record as saying Sarah Catt should have been charged with child destruction. If she had killed her baby the following week after she had given birth, she'd have been done for murder and so it's insane that he had her sentence reduced from eight years to three and half.

I am with you on this. I genuinely can not get my head around the user of boards.ie who thinks abortions up to the day of birth should be entirely ok. As if passage down the birth canal is some magical moment when a child gains a right to life. Attempts to pin him down on that position and what it is based on were alas met with little more than him claiming that he believes HIllary Clinton agrees with him.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Maybe if there are fetal abnormalities but the vast majority of abortions are not carried out for such reasons.

Financial and other concerns are valid too though. If you have a family already struggling and on the breadline, another child will smother them. You could have a mother (or indeed a father) with a history of mental illness, and PPD in particular, who feels that one more child will tip them over the edge.
You could have another child already with a life-limiting condition or a disability, and you feel wrong about bringing a second child into that situation.

Or two parents who have developed crippling alcholism, or a heroin habit, or whatever.

My point is that the old trope of "every child brings joy to your" life is naive and short-sighted.

Why do people "stop" at a certain amount of children? Because they know that more children will be a burden on themselves and their existing children.
Nobody tells these people, "Yes, another child will be tough, but it'll be worth it in the end. Go on, have a fifth, you'll love them".
But when someone is pregnant, apparently "everyone will be better off" (eventuallY) if they go through with the pregnancy. It's a point of view that is demonstrably wrong.

Joy, or lack thereof, at the prospect of giving birth is of no relevance to whether or not we as a society should allow child destruction

I agree entirely. My point was in relation to thee glitz's assertion that every child brings joy, which he was apparently using as an understandable but irrelevant reason to disallow abortion.

I really wish the Pro Choice movement would get it into their heads that all adults thus far have been allowed to vote in Ireland's abortion referendums, not just "old men". Yet again we see feminists exploiting the abortion debate just so they can play the martyrs.

They haven't though. And that's pretty disingenuous overall.

The vote in 2002 was to further restrict abortion rights. It was defeated, but no counter-action was taken to loosen rights*
Even then, anyone aged between 4 and 17 in 2002 is now an adult and has never had an opportunity to vote on an abortion referendum.

Nevertheless any adult under the age of 42 has never been presented any opportunity to relax the state's position on abortion. That's just slightly more than half of all adults in the country (according to the 2011 census).

And that's the simple fact. Ireland's current position on abortion was defined by a minority of those alive today, who now sit on the question and refuse to let the majority have a vote on it.

thee glitz wrote: »

Yes - so it's selfish.

If you can't get happiness from raising a child, it's probably because you still resent it for ruining your life.

If you get happiness from raising a child, is that not selfishness too?

Having children is a selfish act. Don't allow yourself to pretend you're a martyr. Everything we do is selfish. Whether it is choosing to have or not have a child, what you choose is a selfish act.

And yes, I am a parent.

* To be fair, there is no obligation when a referendum is defeated, to legislate for the "No"

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And your inability to give up a failed analogy is at this point lacking in interest for me any more.

You're still saying it failed even though it took you six days to realise that the analogy was about the intent behind abortion legislation.... and even then instead of apologizing you laughably accused me of moving goalposts.

I am not going to bore the readers any further

Glad.to.hear.it.

Actually the only thing I "know" is that you are not being coherent here. You are producing links to studies, at least 2 at this point, showing responses in the fetus to stimulus.

I linked to different studies at different times for different reasons and so any chance of a little specificity? One of those studies I cited was merely to show that the following statement from you was, and is, absurd:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

mere response to stimulus tells us NOTHING about the consciousness and capacity for awareness the subject in question possesses.

Some response studies tell us very little, that's true, but some tell us a whole damn lot. For example: 8-week stimulus response studies might not be sufficient to show all that much but 30+ weeks stimulus response studies can tell researchers huge amounts.... and so try try and throw all stimulus response studies under the one umbrella, as you have repeatedly tried to do, is absurd.

Then on one hand you are saying that this shows "someone is home".... but on the other hand denying you are saying anything about sentience.

This is why I accuse you of playing to the gallery, as you know that I do not suggest anything regarding sentience. I know you know as you quoted where I had said to another user that this was because there are so many differing definitions and arguments regarding it. So please stop suggesting there is a contradiction, there is none. If the statement that there is 'someone home' means sentience to you... great, no bother... but that has nothing to do with me, I am merely using phraseology that you brought into the thread in an attempt to retort things you have said regarding fetuses and your lack of moral concern for them at certain stages of gestation.

I admit I only read the study in it's entirety twice. And I remember they discussed Mouthing and Tongue expulsion multiple times. But I recall no point at which they added the value judgement "as if trying to speak".

Is that from them? Could you quote it for me, as I genuinely do not recall it and do not wish to read the study a third time. It is a startling unprofessional conjecture if it is there.

Or did you invent this bit yourself perhaps in order to make what was observed more emotive than it actually is?

Any chance you give that kind of nonsense a rest? Asking someone did they "invent" something they have said is tantamount to asking them if they have lied. A simple request for the source would suffice:

Lead researcher of the study Dr Marisa Lopez Teijon revealed that music broadcast vaginally encouraged unborn babies to move their mouth and tongue “as if they were trying to speak”.

Not one aspect of my position on abortion takes viability..... natural viability or artificial viability under the ministrations of our medical technology......... as a foundation. So comments about viability are not a rebuttal or reference to anything I have thus far espoused.

You never answered the question with respect. Okay, you don't take viability into account, gotcha... but what do you take in account then if you think "we are safe" to abort 21-to-24-week old fetuses at? What are you "iffy" about is what I am asking you.

seamus wrote: »

You could have another child already with a life-limiting condition or a disability, and you feel wrong about bringing a second child into that situation.

I grew up with a severely autistic sibling (five years my junior) and so I know all about family struggles in that regard. I'm still their part time carer in fact (and happy to be). However, I fail to see how such circumstances (or similar) could, or should, justify the second trimester abortion of a healthy unborn child.

Or two parents who have developed crippling alcholism, or a heroin habit, or whatever.

Tubal ligation has a 99% success rate.

My point is that the old trope of "every child brings joy to your" life is naive and short-sighted.

Why do people "stop" at a certain amount of children? Because they know that more children will be a burden on themselves and their existing children.

Oh I agree but I just don't see why a defenseless developing unborn child should pay the price for not being wanted. Give them a shot. Lots of people have led very happy lives despite their very existence being resented. Indeed, many a person has led a miserable existence despite being shown nothing but love and affection.

My point was in relation to thee glitz's assertion that every child brings joy, which he was apparently using as an understandable but irrelevant reason to disallow abortion.

I think every child can bring joy but I agree that there is no guarantee of that, of course, but I feel the user's point was more that a lot of women who feel that a child will destroy their lives, are wrong. Not all the time, granted, but mostly any woman that has been on the fence and decided not to go ahead with an abortion, is generally happy about not doing so in the end. Phil Lynott's mother a prime example.

I have known women that have had abortions in the 90's, long before the information super highway existed, who absolutely believed that a 16-24 week old fetus was just a clump of cells and also, that regret was rare... who now very much regret their decision and feel misled. Abortion regret is not as rare as some would have us believe.

http://womenhurt.ie/

They haven't though. And that's pretty disingenuous overall.

The vote in 2002 was to further restrict abortion rights. It was defeated, but no counter-action was taken to loosen rights*
Even then, anyone aged between 4 and 17 in 2002 is now an adult and has never had an opportunity to vote on an abortion referendum.

Nevertheless any adult under the age of 42 has never been presented any opportunity to relax the state's position on abortion. That's just slightly more than half of all adults in the country (according to the 2011 census).

And that's the simple fact. Ireland's current position on abortion was defined by a minority of those alive today, who now sit on the question and refuse to let the majority have a vote on it.
If you get happiness from raising a child, is that not selfishness too?

Again: that is why I feel there should be another referendum and in fact abortion law reform overall but how does any of the above excuse blaming "old men" for the 8th or framing the abortion debate as being solely about women's bodies and what they do with them. Women voted in all those referendums too and so there was nothing disingenuous about what I said at all.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I have known women that have had abortions in the 90's, long before the information super highway existed, who absolutely believed that a 16-24 week old fetus was just a clump of cells and also, that regret was rare... who now very much regret their decision and feel misled. Abortion regret is not as rare as some would have us believe.


http://www.womenhurt.ie

couldn't be the same one surely ?

domain: womenhurt.ie
descr: Caitriona Cummins
descr: Sole Trader
descr: Registered Business
Name admin-c: AMI378-IEDR

CAITRIONA CUMMINS,
Pro-Life Campaign,
Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2.

http://bit.ly/2cIeLHB

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't think so. There's a difference between wishing you hadn't had a child and wishing you had aborted them.


Awful parent, ye.

You're assuming that something like that can only be said in a hurtful way. I disagree. Being truthful, even about a complex situation like a crisis pregnancy, may be part of being a good parent. Lying, less so IMO. Though lying is often the easy way out of course.

So unless you're claiming that it's impossible to ever love a child if you had originally thought of ending that pregnancy, you're not making any sense.

Your argument requires that any woman who wanted to terminate a pregnancy but didn't either becomes strongly anti choice (why?) or else doesn't love the resulting child. I don't see why you're connecting those two issues.

volchitsa wrote: »

You're assuming that something like that can only be said in a hurtful way. I disagree. Being truthful, even about a complex situation like a crisis pregnancy, may be part of being a good parent. Lying, less so IMO. Though lying is often the easy way out of course.

There is a lot to be said for being honest. Telling your child that they may have been aborted had 'services' been available to you, while advocating the availability of same is implying indifference at best to that child's continued existence. If a mother is pro abortion availability, it's pretty awful to tell a child that.

So unless you're claiming that it's impossible to ever love a child if you had originally thought of ending that pregnancy you're not making any sense.

I'm not saying that. If someone does love their child, they shouldn't be telling them it's only 'by force' that they're here and should acknowledge that the law benefitted them.

Your argument requires that any woman who wanted to terminate a pregnancy but didn't either becomes strongly anti choice (why?) or else doesn't love the resulting child. I don't see why you're connecting those two issues.

It doesn't require that. In the case of a pro abortion availability mother (as any), it's horrible to tell a child that they may have been aborted. So they shouldn't do it if they're to be a good parent. Its saying 'you're here bacause of this law, and I want to ensure no-one else has to go through what you've done to me'.

thee glitz wrote: »

There is a lot to be said for being honest. Telling your child that they may have been aborted had 'services' been available to you, while advocating the availability of same is implying indifference at best to that child's continued existence. If a mother is pro abortion availability, it's pretty awful to tell a child that.

No, that's just you applying your reading of the situation to everyone else.
I know a real life example which disproves that entirely.

I'm not saying that. If someone does love their child, they shouldn't be telling them it's only 'by force' that they're here and should acknowledge that the law benefitted them.

And yet if the law has any effect, there must be a heck of a lot of people who wouldn't exist otherwise, right? So do you think all those woman are all now anti-choice, or that they don't love their children? Or are you just insisting on making a connection that is meaningless?

It doesn't require that. In the case of a pro abortion availability mother (as any), it's horrible to tell a child that they may have been aborted. So they shouldn't do it if they're to be a good parent. Its saying 'you're here bacause of this law, and I want to ensure no-one else has to go through what you've done to me'.

Again, your opinion only, and one that apparently applies to a lot of women in the country - given the ban on abortion. Do you really think that all those women should lie to their children about the circumstances of their birth all their lives?

thee glitz wrote: »

I think you're missing my point. If I tell a friend I thought they were an asshole the first time I met them, that's one thing. If I then say I wish I wasn't forced to be in that place I first met them at that time, that's close to saying I wish I'd never met them. There is a difference between honesty and voluntary disclosure.

No, I just think your point is nonsensical. How is your comparison anything like a parent-child relationship? It's completely different. (It's also kind of stupid, TBH. Even if I hadnt wanted to meet someone at the time, that doesn't mean I wish I'd never met them. But that's still entirely different to a decision about having a child that has major implications for the whole of the rest of your life, and maybe other people's lives too.)