What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?

Stones85 · 07-02-2009 10:46am

I'm unapologetically staunchly pro-life, in my opinion abortionists and everyone involved in the evil act should be treated as murderers and accomplices, all should recieve full life sentences for murder without parol. Whether the "state" deems it legal or illegal doesn't change my view on the issue.

Thats my small rant over. I realise I'm in a small minority with this opinion and may be lambasted for it, but I'll never change it.

The Corinthian · 07-02-2009 11:14am

Stones85 wrote: »

I'm unapologetically staunchly pro-life, in my opinion abortionists and everyone involved in the evil act should be treated as murderers and accomplices, all should recieve full life sentences for murder without parol. Whether the "state" deems it legal or illegal doesn't change my view on the issue.

Let me ask you a question then; if the pregnancy is one that, for whatever medical reason, will result in the death of the mother for the child to survive, is it acceptable then? If not, you are essentially condemning someone to death and placing the life of one person as more valid than another (essentially doing the exact reverse of someone who is pro-choice) and if so you have accepted the principle that it is all right to kill a person, even an innocent one, under certain circumstances.

That of course is an extreme example, and cannot be applied to all cases where abortion is sought, however (if you accept it) does demonstrate that the issue is not as black and white as both sides tend to claim. It also, in my view, would show that the whole "is it human" debate is really a bit of a smoke screen that distracts us from the real moral and ethical questions.

If you don't accept it, then there's really no difference between you and madser, who seemingly believes that it's a free-for-all until birth - just in reverse.

Stones85 · 07-02-2009 11:41am

well in that extreme rare case, i'd say keeping the child in the womb as long as possible and then delivering early while trying everything to keep the child alive. There is a huge differance there.

I'm not going to get into a debate as to whether a child in the womb is human, it is imo end of. Yes I recognise there can be a lot of emotional factors like rape etc that people throw up to try and justify murdering a child but it just doesn't wash for me. As regards putting 1 life before another, thats what every pro-choice/abortionist does. The right to life comes before all else.

The Corinthian · 07-02-2009 11:49am

Stones85 wrote: »

well in that extreme rare case, i'd say keeping the child in the womb as long as possible and then delivering early while trying everything to keep the child alive.

That could easily not be possible, for example, where very early in a pregnancy the mother requires medical action that if delayed would result in her death, such as cancer of the uterus. Your response is just trying to avoid the question, TBH.

Sometimes, like it or not and however rare, you have to make a clear choice and someone will die. Who will it be?

Stones85 · 07-02-2009 11:57am

The Corinthian wrote: »

That could easily not be possible, for example, where very early in a pregnancy the mother requires medical action that if delayed would result in her death, such as cancer of the uterus. Your response is just trying to avoid the question, TBH.

Sometimes, like it or not and however rare, you have to make a clear choice and someone will die. Who will it be?

Not really avoiding the question as I answered it in my first post, abortion is murder. Everything must be done to save the child, recieving medical treatment like you outlined above is not abortion.

CathyMoran · 07-02-2009 12:01pm

And what about babies that are found to be developing without brains? Should the mother be made to carry them for 9 months knowing that at best they will live for a few days? I am anti-abortion but your views scare me.

Stones85 · 07-02-2009 12:09pm

CathyMoran wrote: »

And what about babies that are found to be developing without brains? Should the mother be made to carry them for 9 months knowing that at best they will live for a few days? I am anti-abortion but your views scare me.

with all respect the last comment means you are not anti-abortion as you condone it in the above case.

Listen to clarify what I'm saying here. I believe that the murder/killing of human beings is inexcusable no matter the situation. While there are infinate situations everyday where taking of human life is thought about, it still doesn't change the fact that it's wrong and a terrible crime. It's either wrong to kill someone or it isn't.

CathyMoran · 07-02-2009 12:18pm

Stones85 wrote: »

with all respect the last comment means you are not anti-abortion as you condone it in the above case.

Listen to clarify what I'm saying here. I believe that the murder/killing of human beings is inexcusable no matter the situation. While there are infinate situations everyday where taking of human life is thought about, it still doesn't change the fact that it's wrong and a terrible crime. It's either wrong to kill someone or it isn't.

I left this thread a while ago as I had a miscarriage at 9.5 weeks and had several people saying that our baby was not a baby. Equally, expecting someone to carry a baby that will not survive is wrong. I also believe that if someone finds out that they have cancer when they are pregnant they should be allowed to abort the baby so that they can have chemo/radiotherapy (only if the treatment necessary would severely hurt the baby) - I was nearly in that situation 2.5 years ago. I dont know what I would do if I found out that a baby that I was carrying would be in severe pain all their life but I would like to think that I would have a chance to abort in Ireland rather than having to go to the UK. I dont believe in abortion on demand.

Sam Vimes · 07-02-2009 12:20pm

madser wrote: »

Science is crytal clear about when a foetus becomes a baby, I don't think its ever changed its mind on that one..........:rolleyes:

No it's not

what is this point?

Sam Vimes · 07-02-2009 12:25pm

CathyMoran wrote: »

Equally, expecting someone to carry a baby that will not survive is wrong.

I'd agree here. If the baby has a condition that's described medically as "incompatible with life" then there's no point giving birth to it. In that case abortion wouldn't be murder, it'd be euthanasia

CathyMoran wrote: »

I also believe that if someone finds out that they have cancer when they are pregnant they should be allowed to abort the baby so that they can have chemo/radiotherapy (only if the treatment necessary would severely hurt the baby).

I'd tend to agree here too. That's coming down to a choice between two lives and forcing the woman not to have chemo therapy is placing her life below the baby's, not equal to it. You can't force someone to give up their life for someone else.

But really everything should be done to prevent that situation occuring in the first place so that choice doesn't have to be made and abortion to save the mother's life is a separate issue to abortion on demand and one can't be used to justify the other

The Corinthian · 07-02-2009 1:24pm

Stones85 wrote: »

Not really avoiding the question as I answered it in my first post, abortion is murder. Everything must be done to save the child, recieving medical treatment like you outlined above is not abortion.

You're completely avoiding the question. It is abortion; it is the termination of a pregnancy resulting in the death of the foetus/child, that's what an abortion is - the justification behind it is irrelevant. If you try to redefine it as something else, you are actually doing the same thing as pro-choicers do when they define the foetus as non-human so as to make it moraly acceptable.

I've asked, in a minority of cases you are faced with either the child or the mother dieing, so for example at week five the mother either gets a hysterectomy or her condition will become terminal.

You've responded with a 'cake and eat it' response, where both can be saved, but that is not always possible and sometimes you have to choose to save only one patient.

Stones85 wrote: »

Listen to clarify what I'm saying here. I believe that the murder/killing of human beings is inexcusable no matter the situation.

However in the scenario I presented someone dies, and either through action or inaction you've still got blood on your hands.

While there are infinate situations everyday where taking of human life is thought about, it still doesn't change the fact that it's wrong and a terrible crime. It's either wrong to kill someone or it isn't.

Is killing an assailant when defending yourself wrong? Is killing in war to repel an invasion on your homeland wrong? Is suicide, when it results in saving the life of another, wrong?

Simply saying that it is either wrong to kill someone or it isn't is a gross oversimplification. Morality does not work that way.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'd agree here. If the baby has a condition that's described medically as "incompatible with life" then there's no point giving birth to it. In that case abortion wouldn't be murder, it'd be euthanasia

Euthanasia is not actually morally accepted by the majority, so it really is a poor example. That's why I have not listed it or capital punishment as 'acceptable' reasons to kill.

Sam Vimes · 07-02-2009 4:19pm

madser wrote: »

The video is not up to much really, just asking people on a pro life rally if women who have abortions should be punished under the law, none of they had and answer just spouted out the usual crap about been sent by God to protest.

You say that as if it makes them hypocrites but it really doesn't. They don't want people to have abortions but they also don't want to see women sent to jail for it. If anything it shows that they're compassionate to both the mother and the child.

I wouldn't like to see women go to jail for it, i'd much rather they saw the error of their ways before they became murderers because they're not really bad people

Sam Vimes · 07-02-2009 4:23pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Euthanasia is not actually morally accepted by the majority, so it really is a poor example. That's why I have not listed it or capital punishment as 'acceptable' reasons to kill.

do you have any statistics to show that the majority don't support it? I thought it was only loony religious types who tried to deny someone's right to end a life that will never know anything but suffering/will always be a brain dead vegetable. That just makes no sense to me. What's the point in keeping a body alive if it's brain dead and has no chance of recovery?

The Corinthian · 07-02-2009 4:39pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

do you have any statistics to show that the majority don't support it? I thought it was only loony religious types who tried to deny someone's right to end a life that will never know anything but suffering/will always be a brain dead vegetable.

The fact that it is illegal in the vast majority of countries and opposed by most mainstream political parties would tend to reflect this. If fairness, this would be a pretty good indicator of overall public opinion.

That just makes no sense to me. What's the point in keeping a body alive if it's brain dead and has no chance of recovery?

Someone might correct me on this, but I believe that in the case of brain death, it is not considered euthanasia as the person is already dead, only their body is ticking over. Euthanasia is debated upon in cases where the person is not brain dead, but in a coma, or where they would argue that their quality of life as to merit the release of death.

TBH, bringing euthanasia into this discussion simply confuses matters and is OT.

Sam Vimes · 07-02-2009 6:28pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

The fact that it is illegal in the vast majority of countries and opposed by most mainstream political parties would tend to reflect this.

personally i'd see that more as political parties being PC because being against it is the easier position to defend from a religious point of view and of course there are lots of religious people who are more difficult to argue with because there's no holy book telling me i'm 100% right

you could be right though, in my circles no one is overly religious and when you take the religious aspect out of it, being against it just makes no sense. but maybe there are more religious people than i think

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, bringing euthanasia into this discussion simply confuses matters and is OT.

i'd agree with you there. cases where a woman is allowed to have an abortion because the baby is going to die anyway due to some medical problem are completely separate to abortion on demand but people have a tendency to try to justify abortion on demand based on such cases

The Corinthian · 07-02-2009 8:17pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you could be right though, in my circles no one is overly religious and when you take the religious aspect out of it, being against it just makes no sense. but maybe there are more religious people than i think

Even if one is not religious, that does not mean that religion has not had an affect on our psyche. As the Jesuit expression goes "give me a boy of seven and I'll give you the man", and whether we hold to religious beliefs or not as adults, it does not change the reality that certain concepts are imprinted upon us in childhood.

As for euthanasia, it's a complex subject and I genuinely think it outside the scope of this one.

philologos · 07-02-2009 8:21pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Even if one is not religious, that does not mean that religion has not had an affect on our psyche. As the Jesuit expression goes "give me a boy of seven and I'll give you the man", and whether we hold to religious beliefs or not as adults, it does not change the reality that certain concepts are imprinted upon us in childhood.

As for euthanasia, it's a complex subject and I genuinely think it outside the scope of this one.

So what if Christianity has had an influence on people? This still doesn't make euthanasia or abortion any more ethical surely?

As for what was imprinted on me as a child, my faith was never really as robust as it is now, and I particularly wouldn't have had the same views on abortion than I do now (i.e I would have been indifferent) had I not looked to the Bible for myself.

The Corinthian · 07-02-2009 9:03pm

Jakkass wrote: »

So what if Christianity has had an influence on people? This still doesn't make euthanasia or abortion any more ethical surely?

Neither does it make it less ethical. As I said, it's OT.

As for what was imprinted on me as a child, my faith was never really as robust as it is now, and I particularly wouldn't have had the same views on abortion than I do now (i.e I would have been indifferent) had I not looked to the Bible for myself.

I'm not your therapist, so I can't say.

Sam Vimes · 08-02-2009 2:13am

The Corinthian wrote: »

Even if one is not religious, that does not mean that religion has not had an affect on our psyche. As the Jesuit expression goes "give me a boy of seven and I'll give you the man", and whether we hold to religious beliefs or not as adults, it does not change the reality that certain concepts are imprinted upon us in childhood.

Exactly, someone may not be an overtly religious bible thumper but it would still be religious teachings making them think the way they do. We're in complete agreement here

madser · 08-02-2009 1:59pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No it's not what is this point?

before birth foetus after birth baby, like I say science is crystal clear on this one, you won't see a midwife visiting a newborn and asking the mother hows the foetus;)

madser · 08-02-2009 2:05pm

At the end of the day, religion should be taken out of it, only women of child bearing age should have the ultimate say on abortion because at the end of the day no man is ever gonna have a crisis pregnacy, no priest is gonna have a crisis pregnacy and no old woman is gonna have a crisis pregnacy, I'm not saying these people should not have an opinion but they should keep it to themselves when it comes to crisis pregnancy.

Sam Vimes · 08-02-2009 2:35pm

madser wrote: »

before birth foetus after birth baby, like I say science is crystal clear on this one, you won't see a midwife visiting a newborn and asking the mother hows the foetus;)

Ah i see what you mean now. But what's your point? So it doesn't yet meet science's definition of "baby". Does that somehow mean it's ok to kill it?

I would venture that, no, it doesn't since even in countries with legal abortion the maximum age of the foetus is 24 weeks, and not right up until the point of birth so your arbitrary definition of "baby" is irrelevant

Sam Vimes · 08-02-2009 2:39pm

madser wrote: »

At the end of the day, religion should be taken out of it, only women of child bearing age should have the ultimate say on abortion because at the end of the day no man is ever gonna have a crisis pregnacy, no priest is gonna have a crisis pregnacy and no old woman is gonna have a crisis pregnacy, I'm not saying these people should not have an opinion but they should keep it to themselves when it comes to crisis pregnancy.

Firstly, i'm an atheist so religion is already out of it for me

Now what you describe is perfect logic when only the person making the decision is affected. For example people say gayness is wrong but no one's forcing them to do it, it's two consenting adults doing it so they should mind their own business

But with abortion, it's not just the woman who is affected. She is in the unique situation of having another human being growing inside her who has as much of a right to life as she does. She cannot simply choose to kill another human being because its existence is inconvenient for her

The Corinthian · 08-02-2009 3:43pm

madser wrote: »

before birth foetus after birth baby, like I say science is crystal clear on this one, you won't see a midwife visiting a newborn and asking the mother hows the foetus;)

Actually, you won't hear her calling it a foetus either at three or four months - "Have you felt the foetus kicking yet?".

I'm still wondering if this post-natal definition of 'person hood' would allow abortion at any stage prior to birth in your eyes.

madser wrote: »

At the end of the day, religion should be taken out of it, only women of child bearing age should have the ultimate say on abortion because at the end of the day no man is ever gonna have a crisis pregnacy, no priest is gonna have a crisis pregnacy and no old woman is gonna have a crisis pregnacy, I'm not saying these people should not have an opinion but they should keep it to themselves when it comes to crisis pregnancy.

An opinion? That's nice of you...

If one accepts that it is a person, then it's not as simple because they too are part of that crisis pregnancy. As for science being clear on anything, I've actually already demonstrated it's anything but - something you've conveniently ignored, I noticed.

Indeed, if the issue is about a woman's right to bodily integrity, should a father not be given the option to find alternative accommodation for the foetus?

Once out of the woman's body, her rights have been respected after all.

philologos · 08-02-2009 4:30pm

madser wrote: »

At the end of the day, religion should be taken out of it, only women of child bearing age should have the ultimate say on abortion because at the end of the day no man is ever gonna have a crisis pregnacy, no priest is gonna have a crisis pregnacy and no old woman is gonna have a crisis pregnacy, I'm not saying these people should not have an opinion but they should keep it to themselves when it comes to crisis pregnancy.

Why should it? As a nation with freedom of conscience people should be entitled to their opinions unless you are supporting secular suppression of religious views which would be in violation with the Irish Constitution.

People are always going to form their conscience from religious texts and seek to live their lives by them, and who are you to say whose opinions are valuable and whose are not?

Why should opinions be kept suppressed? Due to your dissapproval? Surely that is just a bit restrictive, and isn't something that is generally associated with Western states? The State has given the people this right to express when they vote, to determine for themselves what is best for the country, and I'm glad and probably very fortunate to have that privilege.

What about mothers who regret their abortions, or abortion survivors? Should these people be allowed their opinions?

The Corinthian · 08-02-2009 5:23pm

Jakkass wrote: »

People are always going to form their conscience from religious texts and seek to live their lives by them

While this may be a shock to you, this is not always the case and it is also by no means certain that it will be in the future.

Don't get me wrong; religion is sociologically a great moral teacher, but it is not the only one, nor may it be a significant one in the future.

Debatable point, and OT, TBH.

madser · 08-02-2009 7:44pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Firstly, i'm an atheist so religion is already out of it for me

Now what you describe is perfect logic when only the person making the decision is affected. For example people say gayness is wrong but no one's forcing them to do it, it's two consenting adults doing it so they should mind their own business

But with abortion, it's not just the woman who is affected. She is in the unique situation of having another human being growing inside her who has as much of a right to life as she does. She cannot simply choose to kill another human being because its existence is inconvenient for her

It is primarily the woman who is affected by a crisis pregnacy and it is the woman who has to make the ultimate decision on abortion, I don't believe in abortion after 24 weeks but as this type of termination is rare its largly a non argument, I personally believe terminations should only be carried out before 12 weeks and only after that in extreme circumstances, but I respect the womans choice at the end of the day.

I don't believe the unborn has the same right to a life as the mother.

The Corinthian · 08-02-2009 8:32pm

madser wrote: »

It is primarily the woman who is affected by a crisis pregnacy and it is the woman who has to make the ultimate decision on abortion

If the woman is the primary one affected, that implies that others are too, albeit less so. How does that work ethically?

I don't believe in abortion after 24 weeks but as this type of termination is rare its largly a non argument

As rare as abortion due to rape or incest? I'm just asking because there's a lot of these rare 'non-arguments' flying about and I don't know which ones I'm supposed to accept.

I don't believe the unborn has the same right to a life as the mother.

You'll have to be more specific; unborn as in not yet born or at some point in gestation? Additionally, no one is suggesting that the mother's right to life be sacrificed for anyone, but what about economic freedom? Does that supersede the right to life of someone or thing else?

Believe me where I say, I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but you are pretty fuzzy on your boundaries and reason here.

Sam Vimes · 08-02-2009 11:20pm

madser wrote: »

I don't believe the unborn has the same right to a life as the mother.

and that of course is the only real point of disagreement between us and the only relevant thing to talk about in these debates

KnifeWRENCH · 11-02-2009 6:44pm

jill_valentine wrote: »

This thread is gonna produce a skewed picture of opinions on the wider issue of whether abortion is right or wrong; I'm pro-choice, so I've got no real opinion about the penalty for illegal abortions.

madser wrote: »

I don't believe the unborn has the same right to a life as the mother.

I would agree with the above.

I am very strongly pro-choice, and one of the very few things that disappoints me about this country is that abortion has remained illegal.

If an unlicenced abortionist carried out an illegal but safe and succesful abortion for a woman who desparately needed it, I'd sooner pat that person on the back and buy them a drink than throw them in jail. I would only be interested in prosecuting them if they botch it and leave the woman harmed.
As for prosecuting the woman - that would be completely out of the question as far as I'm concerned. Having to go through the painful procedure of an abortion and not even being able to have it done in a clinical environment with a licenced professional is punishment enough.

What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?

Comments