What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?

tesslab · 22-01-2009 5:43pm

A country over run with orphanages full of unwanted children? Its a subject nobody will ever agreee on and there is no solution that can suit all. Thats why it always ends up as such a heated debate.
Someone who has never been there or had it happen to someone close to them assume its a lightly made decision because they have never been faced with it. Its very easy to call someone a murderer when you really cant understand it.

Phototoxin · 22-01-2009 5:45pm

Or maybe it's that until the baby/fetus/embryo/zygote/whatever can live outside of the woman, it's still a part of the woman and her body, and the woman's decision to do with her body is noone's but her own and the male contributor to the baby/fetus/embryo/zygote/whatever.

I cannot live outside of having insulin injections 4 times a day, so am I not fully human ?

What? Where did you get that?

First Month
Fertilization, descent of ovum from tube to uterus. Early cell division and formation of embryonic disc from which new organism will develop. Early formation of three layers of cells: (1) the ectoderm, from which sense organs and nervous system will develop (2) the mesoderm, from which circulatory, skeletal and muscular systems will develop (3) the endoderm, from which digestive and some glandular systems will develop

http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/prenataldevelopment.shtml

http://www.webmd.com/baby/healthtool-fetal-development-timeline

What this boils down to is that everyone has a subjective personal view

that does not negate right or wrong however. Just because I subjectively think that the grass is pink does not make it a valid opinion or make it right.

Our society is built on choice. We are all free to chose what we want or do not want unless the need of the greater good outweighs the individual or the acts are immoral.

No we are not all free to choose to do what we will, even within the 'greater good'. With every right comes a responsibiltiy too. The right to choose to have sex comes with the responsilibty of the results of that choice, ie a baby. (and before anyone quotes it and states 'what about rape' we've been through it earlier)
In addition there is a positive link between good maternity care and countries that have tighter restrictions on abortion.

Its debateable whether abortion will fall too, because unlike heinous crimes like rape or paedophilia where there is a readily identifible tangible victim.

there is a tangeable victim, you dont want links to gory pictures of aborted babies I hope!

Legislation allowing abortion for up to 8 weeks would, in my opinion be an acceptable compromise. At that stage I do not believe a "child" in any conventional sense exists.

what makes it different from a 9 week old foetus ? 4,838,400 seconds after conception it is human ?

Not necessary. Not all taking of human life is murder. Criminally it can be seen as self defence, manslaughter or even misadventure. Additionally there are circumstances in which it can be seen as just, such as capital punishment.

the baby is not threatening the life of anyone, nor is abortion manslaughter. it is deliberate hence murder. The greater good argument would be valid if the mothers life was at stake and she had chemo or some other treatment that asa an unfortunate side effect killed her baby. Also its never just to punish the innocent.

Sure it can; the greater good is one classic moral justification where the innocent are punished - civilians die in war, but sometimes this is both unavoidable and necessary.

It doesn't make it right.

You cannot say that a 12-year old girl, pregnant from being raped is the same as a 32-year old woman, who is financially stable and just doesn't want the baby.

they are not the same the foetus are though!

--

Admit when you are wrong.

is it the consensus that he was wrong ? =p (j/k)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to come out as being either pro-choice or pro-life in this discussion, and I've presented both arguments for and against, without prejudice.

you have and fair play to you for being rational and even sided.

Also fair play to all of us as well for not calling each other feminazis or baby killers or conservative catholic numpties or fundies (not catholic btw).

*big hugs*

ntlbell · 22-01-2009 5:54pm

taconnol wrote: »

The circumstances are very much the issue. Life is not black and white. You cannot say that a 12-year old girl, pregnant from being raped is the same as a 32-year old woman, who is financially stable and just doesn't want the baby.

Have you read the full thread if not can you do so?

the circumstances change the outcome of the punishment

if it's a 12yr old girl or a 30yr old woman the rend result is the same a baby is killed.

this doesn't mean they should warrant the same punishment.

the same way a guy who gets in a fight with his friend kicks him in the head during it with a few drinks and accidently kills him to someone who went out and pre mediated murders someone

the circumstances are different the end result the same but the punishment in both cases will be compltley different

so the circumstances only matter when deciding on the punishment

again if you haven't read the full thread this has been gone over all ready do so

Macha · 22-01-2009 5:59pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why not? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I do think it important that you argue logically why.

Also important is to ask if one is morally wrong and the other right, and if so to define why they differ.

No no, fair enough. For me, a woman has the right to control her own body and procreation. In the case of the person who is raped and then becomes pregnant, I consider that person's power of choice over her own procreation was taken away from her. For the state to then enforce that pregnancy just compounds her lack of power.

In the case of someone that becomes pregnant, but not under force (eg, by accident, unplanned etc), I feel that person had total control over her procreation at all times and so the situation is different.

But abortion is such a complex issue. Serious efforts need to go into prevention, such as enforcing and supporting the rights of men, education on sexual health for young people etc. Many young girls who get pregnant feel they must kiss goodbye their homes for a good education and career prospects. We need to address discrimination of mothers in the workplace as well. These are all factors.

I'd just like to point out that there is no substantial evidence that the so-called 'post-abortion syndrome' exists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28050494/from/ET/

Edit: ntlbell, I have read the thread. You're aggressive tone does you no favours

ebmma · 22-01-2009 6:00pm

Phototoxin wrote: »

First Month
Fertilization, descent of ovum from tube to uterus. Early cell division and formation of embryonic disc from which new organism will develop. Early formation of three layers of cells: (1) the ectoderm, from which sense organs and nervous system will develop (2) the mesoderm, from which circulatory, skeletal and muscular systems will develop (3) the endoderm, from which digestive and some glandular systems will develop

http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/prenataldevelopment.shtml

http://www.webmd.com/baby/healthtool-fetal-development-timeline

This is not the same as what he was saying though.

Mesoderm, Ectoderm and endoderm are types of tissue. At that stage they are not differentiated into anyting else. Because people studied this stuff in detail, we know what these tissues will eventually turn into.

It doesn't mean that there's a little underdeveloped brain there already at 3 weeks.

Phototoxin wrote: »

Also fair play to all of us as well for not calling each other feminazis or baby killers or conservative catholic numpties or fundies (not catholic btw). *big hugs*

tesslab · 22-01-2009 6:01pm

"

so the circumstances only matter when deciding on the punishment

Do you not think after an abortion that living with it is not punishment enough??Especially when people who have been there are faced with some of the drivel i've seen on your posts??

ntlbell · 22-01-2009 6:04pm

tesslab wrote: »

"

Do you not think after an abortion that living with it is not punishment enough??Especially when people who have been there are faced with some of the drivel i've seen on your posts??

two best friends.

watching a match himself and his best friend fell out over an argument about the match.

one hit the other he fell and died.

his friend has lost his best mate has to face his friends familiy every day knowing he ended his life and now has to live with for the rest of his life

is that not enough?

he got 8 years.

ntlbell · 22-01-2009 6:05pm

tesslab wrote: »

"
who have been there are faced with some of the drivel i've seen on your posts??

if you have a problem with any part of my posts please quote them and argue against them don't start any childish arguments here this not AH

tesslab · 22-01-2009 6:12pm

Just because someone doesnt agree with you theres no need to take it as personal insult. Argument must be seen from both sides (yours included) and apologies if i've offended you. We are obviously on totally different ends of the scale.

The Corinthian · 22-01-2009 6:31pm

tesslab wrote: »

A country over run with orphanages full of unwanted children?

That's fair enough. However it is a utilitarian argument - that is, if the foetus is not a person, it's irrelevant to the debate and if it is a person you've essentially described a cull.

tesslab wrote: »

Do you not think after an abortion that living with it is not punishment enough??

Depends on the person. Some women are not really all that phased by it psychologically, others never recover.

taconnol wrote: »

For me, a woman has the right to control her own body and procreation.

Yes and no. There are limits to the rights that people have to their own bodies. We don't morally have a right to commit suicide (although this too opens a separate debate). Additionally we do not have the right to act in a certain manner, if it results in the death of another - the right to life supersedes pretty much all other rights in general.

To counter that, neither can we be forced to act in a certain way to save someone - we cannot be forced to donate a non-vital organ to save someone else's life, for example.

Of course, abortion is neither of the two cases above, but they do raise interesting questions. Certainly, more so that the whole 'is it a person' discussion, which I do feel is a bit of a cop-out.

metrovelvet · 22-01-2009 6:43pm

For those arguing tit for tat over 22 or 23 weeks - if its about the woman's right to choose and her body blah blah blah, then it really doesnt matter how far a long the baby has progressed now does it?

And to throw another complication into the mix, dates are not precise and some babies develop in utero faster than others, another reason why this tit for tat over drawing a line over gestational periods doesn't make much sense as to when "it becomes a person."

ebmma · 22-01-2009 6:44pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Depends on the person. Some women are not really all that phased by it psychologically, others never recover.

I don't think I get it.
Never recovering seems pretty pointless. Surely that means it was not a right decision?

If "not all that phased" means go on to live a happy fulfilling life maybe with several wanted children later on, it seems like a good thing.

You can view not having a child as punishment, if you assume having a child is an ultimate good. (valid point).

Otherwise it seems like a woman is supposed to be doomed to a post-abortion mental illness which is just not the case.

ntlbell · 22-01-2009 6:45pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

For those arguing tit for tat over 22 or 23 weeks - if its about the woman's right to choose and her body blah blah blah, then it really doesnt matter how far a long the baby has progressed now does it?

And to throw another complication into the mix, dates are not precise and some babies develop in utero faster than others, another reason why this tit for tat over drawing a line over gestational periods doesn't make much sense as to when "it becomes a person."

I'm not titting for tatting over it I was honestly curious to hear what people thought the difference was as one said they were fine as long as it wasn't gone after the 24th week so it's only natural to ask what's so special about it no?

ebmma · 22-01-2009 6:47pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

For those arguing tit for tat over 22 or 23 weeks - if its about the woman's right to choose and her body blah blah blah, then it really doesnt matter how far a long the baby has progressed now does it?

Yes it does.
One of the safer ways to have a late term abortion is induced labour (thought scares me frankly).

If it turns out that with current medical advances a baby born at 22 weeks can survive it can be put up for adoption.

If a woman went so far in the pregnancy she might as well carry on with it if baby is ok (that's for 'why 24 weeks')

ntlbell · 22-01-2009 6:47pm

ebmma wrote: »

I don't think I get it.
Never recovering seems pretty pointless. Surely that means it was not a right decision?

If "not all that phased" means go on to live a happy fulfilling life maybe with several wanted children later on, it seems like a good thing.

You can view not having a child as punishment, if you assume having a child is an ultimate good. (valid point).

Otherwise it seems like a woman is supposed to be doomed to a post-abortion mental illness which is just not the case.

you thank a post that states that she has to live with it for the rest of her life is punishment enough

now someone says well it won't affect some people so they wouldn't be punished?

how can you not get what you thanked?

Macha · 22-01-2009 6:50pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes and no. There are limits to the rights that people have to their own bodies. We don't morally have a right to commit suicide (although this too opens a separate debate). Additionally we do not have the right to act in a certain manner, if it results in the death of another - the right to life supersedes pretty much all other rights in general.

You kinda took that sentence out of context. It was part of a larger argument that women have the rights to control their own bodies and procreation but if they mess up then they throw away that right. My take on it isn't as absolute as you took it to be.

It's funny you bring up the right to life as superceding all others. I consider the concept of life as being the most important thing, regardless of quality etc as a very bizarre one.

The Corinthian · 22-01-2009 6:54pm

ebmma wrote: »

Never recovering seems pretty pointless. Surely that means it was not a right decision?

I was responding to the point of "do you not think after an abortion that living with it is not punishment enough?"

For some women "living with it" is a big deal, even if they ultimately believe that it was the right choice for them. With others it does not affect them.

So if someone is arguing that "living with it" is "punishment enough", then the answer (assuming punishment is warranted, of course) is no in many cases, because it has had little effect upon them.

ebmma · 22-01-2009 6:54pm

ntlbell wrote: »

you thank a post that states that she has to live with it for the rest of her life is punishment enough

now someone says well it won't affect some people so they wouldn't be punished?

how can you not get what you thanked?

I prefer if author of the post answers my question.

"Never recovers" suggests regrets and unhappiness.

Living with it for the rest of your life does not have to be negative.
I could have moved to a different country but I decided not to.
I could have married this guy, but married another.

Everyone makes life-altering decisions that one has to live with for the rest of one's life.

It doesn't mean you never recover.

ntlbell · 22-01-2009 6:57pm

ebmma wrote: »

I prefer if author of the post answers my question.

"Never recovers" suggests regrets and unhappiness.

Living with it for the rest of your life does not have to be negative.
I could have moved to a different country but I decided not to.
I could have married this guy, but married another.

Everyone makes life-altering decisions that one has to live with for the rest of one's life.

It doesn't mean you never recover.

I would prefer certain people didn't post on my threads at all but alas I can't make that desicion.

I wasn't answering the question I was asking you one.

exactly so the fact you have to live with it (the post you thanked) was enough punishment which you agree with.

if it doesn't bother someone to have an abortion which they're many people then they don't get punished in anyway not even the fact they had to go trhough what they did as it didn't bother them in the first place

see?

The Corinthian · 22-01-2009 6:58pm

taconnol wrote: »

It's funny you bring up the right to life as superceding all others. I consider the concept of life as being the most important thing, regardless of quality etc as a very bizarre one.

Fair point. I suppose I was working from the assumption that the right to life supersedes all others in Western morality (although there are exceptions to this too) and why suicide and euthanasia are considered immoral (by most).

ebmma · 22-01-2009 7:15pm

ntlbell wrote: »

if it doesn't bother someone to have an abortion which they're many people then they don't get punished in anyway not even the fact they had to go trhough what they did as it didn't bother them in the first place

see?

No. I don't see.
I cannot see how it can "not bother" at all.

Not even from the having a medical procedure done. Are we talking about a person capable of thought and feeling or not?

Mr. Incognito · 22-01-2009 7:18pm

if it doesn't bother someone to have an abortion which they're many people then they don't get punished in anyway not even the fact they had to go trhough what they did as it didn't bother them in the first place

see?

This sentence does not make grammatical sense. It hurts my head even reading it.

Ntl/ Brian,

I find it impossible to have a reasoned debate with you. You do not make rational points, you ignored my direct question asking for you to articulate the reasons for your belief and your views are entrenched and frankly, at times, childish and niave in your approach. Half the time I think you're trolling with the things you say. Though I respect your views I will not be getting involved with your opinions on this thread any more. Live and let live, (which ironically is probably where you are coming from)

Now this is a reasoned argument:

that does not negate right or wrong however. Just because I subjectively think that the grass is pink does not make it a valid opinion or make it right.

Ah, but right and wrong are subjective. That's why we have objective laws. hat you view as wrong is not the same as me.

No we are not all free to choose to do what we will, even within the 'greater good'. With every right comes a responsibiltiy too. The right to choose to have sex comes with the responsilibty of the results of that choice, ie a baby. (and before anyone quotes it and states 'what about rape' we've been through it earlier)
In addition there is a positive link between good maternity care and countries that have tighter restrictions on abortion.

I'd like to see evidence of better maternity care in countries with restrictions on abortion. Good maternity care generally comes from a better standard of living and I believe in Western Europe we are one of the few countries that have abortion.
With every right comes a responsibility. Correct, but the omission of certain rights in society must be for a reason or we are not truly living in a free society. Some people do not chose to become pregnant or to have sex (rape/ incest etc) The view that, "well you had sex, tough titty, smacks of lazy condecension. They are being denied a right in this territorry freely available elsewhere on moral grounds with are in my opinion not in keeping with the reasoned view of the majority of people in this country.

there is a tangeable victim, you dont want links to gory pictures of aborted babies I hope!

At 20+ weeks I might be inclined to agree with you. At 8 weeks I cannot.

what makes it different from a 9 week old foetus ? 4,838,400 seconds after conception it is human ?

Not much but there is a BIG difference between it and a 39 week old baby.

the baby is not threatening the life of anyone, nor is abortion manslaughter. it is deliberate hence murder. The greater good argument would be valid if the mothers life was at stake and she had chemo or some other treatment that asa an unfortunate side effect killed her baby. Also its never just to punish the innocent.

Exactly. Innocent women are being punished by having to procure abortions abroad and then hide them from their loved ones out of shame and stigma.
A foetus is not a person until it is fully formed imo. This is why I disagree with terms like murder.

Sure it can; the greater good is one classic moral justification where the innocent are punished - civilians die in war, but sometimes this is both unavoidable and necessary.

It doesn't make it right.

As a pacifist I totally agree with you.

metrovelvet · 22-01-2009 7:18pm

ntlbell wrote: »

I'm not titting for tatting over it I was honestly curious to hear what people thought the difference was as one said they were fine as long as it wasn't gone after the 24th week so it's only natural to ask what's so special about it no?

Sure. But what I dont get is the womens right to choose brigade justifying it with its not a real person, ie its not murder, until the 24th week of gestation. If it is about the woman's right to choose, then it should make no difference how far along the pregnancy is before she has to right to abort.

22-01-2009 7:27pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Sure. But what I dont get is the womens right to choose brigade justifying it with its not a real person, ie its not murder, until the 24th week of gestation. If it is about the woman's right to choose, then it should make no difference how far along the pregnancy is before she has to right to abort.

Why can't it be a combination? It's her right to choose AND it's considered not a person albeit a bit of a grey area.

ntl wrote:

With every right comes a responsibiltiy too. The right to choose to have sex comes with the responsilibty of the results of that choice, ie a baby.

Yes, and one way of dealing with that responsibility, if the woman feels it necessary, is to go have an abortion. "I don't like that decision" != irresponsible.
Not to mention consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, maybe I should drag up the car crash analogy

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 7:28pm

bluewolf wrote: »

Because it's a non-sentient clump of cells at early stage?

http://www.leedsreproductivemedicine.co.uk/images/sixcell_embryo.jpg
is not the same as
http://ecostreet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/baby-gown.jpg

that's not really a reason to kill it. it's still an innocent human life. its brain may not have developed yet but that doesn't make it ok to kill it

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 7:29pm

jill_valentine wrote: »

Every time you don't have sex you prevent a would-be pregnancy.

there's a difference between preventing a pregnancy and terminating it

The Corinthian · 22-01-2009 7:30pm

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Ah, but right and wrong are subjective.

Yup.

That's why we have objective laws.

Nope. Laws are based upon that aforementioned subjective right and wrong. So the law may be logical, if it is based upon a flawed axiom, it will in turn be flawed. Logic is only as good as the presumptions it starts from, after all.

Otherwise they'd never get amended or repealed.

A foetus is not a person until it is fully formed imo.

Isn't opinion a dangerous basis for defining humanity?

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 7:31pm

bluewolf wrote: »

There is no "start of life". Sperm and ova are not non-life.

In my opinion, roughly depending on brain development.

you're right, sperm and ova are not life. a new life is formed when they fuse and form the zygote. if it's not alive until the brain develops, how exactly is it growing to develop the brain?

22-01-2009 7:31pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

that's not really a reason to kill it.

No there are plenty of other reasons to.

it's still an innocent human life. its brain may not have developed yet but that doesn't make it ok to kill it

My toenail is innocent and has living human cells and no brain. Is it not ok to chop it off?

Why do people even bother calling it "innocent", nobody has ever suggested the fetus is "guilty" of anything, nor is it capable. Enough of the emotional appeals already

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you're right, sperm and ova are not life. a new life is formed when they fuse and form the zygote. if it's not alive until the brain develops, how exactly is it growing to develop the brain?

I didn't say they weren't a life. I said they're not non-life because they're living cells, therefore life. Following on from that, there is no "start of life" because a pregnancy does not involve non-living matter spontaneously transforming into living.
Please read my post more carefully.

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 7:32pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

I disagree.

For the most part those who do preform abortions where they are legal
do so in order to provide safe medical terminations to women
rather then have them seek out unsafe back street abortions or to
try and preform them on themselves which are a risks to their life's, health and fertility.

saying women will get back street abortions is only a reason to legalise it if you don't think there's anything wrong with it in the first place.

people also buy back street heroin. does that mean we should make it legal?

ebmma · 22-01-2009 7:36pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Sure. But what I dont get is the womens right to choose brigade justifying it with its not a real person, ie its not murder, until the 24th week of gestation. If it is about the woman's right to choose, then it should make no difference how far along the pregnancy is before she has to right to abort.

If it sufficiently far along "abortion" doesn't make any sense.

38-week abortion?

It is going to be either C-section or induced labour anyway. A baby at that number of weeks is perfectly capable of surviving outside mother.

It is a baby born slightly premature. It is not an enviable foetus.

It just makes no sense.

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 7:38pm

bluewolf wrote: »

No there are plenty of other reasons to.

if you consider the foetus to be a human with rights, there are no reasons whatsoever.

bluewolf wrote: »

My toenail is innocent and has living human cells and no brain. Is it not ok to chop it off?

if i cut off your toe nail, you will still be alive. a foetus is [a]a human life[/b]. it is not a small component of a human without which the human itself can survive. if you kill the foetus, you kill the human

bluewolf wrote: »

I didn't say they weren't a life. I said they're not non-life because they're living cells, therefore life. Following on from that, there is no "start of life" because a pregnancy does not involve non-living matter spontaneously transforming into living.
Please read my post more carefully.

i read your post perfectly thank you very much. this comes back to the difference between being alive as a cell that forms part of a body, and being a life. i could kill many of your cells without doing you any harm and there would be no problem with that because you would still be alive. and if that's what abortion was i wouldn't have any problem with it. however, with abortion a human being is killed by being taken out of the environment where it can survive. it is not the same as removing a toe nail, it's more comparable to shooting you in the head

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 7:39pm

bluewolf wrote:

/facepalm
She very clearly said "people who perform abortions where they are legal".
Not "people should perform abortions legally where they were previously illegal".

she also said "rather then have them seek out unsafe back street abortions" which is the part i was responding to. so facepalm yourself lady

22-01-2009 7:40pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

if you consider the foetus to be a human with rights, there are no reasons whatsoever.

And if you don't, there are.

Glad we got that cleared up.

i read your post perfectly thank you very much.

So why did you quote me saying a sperm and ova are life and reply "you're right, they're not life" ?

this comes back to the difference between being alive as a cell that forms part of a body, and being a life.
i could kill many of your cells without doing you any harm and there would be no problem with that because you would still be alive. and if that's what abortion was i wouldn't have any problem with it. however, with abortion a human being is killed by being taken out of the environment where it can survive. it is not the same as removing a toe nail, it's more comparable to shooting you in the head

So you're arguing personhood perhaps? Except at an early stage with no brain development or much of anything, it's a clump of cells, there isn't any person there. There is no "you" to remove.

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 7:41pm

ebmma wrote: »

If it sufficiently far along "abortion" doesn't make any sense.

38-week abortion?

It is going to be either C-section or induced labour anyway. A baby at that number of weeks is perfectly capable of surviving outside mother.

It is a baby born slightly premature. It is not an enviable foetus.

It just makes no sense.

imo the term abortion never makes sense. i believe that the term should be "murder" regardless of how developed the human being in the womb might be

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 7:46pm

bluewolf wrote: »

And if you don't, there are.

Glad we got that cleared up.

that's actually a point i made in the last one of these threads. the only thing that matters in these debates is whether the foetus is a clump of cells that can be discarded or a human being. any other points that are made on top of that only work if you assume one or the other to be true.

eg people say that it's traumatic for the mother but if the foetus is a human being with rights, i don't give a sh!te whatever trauma the woman might be under, it doesn't allow her to kill a human being and if pro abortionists thought the foetus had rights, they wouldn't give a sh!te either

bluewolf wrote: »

So why did you quote me saying a sperm and ova are life and reply "you're right, they're not life" ?

you're actually right, i did mis read that

the point that i made still stands though. the sperm is a cell, a component of your body. the foetus is a human being, not a disposable component of a human being

bluewolf wrote: »

So you're arguing personhood perhaps? Except at an early stage with no brain development or much of anything, it's a clump of cells, there isn't any person there. There is no "you" to remove.

no i'm not arguing personhood. personhood is what pro abortionists argue. i'm arguing that it's a human being and not the same as a finger nail

Macha · 22-01-2009 7:47pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

imo the term abortion never makes sense. i believe that the term should be "murder" regardless of how developed the human being in the womb might be

What about the physical and mental health of the mother?

ebmma · 22-01-2009 7:48pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

imo the term abortion never makes sense. i believe that the term should be "murder" regardless of how developed the human being in the womb might be

We heard the M-word already.

Your comment has no relation to my post to Metro

ntlbell · 22-01-2009 7:49pm

bluewolf wrote: »

So you're arguing personhood perhaps? Except at an early stage with no brain development or much of anything, it's a clump of cells, there isn't any person there. There is no "you" to remove.

I'm starting to tire of asking this.

How do you personally define "you" ? is it skin? bones? blood? brain waves? thoughts? eyes? hands? feelings? can you explain what you define to be "you"

Can you give us an idea at what stage of pregancy you would be ok with someone aborting it?

when the brain starts to grow? the heart? the spine? they start to have thoughts?

2 weeks? 3? 4?

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 7:51pm

taconnol wrote: »

What about the physical and mental health of the mother?

what about a woman who can't handle her 6 month old child and drowns it? should her mental health be considered in that case?

imo that is no different to abortion. the foetus is a human being and its right to life supersedes the woman's desire for good mental health

but you also say physical health. as i said, if the choice is between the life of the child and the mental health of the woman, the child wins but if it's between the life of the child and the life of the mother (ie she will die if she keeps the pregnancy), the mother wins

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 7:52pm

ebmma wrote: »

We heard the M-word already.

Your comment has no relation to my post to Metro

what do you mean, of course it does

you said the term abortion doesn't make sense at 38 weeks and i said it never makes sense. it was a relevant post

ebmma · 22-01-2009 7:53pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

if it's between the life of the child and the life of the mother (ie she will die if she keeps the pregnancy), the mother wins

Just out of curiosity, why?
Why not carry it further and say to hell with the mother, she lived already, child hasn't, so it "wins" too?

karen3212 · 22-01-2009 7:54pm

CathyMoran wrote: »

(physically, not mental health) [/QUOTE

I don't understand why people dismiss mental wellbeing so easily. What about women who've had a parent with a debilitating mental illness, and who themselves fear that the fear and stress of a pregnancy may bring about an illness in themselves?

tbh I think the vast majority of women that have abortions suffer enough as it is, I don't really see why one would punish them further.

ntlbell · 22-01-2009 7:56pm

karen3212 wrote: »

(physically, not mental health) [/QUOTE

I don't understand why people dismiss mental wellbeing so easily. What about women who've had a parent with a debilitating mental illness, and who themselves fear that the fear and stress of a pregnancy may bring about an illness in themselves?

tbh I think the vast majority of women that have abortions suffer enough as it is, I don't really see why one would punish them further.

what if the mother with a debilitating mental illness murdered they''re kid after they were born ? would that be ok?

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 7:57pm

ebmma wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, why?
Why not carry it further and say to hell with the mother, she lived already, child hasn't, so it "wins" too?

because no one's right to life supersedes someone else's. it is a difficult choice to make but i suppose when you have to make that decision, it's "easier" to kill the person who can't look you in the eye while you're doing it.

but that's a difficult choice made under difficult circumstances and not the same as killing a baby because it's too inconvenient to bring it to term and have it adopted

Macha · 22-01-2009 7:57pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

what about a woman who can't handle her 6 month old child and drowns it? should her mental health be considered in that case?

Yes, if she is proven to have a mental illness.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

imo that is no different to abortion. the foetus is a human being and its right to life supersedes the woman's desire for good mental health

Woman's "desire" for good mental health? Does a woman not have a "right" to good mental health?

Also, why are you so sure that the carrying of the pregnancy will only result in a deteriorated mental health and not death?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

but you also say physical health. as i said, if the choice is between the life of the child and the mental health of the woman, the child wins but if it's between the life of the child and the life of the mother (ie she will die if she keeps the pregnancy), the mother wins

And what about if the woman will be seriously and permanently injured as a result of giving birth or being pregnant?

I find a lot of the extreme anti-abortionists are have a common tendency to see everything in black and white.

ebmma · 22-01-2009 7:58pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

what do you mean, of course it does

you said the term abortion doesn't make sense at 38 weeks and i said it never makes sense. it was a relevant post

No. Metro was wondering why the number of weeks of pregnancy makes a difference if pro-choice people say it is woman's body and woman's choice.

I said why.

If you are very strongly pro-life there's absolutely nothing I can say or do that would make you see a different point of view.

It is an axiom - abortion=murder.

It is, however, not an axiom for a pro-choice person.

ebmma · 22-01-2009 8:01pm

ntlbell wrote: »

what if the mother with a debilitating mental illness murdered they''re kid after they were born ? would that be ok?

Are you serious?

I can see why a previous poster thought you might be trolling.

I don't think there's any reasoning with you.

ntlbell · 22-01-2009 8:02pm

taconnol wrote: »

And what about if the woman will be seriously and permanently injured as a result of giving birth or being pregnant?

I find a lot of the extreme anti-abortionists are have a common tendency to see everything in black and white.

and I find people who are pro choice or pro life come up with nonsensical scenario's to try and make pro life people "think"

lets get this clear

WE KNOW LIFE IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE

so if anyone wants to band that nonsense around again please revert back to this post WE KNOW.....

if the birth of the child is not going to end someone else's life there is no NO reason to murder it.....

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 8:03pm

taconnol wrote: »

Yes, if she is proven to have a mental illness.

well that's not really the same thing now is it? you say that someone would have to have a mental illness to get away with killing a 6 month old baby but there are no such objections if she's killing while it's still in her womb. imo they're the same thing

taconnol wrote: »

Woman's "desire" for good mental health? Does a woman not have a "right" to good mental health?

yes she does but if she has to kill a human being to get it, be it a 6 month old foetus or a 6 month old baby, then i'm afraid she's out of luck

taconnol wrote: »

Also, why are you so sure that the carrying of the pregnancy will only result in a deteriorated mental health and not death?

And what about if the woman will be seriously and permanently injured as a result of giving birth or being pregnant?

I find a lot of the extreme anti-abortionists are have a common tendency to see everything in black and white.

that's a difficult choice to make and i don't have a black and white answer for you. my objection to abortion is the idea that there's nothing wrong with it because it's just a clump of cells. when the life/physical health of the mother is at risk it's a completely separate issue

What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?

Comments