Jail time for women who get abortions?

[mikejones99]

es should get jail time for NOT gettng an abortion, unless they are married, over 26 and have $100k in the bank. Many more women in prison videos too.

[Spurminator]

Just to be clear: If a woman decides to abort the day before her sechuled c-section in her 40th week of pregnancy, you believe it is her right to do so and what she is killing is not a baby, not a human being . . . just a fetus.

I would question her logic since they would still have to remove a relatively large body from her womb either way.

Anyway, the problem with this debate is that it too often relies on hypotheticals and fantasies about the women having abortions. 99.999% of abortions are nothing like the hypothetical scenarios presented in these arguments.

[Yonivore]

I would question her logic since they would still have to remove a relatively large body from her womb either way.

Anyway, the problem with this debate is that it too often relies on hypotheticals and fantasies about the women having abortions. 99.999% of abortions are nothing like the hypothetical scenarios presented in these arguments.

You're right, 99.999% of abortions are purely for the convenience of the mother.

[smeagol]

Anyway, the problem with this debate is that it too often relies on hypotheticals and fantasies about the women having abortions. 99.999% of abortions are nothing like the hypothetical scenarios presented in these arguments.

I see the problem as cultural. You either see abortion as killing a human being or you don't. It is either right or wrong. I agree with you, for pro-lifers you have to go all the way and say abortion is wrong since conception because it is impossible to draw a line. Especially when you ar dealing with a human life.

I'm amazed that people who have kids, and have gone through the sheer joy of having a baby and watch it grow through those incredible nine months, can still be pro choice.

You guys think abortions don't kill beings that feel what is going on? You think they don't feel the pain? Or you guys think you are simply killing "things"?

Hearing some of you makes me understand better the Culture of Death concept John Paul II talked about.

[Spurminator]

I see the problem as cultural. You either see abortion as killing a human being or you don't.

But I think you can believe that life begins at conception and still be pro-choice.

[Yonivore]

But I think you can believe that life begins at conception and still be pro-choice.

Absolutely, but I think that makes you a murderer.

[Spurminator]

So what's the penalty?

[Yonivore]

So what's the penalty?

The state's unwillingness to prosecute doesn't necessarily mean a crime wasn't committed.

[Spurminator]

But if the state did prosecute?

[smeagol]

If my 15 yr old daughter comes home and tells me she's pregnant I am going to leave it up to her to decide what she wants to do.

According to your other quotes, if she is less than three months pregnant you would tell her it is ok to abort the pregnancy. If she is more than three months, and she really wants to abort, then you will tell her it is not what you reccomend, but she should go ahead because you don't feel to strongly about what the nature of what she carries inside is: is it a person? is it a human being? is it worth the sacrifice? or is it just a life which is all right to kill just because . . . ?

[DarkReign]

My personal position is that abortion is a disturbing and ugly practice, but not nearly as disturbing and ugly as a government forcing a woman to finish an unwanted pregnancy against her will. The solution to this, therefore, should first address our society's obsession with sex and its ignorance about safe sex.

Well, thats a nice way of not making any sort of decision. People are going to have sex, like it or not, out of wedlock, in wedlock, in high school, in junior high, in cars, in parking lots, in public, at all ages.

Making some sort of grandiose statement that we should "address our society's obsession with sex" is delusional.

Its not our society, its our species. Humans like to screw. All over the world. From the really rich, to the really poor, we all like to screw.

Britain has the same problem with abortion, so does Spain, Russia, France, Mexico, etc. People like to screw, especially without protection. Its been that way for centuries, it will continue to be that way for centuries more.

So basically, by addressing this "situation" youre addressing every carnal impulse a human has and trying to re-educate us into what we should be doing? Yeah....good luck with that. Real good luck.

Its either you are "for" or "against". Its either "legal" or "illegal". Go ahead and make it illegal. This wouldnt be the first country to make it a crime, and might not be the last. Backdoor "doctors" with coathangers are looking forward to the outlaw. Its going to be cheap, dirty, violent and prevelant in every major city across the country. There is going to be a weekly (maybe monthly) total deaths due to backdoor abortions. Its going to be great! We, the chosen ones, will be able to comfort ourselves with the thoughts of how those people shouldnt have been getting an abortion anyway, so they got what they deserved.

Only it wont stop. The numbers continue to grow and grow. As the divide between rich and poor widens ever further, and the middle class is slowly but surely eroded away, the numbers will grow and grow, at faster and faster rates.

The ones who can afford it, or are regionally close, will just go to Canada. But the majority of the southern states will just get worse and worse.

But, these are morals, people! We dont compromise them! We do not waver from them! Screw the immoral heathens! Let death release their tainted spirit. Amen.

[Yonivore]

But if the state did prosecute?

Well, if the state did prosecute, I would think the crime would be murder.

What's your point?

[smeagol]

But I think you can believe that life begins at conception and still be pro-choice.

That is an uncomfortable place to be.

Would be interesting to know those guys POV?

[DarkReign]

I see the problem as cultural. You either see abortion as killing a human being or you don't. It is either right or wrong. I agree with you, for pro-lifers you have to go all the way and say abortion is wrong since conception because it is impossible to draw a line. Especially when you ar dealing with a human life.

I'm amazed that people who have kids, and have gone through the sheer joy of having a baby and watch it grow through those incredible nine months, can still be pro choice.

You guys think abortions don't kill beings that feel what is going on? You think they don't feel the pain? Or you guys think you are simply killing "things"?

Hearing some of you makes me understand better the Culture of Death concept John Paul II talked about.

Is abortion legal in Argentina?

[smeagol]

Is abortion legal in Argentina?

To the best of my knowledge, it is illegal. But they are trying to make it legal.

[Spurminator]

Well, if the state did prosecute, I would think the crime would be murder.

What's your point?

The same as the original point of the thread. Thank you for gradually working your way to an answer.

[George Gervin's Afro]

According to your other quotes, if she is less than three months pregnant you would tell her it is ok to abort the pregnancy. If she is more than three months, and she really wants to abort, then you will tell her it is not what you reccomend, but she should go ahead because you don't feel to strongly about what the nature of what she carries inside is: is it a person? is it a human being? is it worth the sacrifice? or is it just a life which is all right to kill just because . . . ?

It's her choice.

[Wild Cobra]

Hot topic, huh…

For those of you who are pro abortion, yet against the death penalty, why? Why do you condone the execution of an innocent before it takes it’s first breath, but protect one who is a cancer on society? Don’t give me that the woman can do with her body as she wishes, that is an evil excuse. Once an embryo starts forming, she is carrying a part of life that is not just her any longer. Nature has placed her in charge to protect this new life.

I saw the question raised about social spending as if requiring women to keep their babies will increase the social program burden. Typical myopic liberals. You look at the economics of this nation being static rather than dynamic. Yes, for a short period, it will cause in increase in social spending if we required women to bear their children rather than execute them. However, the teaching in schools will change. Right now, abortion is taught as a form of birth control. When that changes, and teachers start telling students they well have to bear the burden of birthing, and raising the child or letting it be adopted, the amount of unwanted pregnancies will decrease.

Another social spending issue is that if you break it down, most people on government handouts are either irresponsible or lazy. It would help to force responsibility on those who are irresponsible and force able bodies people to work, even if it’s picking berries to replace the shortage of illegal aliens in the fields.

It was pointed out that the baby’s brain is formed and the baby can feel pain at twelve weeks. Know what a typical abortion procedure entails after 12 weeks? The fetus is sometimes cut up for removal. Isn’t that as cruel as hanged, drawn and quartered?

From wiki, Hanged, Drawn and Quartered:

1. Dragged on a hurdle (a wooden frame) to the place of execution. (This is one possible meaning of drawn.)
2. Hanged by the neck for a short time or until almost dead. (hanged).
3. Disembowelled and emasculated, and the genitalia and entrails burned before the condemned's eyes (This is another meaning of drawn. It is often used in cookbooks to denote the disembowelment of chicken or rabbit carcasses before cooking).[2]
4. Beheaded and the body divided into four parts (quartered).

[George Gervin's Afro]

10 Years ago, a 5 1/2 month old fetus couldn't survive outside the womb but, now they can. What's your point?


Wow! Talk about throwing your teenager under the bus. Do you advocate her making all life-and-death decisions without the benefit of your wisdom?

I guess I have 2 options force her to have a baby against her will or force her to have an abortion.

[Spurminator]

Well, thats a nice way of not making any sort of decision. People are going to have sex, like it or not, out of wedlock, in wedlock, in high school, in junior high, in cars, in parking lots, in public, at all ages.

Making some sort of grandiose statement that we should "address our society's obsession with sex" is delusional.

Its not our society, its our species. Humans like to screw. All over the world. From the really rich, to the really poor, we all like to screw.

Britain has the same problem with abortion, so does Spain, Russia, France, Mexico, etc. People like to screw, especially without protection. Its been that way for centuries, it will continue to be that way for centuries more.

So basically, by addressing this "situation" youre addressing every carnal impulse a human has and trying to re-educate us into what we should be doing? Yeah....good luck with that. Real good luck.

Its either you are "for" or "against". Its either "legal" or "illegal". Go ahead and make it illegal. This wouldnt be the first country to make it a crime, and might not be the last. Backdoor "doctors" with coathangers are looking forward to the outlaw. Its going to be cheap, dirty, violent and prevelant in every major city across the country. There is going to be a weekly (maybe monthly) total deaths due to backdoor abortions. Its going to be great! We, the chosen ones, will be able to comfort ourselves with the thoughts of how those people shouldnt have been getting an abortion anyway, so they got what they deserved.

Only it wont stop. The numbers continue to grow and grow. As the divide between rich and poor widens ever further, and the middle class is slowly but surely eroded away, the numbers will grow and grow, at faster and faster rates.

The ones who can afford it, or are regionally close, will just go to Canada. But the majority of the southern states will just get worse and worse.

But, these are morals, people! We dont compromise them! We do not waver from them! Screw the immoral heathens! Let death release their tainted spirit. Amen.

You've mistaken my comment to mean we should try to stop people from having sex.

[Yonivore]

I guess I have 2 options force her to have a baby against her will or force her to have an abortion.

Some of us might see those two options as counseling her to preserve life or forcing her to kill.

Same result.

[Yonivore]

Hot topic, huh…

Search the word "abortion" in this forum.

This isn't the first time we've tackled this topic, ad nauseum, to no avail. It won't be the last.

Enjoy the fray. Nothing will be resolved.

[DarkReign]

You've mistaken my comment to mean we should try to stop people from having sex.

Bah, it wasnt really directed at you. I should have said as much.

What it was directed at is this idea that education will curb the trend. It will not. The education system cant even reach minimal graduation levels, yet its going to be the magic bullet that enlightens all young people to have protected sex?

Interesting theory-world.

[sabar]

Pro-choice people might want to come up with a better argument. I like Peter Singer's logic, which I'll just copy-paste:

Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being's ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in, among other things, the ability to plan and anticipate one's future. Since the unborn, infants and severely disabled people lack the latter (but not the former) ability, he states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be justified in certain special cir stances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.

In his view the central argument against abortion is It is wrong to kill an innocent human being; a human fetus is an innocent human being; therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus. He challenges the second premise, on the grounds that its reference to human beings is ambiguous as between human beings in the zoological sense and persons as rational and self-conscious. There is no sanc y of human life that confers moral protection on human beings in the zoological sense. Until the capacity for pain develops after "18 weeks of gestation", abortion terminates an existence that has no intrinsic value (as opposed to the value it might have in virtue of being valued by the parents or others). As it develops the features of a person, it has moral protections that are comparable to those that should be extended to nonhuman life as well. He also rejects a backup argument against abortion that appeals to potential: It is wrong to kill a potential human being; a human fetus is a potential human being; therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus. The second premise is more plausible, but its first premise is less plausible, and Singer denies that what is potentially an X should have the same value or moral rights as what is already an X. Against those who stress the continuity of our existence from conception to adulthood, he poses the example of an embryo in a dish on a laboratory bench, which he calls Mary. Now if it divides into two identical embryos, there is no way to answer the question whether Mary dies, or continues to exist, or is replaced by Jane and Susan. These are absurd questions, he thinks, and their absurdity casts doubt on the view that the embryo is a human being in the morally significant sense.

Singer classifies euthanasia as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. Given his consequentialist approach, the difference between active and passive euthanasia is not morally significant, for the required act/omission doctrine is untenable; killing and letting die are on a moral par when their consequences are the same. Voluntary euthanasia, undertaken with the consent of the subject, is supported by the autonomy of persons and their freedom to waive their rights, especially against a legal background such as the guidelines developed by the courts in the Netherlands. Non-voluntary euthanasia at the beginning or end of life's journey, when the capacity to reason about what is at stake is undeveloped or lost, is justified when swift and painless killing is the only alternative to suffering for the subject.

In essence, if you support abortion logically, it should be at any time and you should also support infanticide. How many people here would say that though? 0. People base what time abortion is OK on absurd and pointless principles, they make no sense logically. Why is it OK to abort a 5 month fetus and wrong to euthanize a 1 year old infant? Neither has any intristic value, they are both unwanted, they both have so little sentience they are hardly aware of their existence and they have no plans to live on to another day.

I'll answer why, because infanticide is taboo and the lefty's siding on that would be social suicide, even if the logic is flawless.

As for me, I believe Singer has a critical flaw in giving potential no value. If the potential life will not complicate the life of the host, then it is immoral to kill it.

Now for a thinking game.

You walk into a hospital fully aware that there is a chance that you'll be drugged, but you gain immense pleasure from it. You do it anyways. You wake up finding yourself hooked up to a machine keeping a world-famous violinist alive. The condition: stay hooked up for 9 months, then you're unhooked and both of you are free to go. You can also unhook yourself from the machine at the cost of the violinist's life. The violinist is a full human being but he has no family and is in a coma, hence he has no outlook on life. He has no value insofar as if you killed him, no one would personally care.

Is it moral to unhook yourself from the machine? What if the violinist was instead a mentally disabled child not even aware of his own existence, moving around while conscious. Is it moral to unhook yourself then? What if the violinist was a dog with no problems but needs to be connected for 9 months?

Fact is, logically, the dog==child==violinist==fetus==infant. If you kill one, there is no reason to kill the rest. Likewise, if you value the life of the infant but have no problem in killing the dog (who by the way has more sentience than the infant), then there is another problem.

Assume no religious arguments as they are not fun. It's always religion's way or nothing, so keep it to logic.

[spurster]

How much jail time for the woman who had an abortion? If you think abortion is murder, are you willing to impose the same penalties?