Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-04-2016, 06:08 PM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(04-04-2016 05:01 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I believe you are being dishonest in your answers as it suites your argument.
OK, I'm trying to be as upfront and honest as I can. I am laying all my cards on the table. If something is missing then please ask me to clarify.
(04-04-2016 05:01 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I will not address each of these because it is becoming rather tedious.
Fair enough, thanks for all your answers to date. I do appreciate the conversation.

(04-04-2016 05:01 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Example: Implying I'd fly to Africa all by my lonesome in an attempt to stop a bloodbath, though I clearly implied that I would be in no position to prevent such a tragedy "If I were in a position to prevent it, I would. I think most people would. "
I never said that you ought to do that. I have not said anything or implied anything as to what you ought to do. I've just been trying to understand how important to you the thing is that you are trying to outlaw.
I've told you why I consider action to be an indicator of importance rather than merely casting a vote. So I've just been trying to find out what would inspire you into action. I'm not telling you what you should do, I'm trying to discover what you think you would do.

(04-04-2016 05:01 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Additionally, you have refused to answer the only question I have asked you
You have asked a few questions and I thought that I had answered them all.
You asked "Let's hear your reasoning, shall we?" and I presented my reasoning to you.
You asked "I'm looking forward to hearing about your reasons for wanting to protect a 9 month old fetus and not wanting to protect the same fetus the next day after making it's escape from the womb."
And I provided my answer to you.
Many times you have provided your opinion on something and I have divulged my opinon on the same thing. I haven't told you that your opinion is wrong, but I have provided my personal view on things.
I think I have been open and honest to this discussion.

What question is it that I haven't answered?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2016, 04:59 AM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(04-04-2016 01:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(04-04-2016 06:34 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  5. If not, at what point do you feel compelled to stop the killing of a developing human? Is it when it exits the womb, when it's 6 months old, 6 years old?
At the point where it becomes dangerous for society and dangerous for me. If people are allowed to kill other people then what is to stop people from killing me or my children?

At what point does it become dangerous for society and dangerous for you? You said you are open to infanticide, what about a mother who kills her 1-year-old? Would you prefer that she be punished? If not, then at what age would you consider it to be punish-worthy? Perhaps you would leave it wide open at first and allow mothers to kill their offspring up to 18 years old until you can gather data on what appears to be dangerous to yourself?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2016, 06:36 AM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(05-04-2016 04:59 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(04-04-2016 01:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  At the point where it becomes dangerous for society and dangerous for me. If people are allowed to kill other people then what is to stop people from killing me or my children?

At what point does it become dangerous for society and dangerous for you? You said you are open to infanticide, what about a mother who kills her 1-year-old? Would you prefer that she be punished? If not, then at what age would you consider it to be punish-worthy? Perhaps you would leave it wide open at first and allow mothers to kill their offspring up to 18 years old until you can gather data on what appears to be dangerous to yourself?

I thought you might be interested to know that legally speeking, infanticide is a crime that does possess a legal definition in most country. In Canada, an infanticide is crime punishable by up to 5 years of prison. To commit infanticide, one must kill his own child and that child must not be older than 12 months. Technically only a women can commit an infanticide since the wording of the law specifically mention a women, but in a few rare case, some men, always the father of the child, were charged with it. The idea was to not punish a women as severely for abandonning or killing a new born baby than an older child or person. The law was passed well before abortions or even female contraception became accessible. Abandonning babies or even killing them was pretty much the only option for many women in such a situation. Considering the higher level of childs death, especially in poor families before WWII, the law was much less controversial since young babies weren't always expected to survive their first year. It was design as a safeguard from criminalizing severly women who got pregnant, but had no way of providing for those children.

Today, the pertinence of such a law is questionned because child death during their first year has dropped tremedously since the time the law was passed, abortion and contraception are readily available and numerous programs were deployed to assist family with little revenue, making infanticide both much rarer and harder to defend since so many other options were available. We frequently discuss the value of life when we talk about abortion. In reality, much like any other product or object, the «price of a human life» varies tremendously depending on how much our society can afford. Our history demonstrate that our society can and will make human life extremely cheap to support itself if necessary.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
05-04-2016, 01:44 PM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(05-04-2016 04:59 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(04-04-2016 01:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  At the point where it becomes dangerous for society and dangerous for me. If people are allowed to kill other people then what is to stop people from killing me or my children?

At what point does it become dangerous for society and dangerous for you? You said you are open to infanticide, what about a mother who kills her 1-year-old? Would you prefer that she be punished?
It's not about my preferences. My preferences are irrelevant.

(05-04-2016 04:59 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If not, then at what age would you consider it to be punish-worthy?
I'm not about punishment.
It's not my place to punish people.

If I were government, it would be my place to make society safe. In order to keep society safe I might need to lock up dangerous people. Not to punish them, but to stop them being dangerous to others.

The question is, "Does a mother killing her 1 year old present a danger to society?"
I would think that it would.
I would think other people may try to defend the kid against its mothers attacks. The father, grandparents, uncles and aunties, neighbors, etc might all take to attacking the mother.

But when the baby is inside the mother's tummy, almost noone will attack her.


(05-04-2016 04:59 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Perhaps you would leave it wide open at first and allow mothers to kill their offspring up to 18 years old until you can gather data on what appears to be dangerous to yourself?
Possibly worth a try, OR we could do some thought experiments.
I don't see the value in putting a new mother into prison who suffered extreme post natal depression and killed her babies. I would think she needs help rather than prison.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2016, 02:06 PM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(05-04-2016 01:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I'm not about punishment.
It's not my place to punish people.

If I were government, it would be my place to make society safe. In order to keep society safe I might need to lock up dangerous people. Not to punish them, but to stop them being dangerous to others.

This I agree with very much.

As far as killing babies who are viable - they should be safe also.

People should be able to surrender their offspring at any time - but not to kill it.

Some people are not ready to parent, or they are not able to, for physical, financial or psychological reasons. They should have a way out, without stigma. And that can be an abortion or a surrender. But forcing that baby to be born to incompetent parents, and then paying them to keep that unwanted child, is at the root of many societal issues.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Dom's post
05-04-2016, 03:46 PM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(05-04-2016 02:06 PM)Dom Wrote:  As far as killing babies who are viable - they should be safe also.
Given today’s society this rings true for the vast majority of people.

It’s the viable aspect that is an important part of the debate, rather than whether the foetus feel pain (IMO).

If it’s viable, then once it is removed from the mother’s womb, you would still need to take some action to terminate its life (if that is the desired course of action).

From the perspective of a depressed mother (going through extreme tiredness, extreme stress and whatever the hell the hormones do to them) I don’t see much sense in locking up a mother that has cracked.

(05-04-2016 02:06 PM)Dom Wrote:  People should be able to surrender their offspring at any time - but not to kill it.
Aborting a foetus prior to it having developed to a viable stage is killing it.

Ultimately, if we support abortion then we supporting killing it.

I personally don’t see defining it as a “clump of cells” or as a “parasite” or as a “potential person”, I don’t see how this gets around the fact that abortion kill it. I think people tend to use these definitions because they are looking for a moral escape clause. So that they morally feel OK about supporting abortion. I’m somewhat unique (it seems) in that I ignore moral concerns. I don’t need to classify it as a non person in order to support abortion. But that’s me getting up on my soap box shouting out how great I am (just kidding). But from my perspective that means that I am unable to call upon moral reasons to support the protection of a viable foetus. So I have painted myself into a corner somewhat. Other people want me to say that a viable foetus deserves protection. Otherwise they perhaps perceive me as heartless, emotionless, even psycho.

For most people the goal is to protect the viable foetus and they search for a justification towards this goal (I think this is a backwards way of doing it). Making a claim that it is immoral to kill the viable foetus is both convenient and lazy (IMO). It allows the claimant to simply pick (somewhat arbitrarily) a point where they deem it changes from a non person to a person. They tie this into a scientific embryological stage so that it appears to be not arbitrary. I can understand why some people claim that point to be about the time that the nervous system develops. I do think that a stronger claim is when the foetus becomes viable (due to further action, other than removal from the womb, being required to terminate the life). Given advancing medical technology, that point may come earlier and earlier in the developmental stage.

From a pragmatic perspective we could easily say that 6 months is ample time for a woman to:
1. Recognise that she is pregnant
2. Come to terms with her pregnancy and what having a dependant will mean for her
3. Evaluate the health of the foetus, determine whether it will be an undue burdon, whether it will have quality of life, etc
So perhaps, no harm in setting the abortion cutoff date at the end of the second trimester, or at the point of viability.
In a society where there aren’t ultrascans and medical tests available (perhaps a lost tribe in the jungle), the birth of the baby may be the first time the health of it can be evaluated.

Anyway, as I have said, from my perspective I am not starting with goals and searching for reasons to justify them. Instead I am starting with justifications and seeing where they lead. I am ignoring moral concerns because those are too vague. I don’t like the idea of ruling by majority vote where minorities get dominated by the majorities.

If we are to have a governing body and enforced laws then we need to define the purpose for those laws and ensure each law is confined to that purpose. If the purpose is to ensure a moral society then we cannot constrain the law or the law makers.


(05-04-2016 02:06 PM)Dom Wrote:  Some people are not ready to parent, or they are not able to, for physical, financial or psychological reasons. They should have a way out, without stigma. And that can be an abortion or a surrender. But forcing that baby to be born to incompetent parents, and then paying them to keep that unwanted child, is at the root of many societal issues.
Yes, there are many troubles in forcing all people who get pregnant to go through with it. Funny enough the people that do the forcing also don’t approve of contraceptives or sex education.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
05-04-2016, 04:04 PM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(05-04-2016 03:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-04-2016 02:06 PM)Dom Wrote:  As far as killing babies who are viable - they should be safe also.
Given today’s society this rings true for the vast majority of people.

It’s the viable aspect that is an important part of the debate, rather than whether the foetus feel pain (IMO).

If it’s viable, then once it is removed from the mother’s womb, you would still need to take some action to terminate its life (if that is the desired course of action).

From the perspective of a depressed mother (going through extreme tiredness, extreme stress and whatever the hell the hormones do to them) I don’t see much sense in locking up a mother that has cracked.

(05-04-2016 02:06 PM)Dom Wrote:  People should be able to surrender their offspring at any time - but not to kill it.
Aborting a foetus prior to it having developed to a viable stage is killing it.

Ultimately, if we support abortion then we supporting killing it.

I personally don’t see defining it as a “clump of cells” or as a “parasite” or as a “potential person”, I don’t see how this gets around the fact that abortion kill it. I think people tend to use these definitions because they are looking for a moral escape clause. So that they morally feel OK about supporting abortion. I’m somewhat unique (it seems) in that I ignore moral concerns. I don’t need to classify it as a non person in order to support abortion. But that’s me getting up on my soap box shouting out how great I am (just kidding). But from my perspective that means that I am unable to call upon moral reasons to support the protection of a viable foetus. So I have painted myself into a corner somewhat. Other people want me to say that a viable foetus deserves protection. Otherwise they perhaps perceive me as heartless, emotionless, even psycho.

For most people the goal is to protect the viable foetus and they search for a justification towards this goal (I think this is a backwards way of doing it). Making a claim that it is immoral to kill the viable foetus is both convenient and lazy (IMO). It allows the claimant to simply pick (somewhat arbitrarily) a point where they deem it changes from a non person to a person. They tie this into a scientific embryological stage so that it appears to be not arbitrary. I can understand why some people claim that point to be about the time that the nervous system develops. I do think that a stronger claim is when the foetus becomes viable (due to further action, other than removal from the womb, being required to terminate the life). Given advancing medical technology, that point may come earlier and earlier in the developmental stage.

From a pragmatic perspective we could easily say that 6 months is ample time for a woman to:
1. Recognise that she is pregnant
2. Come to terms with her pregnancy and what having a dependant will mean for her
3. Evaluate the health of the foetus, determine whether it will be an undue burdon, whether it will have quality of life, etc
So perhaps, no harm in setting the abortion cutoff date at the end of the second trimester, or at the point of viability.
In a society where there aren’t ultrascans and medical tests available (perhaps a lost tribe in the jungle), the birth of the baby may be the first time the health of it can be evaluated.

Anyway, as I have said, from my perspective I am not starting with goals and searching for reasons to justify them. Instead I am starting with justifications and seeing where they lead. I am ignoring moral concerns because those are too vague. I don’t like the idea of ruling by majority vote where minorities get dominated by the majorities.

If we are to have a governing body and enforced laws then we need to define the purpose for those laws and ensure each law is confined to that purpose. If the purpose is to ensure a moral society then we cannot constrain the law or the law makers.


(05-04-2016 02:06 PM)Dom Wrote:  Some people are not ready to parent, or they are not able to, for physical, financial or psychological reasons. They should have a way out, without stigma. And that can be an abortion or a surrender. But forcing that baby to be born to incompetent parents, and then paying them to keep that unwanted child, is at the root of many societal issues.
Yes, there are many troubles in forcing all people who get pregnant to go through with it. Funny enough the people that do the forcing also don’t approve of contraceptives or sex education.

Ok, I'm going to not break this up into 10 little discussions, I hate that. Tongue

I didn't bring up pain in what you replied to above, because it is an entirely different issue. I did bring up viability. We don't even have to make the difference for this discussion, as the two happen close enough in time. So we are talking about viability.

Before viability, it is a non-person to me. It is not alive and hence it can't be killed. Once it is viable, it is alive and can be killed. Viable = capable of living.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2016, 04:14 PM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(05-04-2016 04:04 PM)Dom Wrote:  Before viability, it is a non-person to me. It is not alive and hence it can't be killed. Once it is viable, it is alive and can be killed. Viable = capable of living.
It is alive, and developing right from the moment of conception.
About 50% of fertilised eggs are capable of living through to birth if not aborted first.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2016, 04:19 PM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(05-04-2016 04:14 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-04-2016 04:04 PM)Dom Wrote:  Before viability, it is a non-person to me. It is not alive and hence it can't be killed. Once it is viable, it is alive and can be killed. Viable = capable of living.
It is alive, and developing right from the moment of conception.
About 50% of fertilised eggs are capable of living through to birth if not aborted first.

No, they are capable of developing into life. Until then they are parasitic.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2016, 04:42 PM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(05-04-2016 04:19 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(05-04-2016 04:14 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It is alive, and developing right from the moment of conception.
About 50% of fertilised eggs are capable of living through to birth if not aborted first.

No, they are capable of developing into life. Until then they are parasitic.
Parasites are alive.

Although i don't consider a foetus to be a parasite. But there you go.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: