Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished

[Dom]

(03-04-2016 12:04 AM)Stevil Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 08:30 PM)Dom Wrote:  I can't really argue with that. But that would be the point where I would start feeling that the fetus deserves protection.

Most certainly there is no reason at all to grant such protection when the fetus is a mass of tissue incapable of even feeling pain.

From my perspective, it's more about when you deem another woman's pregnancy to be your own business.
And how much that means to you.

I think it is easy to forget that the police are a forcible unit. It is a violent approach to have the police interject into the affairs of ordinary people.

If you think that the police are acting on your behalf, then you could consider at what point would you personally use force on another person to stop them doing something.

For example, if someone was raping a poor girl. You may feel compelled to risk harm to yourself in order to forcibly interject and stop the attacker doing this act. In this circumstance you may feel justified in sending properly trained and suited police to do this violent act on your behalf.

But in terms of a woman having an abortion, at what point would you personally interject, risking harm on yourself to save the unborn child? If you wouldn't do this yourself, perhaps it's not as important to you as you may think. And perhaps you are only considering a law because you don't perceive the police as performing this violent act on your behalf.

I think when we have specialised in our roles in society, we "forget" that laws mean sanctioning of physical violence against others. It become then, easy to say, I don't like such and such so I think it should be outlawed.

It's never my business. It's society's business once woman and baby are separate entities. Then it would be murder. Up until that point, it's the woman's business.

I was only stating the way I would feel about it. I am female, in case you don't know. Personally, I would see it as a non issue until the fetus can feel pain. After that, a decision to abort would be a huge and horrific decision.

[Dark Light]

(03-04-2016 06:00 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 08:42 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I don't think it's absurd at all. C-Sections are very easy on babies if that route is taken - though that should obviously be done on a case by case basis at the mothers discretion. In my wife's case she had to/will have to have c-sections due to a low pelvic bone. Even for vaginal births, we don't know which is more painful, but it could very well could be more painful (for fetuses who have functional nervous systems with pain receptors) to have to be destroyed via medical abortion vice going through the child birth experience. I'm not saying this should be the only consideration, but it's worth consideration.

Why do you think women cannot make this decision on their own?

Which one? If you're referring to the the ability to choose whether or not to kill the unborn until childbirth it's because it's not a simple black and white issue. There are two lives/bodies at stake. I believe a viable fetus deserves protection just as a baby deserves protection. If you're referring to c-section vs. vaginal birth, then I never implied women shouldn't choose.

What happened developmentally in the time it takes to deliver the baby? Nothing of particular importance. So why should the child be treated as worthless in the eyes of the law just before birth, and worth protecting just after childbirth? The only thing that really changed is the the location of the child, and whether he/she is getting nutrients through an umbilical cord or through milk.

[Dark Light]

(02-04-2016 09:30 PM)epronovost Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 07:50 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  1.) Spell check is your friend.
2.) Using your definition humans can't really be independent until their teens, so should mothers and/or fathers be able to kill unwanted children prior to them being capable of surviving independently?
3.) Since they don't have citizenship until after birth you would reckon that at least mothers should be allowed to kill unborn children even in the delivery room if they got cold feet. Practically it would be more safe for the mother, and more humane for the child if she gave birth and then had a doctor lop it's head off. Why not cut her open, take the child, sew up mommy and then kill the baby? The baby hasn't developed any any meaningful or measurable way for the 30 minutes or so that this would take.

1) Reading comprehension is your friend. You will notice that the very first right an infant is granted is the right to live. I mentioned it, alongside a few other rights, in the third sentence of my reply and you seem to have overlooked it for some reason. Because of it, killing him/her after birth would constitute murder. Should a parent not want a child after its birth, it can be given in adoption or even abandoned legally as long as the child is abandoned in safe place and is less than 10 years old. Fortunately, those events are rather rare relatively speaking. Adults have those things called responsibilities that infants don't have and have.

2) You would recon that should a fetus be granted right to live, should a miscarriage occurs during third semester, the baby was to be a stillborn or would die during labor we would have to charge the mother and/or the medical personnel for 2nd degree murder. There is no such thing as killing «unwillingly» a human being without consequences. Considering the trauma of natural birth, should it be considered a criminal assault on the person of the child? Light injuries are rather frequent in newborn babies.

You haven't addressed a single concern I brought up directly, other than your abhorrent spelling. The rest is tangents. Ironically, after implying that spelling wasn't important and the responsibility fell to me (the reader) to decipher (which I did, by the way), you went on to use spell check anyway, invalidating yourself, but whatever. I'll address your tangents in hopes of getting a legitimate response to my previous post. Oh, who am I kidding, I know you won't.

(02-04-2016 09:30 PM)epronovost Wrote:  You will notice that the very first right an infant is granted is the right to live. I mentioned it, alongside a few other rights, in the third sentence of my reply and you seem to have overlooked it for some reason. Because of it, killing him/her after birth would constitute murder.

Yes, I noticed it. I responded to it.

Quote: Definition according to you - a fetus has no rights. It only gain righs when they become independant living being (AKA after they are born). Then again, infants, children and teenagers don't have the same rights, priviledge and responsabilities than adults or compared to each other. A baby has practicly no rights beside having a citizenship, living, having people to care of him (they don't even need to be good or even apt at their job). It make sense since they don't really have the capacity to exercise the rights, priviledge and responsability of an adult.

First you say when they are independant, aka born, but then you immediately correct yourself noting that they aren't independent just as infants (a newly born baby is any infant, but whatever), children, teenagers do not share all of the same rights as adults. This seems to imply that babies may not deserve the right to live afterall. The younger, the fewer the rights.

What I went on to point out in spite of your vagueness (giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you didn't actually mean that) was essentially "Why not?" If you're willing to go up until child birth, what the hell does 30 minutes to a few hours make?

Dark Light Wrote:Since they don't have citizenship until after birth you would reckon that at least mothers should be allowed to kill unborn children even in the delivery room if they got cold feet. Practically it would be more safe for the mother, and more humane for the child if she gave birth and then had a doctor lop it's head off. Why not cut her open, take the child, sew up mommy and then kill the baby? The baby hasn't developed any any meaningful or measurable way for the 30 minutes or so that this would take.

In other words, I asked you why this wasn't your position.

[Heatheness]

(03-04-2016 07:56 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 06:00 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  Why do you think women cannot make this decision on their own?

Which one? If you're referring to the the ability to choose whether or not to kill the unborn until childbirth it's because it's not a simple black and white issue. There are two lives/bodies at stake. I believe a viable fetus deserves protection just as a baby deserves protection. If you're referring to c-section vs. vaginal birth, then I never implied women shouldn't choose.

What happened developmentally in the time it takes to deliver the baby? Nothing of particular importance. So why should the child be treated as worthless in the eyes of the law just before birth, and worth protecting just after childbirth? The only thing that really changed is the the location of the child, and whether he/she is getting nutrients through an umbilical cord or through milk.

Why do you think women cannot make the decision to have or not to have an abortion on their own?

[Dark Light]

(03-04-2016 08:57 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 07:56 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Which one? If you're referring to the the ability to choose whether or not to kill the unborn until childbirth it's because it's not a simple black and white issue. There are two lives/bodies at stake. I believe a viable fetus deserves protection just as a baby deserves protection. If you're referring to c-section vs. vaginal birth, then I never implied women shouldn't choose.

What happened developmentally in the time it takes to deliver the baby? Nothing of particular importance. So why should the child be treated as worthless in the eyes of the law just before birth, and worth protecting just after childbirth? The only thing that really changed is the the location of the child, and whether he/she is getting nutrients through an umbilical cord or through milk.

Why do you think women cannot make the decision to have or not to have an abortion on their own?

Can and should are different things entirely. Replace can with should and the answer is in the text you quoted.

[Heatheness]

(03-04-2016 09:09 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 08:57 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  Why do you think women cannot make the decision to have or not to have an abortion on their own?

Can and should are different things entirely. Replace can with should and the answer is in the text you quoted.

You're evading the question.

Why do you think women cannot/should not be left alone to make an abortion decision privately and individually on their own without any interference from you or the government or anyone else?

[Bucky Ball]

(02-04-2016 08:42 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 08:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If one takes the Pain argument. Then one has to ask, "which is more painful, being born or being aborted?"

IF being born is more painful, then ought we to make it illegal for babies to be born?

Of course this is absurd, but in my opinion the pain argument is absurd.

I don't think it's absurd at all. C-Sections are very easy on babies if that route is taken - though that should obviously be done on a case by case basis at the mothers discretion. In my wife's case she had to/will have to have c-sections due to a low pelvic bone. Even for vaginal births, we don't know which is more painful, but it could very well could be more painful (for fetuses who have functional nervous systems with pain receptors) to have to be destroyed via medical abortion vice going through the child birth experience. I'm not saying this should be the only consideration, but it's worth consideration.

It's worth very little consideration.
Get the facts :
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/in...ted-states

[Dark Light]

(03-04-2016 09:21 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 09:09 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Can and should are different things entirely. Replace can with should and the answer is in the text you quoted.

You're evading the question.

Why do you think women cannot/should not be left alone to make an abortion decision privately and individually on their own without any interference from you or the government or anyone else?

I am evading nothing. I believe a viable fetus should benefit from the same protection as it were after it was born because there is little to no difference between a child shortly before it is born , and shortly after it is born. How is that evasive?

I am not answering the "could" question because it is irrelevant to my position. We agree on "could".

[Heatheness]

(03-04-2016 09:43 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 09:21 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  You're evading the question.

Why do you think women cannot/should not be left alone to make an abortion decision privately and individually on their own without any interference from you or the government or anyone else?

I am evading nothing. I believe a viable fetus should benefit from the same protection as it were after it was born because there is little to no difference between a child shortly before it is born , and shortly after it is born. How is that evasive?

I am not answering the "could" question because it is irrelevant to my position. We agree on "could".

So your answer is "no" a woman is not able or capable of making an abortion decision by herself and she needs you and/or others to make that decision for her.

[Dark Light]

(03-04-2016 10:19 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 09:43 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  I am evading nothing. I believe a viable fetus should benefit from the same protection as it were after it was born because there is little to no difference between a child shortly before it is born , and shortly after it is born. How is that evasive?

I am not answering the "could" question because it is irrelevant to my position. We agree on "could".

So your answer is "no" a woman is not able or capable of making an abortion decision by herself and she needs you and/or others to make that decision for her.

Once again, no. We're still stuck on could/should it seems.