Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Hang on - I don't think you can lump all pro-abortionists in together. They're not a homogenous group and there are many varying opinions among them. It's very easy to critique a movement if you take the most extreme stance within that movement.
As I said earlier, I don't see it just as a group of cells but as a group of cells that has the potential to grow into a human being. That still doesn't mean I see it as a baby.
ah but you see it's not something that has the potential to grow into a baby like a sperm, it's something that is currently developing into a baby. it's a potential baby in the same way as a baby is a potential adult
to me the justification of "it's ok to kill it because it doesn't yet meet my definition of a baby" is the same as "it's ok to kill a child immediately after it's born because it hasn't experienced the world yet so it's not really a person". it's just a convenient definition that fits what you want to be true. the foetus is a human being. it may not have developed a brain yet and it may not match you consider valuable as a person but it's a human being and it has human rights (or it should, unfortunately not everyone agrees). but you don't want it to have rights because that's too much hassle for you so you come up with rationalisations and convince yourself that it doesn't
edit:another example of such a convenient definition from history would be: "they're only black so they're not really people, therefore it's not immoral to enslave them". exactly the same thought processes are used to justify slavery as to justify abortion
if people don't just see it as a clump of cells, if they see it as something more, how can they justify killing it?
you say that as if it's nothing. someone has made a decision to kill a baby and you don't have a problem with thatOf course you've made a conscious decision to prevent yourself having a baby. Or kill a baby, as you say it.
It's very telling that you "can't understand" how women can justify doing it. That is the crux of it for me. You just can't understand.
then explain to me how someone who isn't absolutely sure that the foetus is just a clump of cells can justify killing it. i think i already do understand it. women want the foetus to be just a clump of cells because they don't want to have a child so they convince themselves that it is. evidence doesn't come into it, they want it to be true, therefore it isMr. Incognito wrote: »This thread has decended into two men dictating an over simplistic, archaic view of abortion, clapping each other on the back and interjecting the word murder in copy and paste format to anyone who tries to disagree with them.
In short, this is not a rational debate. The thread really should be locked at this stage, it'll only continue in this vein
or in vain.
there's nothing over simplistic or archaic about "murder is wrong", it's a universal truth.
and the reason i use the word murder is because that's what it is
edit:also there is quite a lot of rational debate here. your description of the thread is completely inaccurate. it attempts to dismiss everything we're saying without actually proving us wrong.....because you can't prove us wrong 0 -
-
you say that as if it's nothing. someone has made a decision to kill a baby and you don't have a problem with that
I don't have a problem with it, as long as it's in my womb and it's only about 8 weeks old. That's not to say I take it lightly. I don't want to have an abortion, but I don't want to be pregnant more.then explain to me how someone who isn't absolutely sure that the foetus is just a clump of cells can justify killing it. i think i already do understand it. women want the foetus to be just a clump of cells because they don't want to have a child so they convince themselves that it is. evidence doesn't come into it, they want it to be true, therefore it is
Again, I have just stated that I DON'T just see the foetus as a clump of cells, and yet you say you understand how women justify abortions by calling it a clump of cells.0 -
-
-
i keep asking the same question because i am unable to comprehend how someone can justify killing another human being! i thought that they had just completely dehumanised the foetus so that they didn't think of it as a human but if that's not the case for some women then those women are quite simply murderers and should be punished just like any other murdererWhy do you keep asking me the same question? I keep saying, yes of course it's a human.
ah so the child becomes valuable as a human being immediately after the time you find out about it and kill it. now that's a very handy definition. Should a woman who finds out at 9 weeks or 10 be prevented from getting one?I'm saying 8 weeks, because I'm guessing that would be about the limit of when you could be pregnant without knowing it.
we're not arguing what's legal, we're arguing what's right. Legality doesn't necessarily say anything about whether something is right or notThe law gives me the right, in countries where I can legally travel to. Who's to say if you didn't grow up in a time when slavery was commonplace you wouldn't have a problem with it? Sure, maybe in hundreds of years time abortion will be completely outlawed and maybe if I lived in such a time I wouldn't have one, or I would take even more precautions not to become pregnant.
you'll find that just because certain people don't think something is wrong does not mean that it is not 100% definitely wrong.But I don't live in those times. I live now, when abortion is not a moral absolute because if it was everyone would be against it.
for the second time in this thread i point someone's attention to this group:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA
they believe that children are sexual beings and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with having sex with them. they campaign to legalise paedophilia. just like people who are pro abortion, they convince themselves that what they're saying is right despite the fact that they are clearly wrong
so thinking paedophilia is wrong is not a moral absolute. does that mean we should allow them to rape children?In my brain, yeah I would have to say I'm killing a human, but a lot of women wouldn't say that. Not everyone thinks the same way, or needs to justify their actions with the same thought process you use. That was my initial point - not all pro-abortionists use the same argument.
i really don't know how to reply to that. you acknowledge that you're killing another human being and you can somehow rationalise that that is acceptable. did no one ever teach you that it's not ok to kill people 0 -
Advertisement
-
ah but you see it's not something that has the potential to grow into a baby like a sperm, it's something that is currently developing into a baby. it's a potential baby in the same way as a baby is a potential adult
to me the justification of "it's ok to kill it because it doesn't yet meet my definition of a baby" is the same as "it's ok to kill a child immediately after it's born because it hasn't experienced the world yet so it's not really a person". it's just a convenient definition that fits what you want to be true. the foetus is a human being. it may not have developed a brain yet and it may not match you consider valuable as a person but it's a human being and it has human rights (or it should, unfortunately not everyone agrees). but you don't want it to have rights because that's too much hassle for you so you come up with rationalisations and convince yourself that it doesn't
I could similarly accuse you of using "rationalisations" and trying to "convince" yourself of certain things to justify your opinion but I would consider that to be condescending.
I've put across my point of view. We can argue til the cows come home but we're never going to agree on this point.
BTW - you should read up on Peter Singer - you'd totally hate him because he's a consequentialist, not a moralist.
Edit: Damn, I think you've actually changed my mind...I can't argue that a foetus is not a living thing.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I wasn't sure exactly what word to use. Basically i mean that the woman isn't going to die so her rights aren't being ignored, they just don't give her the right to kill someone else because their right to life is equalSure, I don't agree with convenience but you've used the word "comfort" in a very vague way.
If it's a choice between the mother and the child, i'll generally choose the mother. It's a triage situation where you have to choose one of them and anyway, in the vast majority of cases that could be considered abortion and not birth the foetus will die anyway if the mother diesAh, I was under the impression you were anti-abortion in all cases.
I'm not sure why the law even got involved. She wanted the child so why all the forceAs a woman, this video is very disturbing to watch.
Also, at that stage we're not talking about a foetus that can be mistaken for a clump of cells, we're talking about a fully functional human being that can live outside the mother's body. Why should her right to not have a c section (or whatever the problem was, i didn't quite get it) supersede someone else's right to life?I'd just like to say that my father was put up for adoption so I may be one generation removed, but I am in a similar situation to you. It still doesn't impact on my attitude towards women's rights. I think you would feel differently about this if you were a woman and genuinely experienced the notion that your body is somehow public property and the state can force you to do something with your body that you don't want to do.
You know you're right, if i was a woman i'd probably feel differently but that actually supports my point. A woman can't be objective because the problem directly affects her. She's terrified of having a child with all the problems that causes so of course she's more likely to support the argument that she shouldn't have to do it. That doesn't mean the argument is correct, it means fear has pushed her towards that point of view0 -
-
I would have to totally reject this. A woman may have fears and feel a lot of emotions but it does not mean that she is not capable of making a rational decision, or one that is not right for her. I could equally argue that because of your situation, your opinion on abortion is equally affected. As it stands, I don't think your opinion on abortion is invalid, just because of where you came from.
To be honest, this thread has really make me question how I feel about abortion-and I'm a self-professed feminist! I think I need to go away and think about it. Thanks for the chat.
I didn't mean to suggest that a woman is incapable of making a rational decision, just that she's more likely to make the decision that's easier for her, the same as anyone would regardless of the issue
Thank you too
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
What about a doctor who got heroin for someone who would have likely gone to a dealer anyway? Should he be let off?
So long as he wasn't making a profit from it I'd also hate to see him in jail cell for what you just mentioned.As i keep saying, that logic only works if you assume there's nothing wrong with abortion, which anti abortionists don't accept
Well. . . .yes, and the title of the thread situted in humanities is "What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?". If it were a legal discussion I wouldn't have given that answer.now that's an odd concept
You get punished or not depending on the method used to kill the foetus? Surely it either has a right to life or is a clump of cells that can be discarded? Are there ways that i can kill you without being prosecuted?
As I said, its a grey area. I guess I see the foetus as the woman's property up to a certain point. And to a woman who wants a child it's emotionally valuble property.0 -
-
-
Yes. One of the reason they were anti-abortion was because they saw it as another way for men to control women's bodies and fertility. And, the argument you state below - ie they didn't want to treat any other person as their property, as had been done to women for so long.metrovelvet wrote: »Feminism did not support abortion until the 1960s when it focused [too much imo] itself on reproductive rights. Earlier feminists such as Susan B Anthony were anti-abortion.
Ahem..some feminists.metrovelvet wrote: »You know the irony would be funny if it werent so tragic. Feminist use this argument to justify abortion, and its the same argument men used to justify violence towards women for decades. . For the vast majority of women, it's about being in control of their own bodies and fertility and not being forced into motherhood.
I was thinking about this subject and how last year, people were talking about making it illegal for a pregnant woman to drink/smoke etc. If we are willing to force a woman to carry a baby to term, surely under the same logic, we are also willing to do this?
How do people feel about this?0 -
Ahem..some feminists. . For the vast majority of women, it's about being in control of their own bodies and fertility and not being forced into motherhood.
I was thinking about this subject and how last year, people were talking about making it illegal for a pregnant woman to drink/smoke etc. If we are willing to force a woman to carry a baby to term, surely under the same logic, we are also willing to do this?
How do people feel about this?
If they dont want to be mothers there is adoption.
As long as abortion is legal then there is no sense in making it illegal to kill your feotus with alcohol and cigarettes.0 -
metrovelvet wrote: »If they dont want to be mothers there is adoption.
As long as abortion is legal then there is no sense in making it illegal to kill your feotus with alcohol and cigarettes.
That's like saying as long as you have the death sentence, there is no point in making murder illegal.
I'll get my gun 0 -
-
-
-
but you'd have to ask yourself why was he doing it and should he have been doing it. tbh i wouldn't like to see him go to jail either because with heroin, the person he's giving it to is a consenting adult and chooses to take it. personally i wouldn't think he'd done anything wrong at all, i used that example because most people wouldn't see it that way. but the unborn child is not a consenting adult and doesn't want to dieBottle_of_Smoke wrote: »So long as he wasn't making a profit from it I'd also hate to see him in jail cell for what you just mentioned.
and that again is where we differ. as someone already said, that was the argument used to subjugate women, it was also the argument used to subjugate black people and it's now the argument used to subjugate the unborn. i sincerely hope that in a few years we look back on that argument with the same disgust as we do the other two. a human cannot be another human's property, whether they've grown a brain yet or notBottle_of_Smoke wrote: »As I said, its a grey area. I guess I see the foetus as the woman's property up to a certain point. And to a woman who wants a child it's emotionally valuble property.
it's really not the same thing at all tbh. firstly there would be no sentence, death or otherwise if it was legal so your statement makes no sense. and if the argument is that the foetus is the property of the woman she should be allowed to whatever she wants to it, be it kill it by sucking it out or severely injure it with cigarettes and alcohol. as pro abortionists say, it doesn't matter what it might potentially become in the future, all that matters is that right now the foetus is not a person and has no rightsThat's like saying as long as you have the death sentence, there is no point in making murder illegal.
I'll get my gun
maybe if abortion wasn't such an easy option people would be a bit more careful. and tbh, yes, i would rather that. killing 40 million human beings because it would be too much hassle to have them around reminds me of something that i don't want to mention for fear of Godwinning the threadThere are estimated to be over 40 million abortions a year? Do you really want an extra 40 million children in orphenages/state care? The world already has millions of children that are never adopted.0 -
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement