If abortion were illegal, to what extent would you protect the fetus?

[Removable Mind]

ninth amendment:

And of course the 9th. But still not an inalienable right. The 9th is reserved for rights yet considered. It helped preserve future options.

 

[Dittohead not!]

This is very simple and very clear. ^^^ This is why I dont understand how there are rational people that believe women should not be allowed to have abortions, that in effect, the govt should force them to remain pregnant against their wills.

I can understand their desire to want to see babies born and even understand why they object to killing the unborn. No one 'likes' abortion. But the unrealistic personification of the unborn, the elevating them to the same status...legally and biologically and ethically....as born people is not understandable (to me).

It all boils down to when you believe a person becomes a person. If an abortion at any stage is tantamount to infanticide, as some people believe, then of course an abortion is murder of innocents and has to be treated as such.

And there is no way you can convince anyone who believes that life begins at conception that an abortion is any different from killing a child. You can try, but you won't succeed.

 

[Lursa]

It all boils down to when you believe a person becomes a person. If an abortion at any stage is tantamount to infanticide, as some people believe, then of course an abortion is murder of innocents and has to be treated as such.

And there is no way you can convince anyone who believes that life begins at conception that an abortion is any different from killing a child. You can try, but you won't succeed.

I realize that but the fact that they so discount the entirety of a woman's life to do so, up to and sometimes including her life, is no moral High Ground. Fortunately, the govt does protect women from that perspective, but the fact that they dont even recognize that women have rights and are entitled to be protected is rather amazing.

 

[kerussll]

The first two are obvious...they're bad for the health of the child.

Common since goes a long way but, for millennia, women did whatever ever was needed to survive while they were pregnant. Government didn't need to do a lot.

You'd seriously want to make it illegal for pregnant women to drink or smoke? How would you enforce that exactly? When you factor in that most women don't realize they're pregnant until about 6 weeks along, and this is the most damaging time to drink or smoke, should we just make it illegal for all child-bearing women to do so? Geez, you men just want to keep all the fun to yourself!

 

[Un biased]

Ireland a country where a abortion was illegal and is still heavily regulated a female died after being denied an abortion because of the fetal heartbeat Abortion refusal death: Hindu woman told Ireland 'is a Catholic country' | World news | The Guardian and that when abortion was allowable to a certain extent in that country a suicidal rape victim who treid to get an abortion at 8 weeks had to go through court and proceedings to the point where it was viable at 22-23 week and forced to give premature birth after she went on a hunger strike
A pregnant, suicidal rape victim fought Ireland's new abortion law. The law won | Jessica Valenti | Comment is free | The Guardian

..This is not a what if scenario its a real one , which shows the extent of to which pro life is willing to go

 

[Removable Mind]

It all boils down to when you believe a person becomes a person. If an abortion at any stage is tantamount to infanticide, as some people believe, then of course an abortion is murder of innocents and has to be treated as such.

And there is no way you can convince anyone who believes that life begins at conception that an abortion is any different from killing a child. You can try, but you won't succeed.

CorrectoMundo....

But this is what makes CHOICE so important.

No matter what a person's faith or beliefs are regarding abortion - choice works every time.

 

[Gaius46]

It all boils down to when you believe a person becomes a person. If an abortion at any stage is tantamount to infanticide, as some people believe, then of course an abortion is murder of innocents and has to be treated as such.

And there is no way you can convince anyone who believes that life begins at conception that an abortion is any different from killing a child. You can try, but you won't succeed.

I've always believe that the "when does life begin" question is irrelevant. It's really a question of balancing rights. You can't compel someone to sacrifice their body for another, nor can you tell someone what to do with their body. Outlawing abortion goes against both concepts.

 

[Removable Mind]

I've always believe that the "when does life begin" question is irrelevant. It's really a question of balancing rights. You can't compel someone to sacrifice their body for another, nor can you tell someone what to do with their body. Outlawing abortion goes against both concepts.

I agree. In fact, pro-life and pro-choice arguments are "mutually exclusive" and aren't possibly arguable within the same context. In other words the differences between the contexts of the arguments between the two ideologies aren't like saying, "we're arguing apples and oranges". We are arguing something like "cooking utensils and spaceships". The premises don't resemble each other.

Pro-choice arguments can be made without mentioning the words zygote, embryos, fetuses and even "abortion".

Pro-life arguments can't.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I've always believe that the "when does life begin" question is irrelevant. It's really a question of balancing rights. You can't compel someone to sacrifice their body for another, nor can you tell someone what to do with their body. Outlawing abortion goes against both concepts.

Exactly. The goal of limiting the number of abortions is laudable, but outlawing them not only doesn't work, it's anti choice and pro authoritarian government.

 

[wbcoleman]

I'm challenging your use of emotive language, not your position. Using emotive language is the logical fallacy Appeal To Emotion and will not win you many, if any, debates. If we're to discuss the topic then calling an abortion ban "imprisonment" is about as convincing to others as calling abortion "murder" is to you.


The government wouldn't go digging around. Businesses would be compelled not to sell certain products or services to someone they reasonably believe to be pregnant, and this would be enforced through undercover investigation and license oversight just like age restrictions for tobacco; and a child born with, for example, fetal alcohol syndrome, would trigger a criminal child abuse investigation.

There would be no active monitoring. There would be oversight of businesses, and investigations of specific complaints.

You seriously believe that you could enact and enforce any of this???

 

[wbcoleman]

It all boils down to when you believe a person becomes a person. If an abortion at any stage is tantamount to infanticide, as some people believe, then of course an abortion is murder of innocents and has to be treated as such.

And there is no way you can convince anyone who believes that life begins at conception that an abortion is any different from killing a child. You can try, but you won't succeed.

But you frequently have trouble getting them to say that a woman who procures an abortion ought to be punished as if she were a murderer.

 

[Jerry]

You seriously believe that you could enact and enforce any of this???

Me? No, of course not, I'm not a legislator or cop of any sort.

 

[JayDubya]

But you frequently have trouble getting them to say that a woman who procures an abortion ought to be punished as if she were a murderer.

Criminal homicide laws should not discriminate based upon the age of the victim.

Hiring someone to kill someone else should absolutely get you thrown in prison for murder.

 

[Dittohead not!]

But you frequently have trouble getting them to say that a woman who procures an abortion ought to be punished as if she were a murderer.

Well, sometimes. When they say that, they're being a bit inconsistent, it seems to me. Likewise when they say that it's OK in the event of rape. Would anyone kill a toddler who was the result of rape? I think not.

 

[wbcoleman]

Criminal homicide laws should not discriminate based upon the age of the victim.

Hiring someone to kill someone else should absolutely get you thrown in prison for murder.

OK, you believe that along with about 25% of the U.S. population. How do you plan to implement this proposition, given that most state legislatures will refuse to enact such laws and, if they are enacted, many prosecutors will refuse to charge women accordingly and, if they are charged, few if any unanimous jury convictions will ever be returned?

 

[wbcoleman]

Well, sometimes. When they say that, they're being a bit inconsistent, it seems to me. Likewise when they say that it's OK in the event of rape. Would anyone kill a toddler who was the result of rape? I think not.

It's a consistent theoretical proposition that few people truly hold. Most abortion opponents claim that they only want to go after the doctors, that the women "have suffered enough" or that "they are victims, too".

 

[Removable Mind]

It's a consistent theoretical proposition that few people truly hold. Most abortion opponents claim that they only want to go after the doctors, that the women "have suffered enough" or that "they are victims, too".

Pro-life is using a child to punish a woman for her sexual behaviors. Even when birth control is used - a woman sexual behaviors is still the ball and chain pro-life will always clasp to women.

 

[Lursa]

But you frequently have trouble getting them to say that a woman who procures an abortion ought to be punished as if she were a murderer.

Oh no, there are a few posters here that dont hesitate to say so.

 

[joko104]

It all boils down to when you believe a person becomes a person. If an abortion at any stage is tantamount to infanticide, as some people believe, then of course an abortion is murder of innocents and has to be treated as such.

And there is no way you can convince anyone who believes that life begins at conception that an abortion is any different from killing a child. You can try, but you won't succeed.

Unless it yourself or your own single teenage daughter who become pregnant by an unwanted pregnancy. When there is something personal at stake the platitudes tend to lose their importance. That also is why the most extreme and absolute "prolifers" on the forum are men who don't have children. They have nothing to lose and nothing at stake. Rather, they are only making demands on others knowing the are exempt from their moral declarations.

 

[joko104]

Oh no, there are a few posters here that dont hesitate to say so.

Definitely, just scroll up. If a 10 year old is possibly made pregnant by rape, there are male members of the forum who claim she should be put in prison for life as a murderer if she knowingly takes a morning-after pill at the hospital where they are also trying to save her life from the injuries from the assault. If her mother and father authorize the pill, they also both should be sent to prison for life as murderers in their view. And so should the doctor and nurse who gave it to her. They also are conspirators in murder in the opinion of some MEN who don't have any children on the forum.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Unless it yourself or your own single teenage daughter who become pregnant by an unwanted pregnancy. When there is something personal at stake the platitudes tend to lose their importance. That also is why the most extreme and absolute "prolifers" on the forum are men who don't have children. They have nothing to lose and nothing at stake. Rather, they are only making demands on others knowing the are exempt from their moral declarations.

An unwanted pregnancy in the family is a pretty good test of just how committed a person is to the pro life stance, that's for sure. If the pregnancy involves an unmarried teenage daughter, then the test is even harder.

 

[Jerry]

Unless it yourself or your own single teenage daughter who become pregnant by an unwanted pregnancy. When there is something personal at stake the platitudes tend to lose their importance. That also is why the most extreme and absolute "prolifers" on the forum are men who don't have children. They have nothing to lose and nothing at stake. Rather, they are only making demands on others knowing the are exempt from their moral declarations.

Hmm so only veterans can vote on war policy and only gun owners can vote on gun control. That's not so bad.

I guess we have to toss out Roe v Wade, then, since no women were involved in making it. And I hope your state doesn't have a male Representative otherwise your whole state won't be counted.

 

[joko104]

I've always believe that the "when does life begin" question is irrelevant. It's really a question of balancing rights. You can't compel someone to sacrifice their body for another, nor can you tell someone what to do with their body. Outlawing abortion goes against both concepts.

I agree that the issue isn't when "life begins."

For a pregnancy, that "life" began with the formation of the sperm and the egg. Thus, using a contraception also equally "killed" that life. Nor is the slogan "life begins at conception" a self proving morality anyway. So what when life begins?

Since that "life" has not entered this society then this society has no legitimate jurisdiction or venue over it.

 

[Lursa]

Definitely, just scroll up. If a 10 year old is possibly made pregnant by rape, there are male members of the forum who claim she should be put in prison for life as a murderer if she knowingly takes a morning-after pill at the hospital where they are also trying to save her life from the injuries from the assault. If her mother and father authorize the pill, they also both should be sent to prison for life as murderers in their view. And so should the doctor and nurse who gave it to her. They also are conspirators in murder in the opinion of some MEN who don't have any children on the forum.

I've found that in these threads, the more reasonable people have never really thought thru the practicalities of making elective abortion illegal. It's so easy to 'uphold your principles' when it costs you nothing but if most pro-life people really understood the implications for individual women, women as a whole in society, and society in general, then they might reconsider their political position on the matter. (As distinct from their personal opinion)

The extremists are often pretty malicious and dismissive towards women but I'm sure that attitude carries over to their views of women overall in real life. The ones that wouldnt allow it for rape, etc.

 

[Dittohead not!]

This is the sort of thing that happens where abortion is banned with no exceptions:

Chile Denies Abortion for 11-Year-Old Rape Victim
July 13, 2013 by Jennifer Simeone

At age 11, Belén is 14 weeks pregnant. Her pregnancy, which occurred after she was repeatedly raped over the past two years by her mother’s partner, has been deemed by medical professionals as a danger to her health. Despite the risks involved for both her and the fetus, Belén has no choice but to see the pregnancy through because she lives in Puerto Montt, Chile—a country where abortion is banned without exception.