Abortion punishment.???

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by cluelusshusbund, Apr 6, 2017.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    There is a difference between the law and what people say. Some people think that their cats are more important than people. They name them, buy them toys, put them in their wills and cater to their every need while eschewing human contact. That just means they like cats; it doesn't mean cats are people.

    Likewise many people have an even stronger connection to their unborn baby. That connection is emotional, not legal.
    Same reason a cat lady may think her cat is more important than any human, while the shelter down the street is euthanizing homeless cats.

    Again, don't confuse what people say with what the law says.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    The inconsistency you point to:

    Really, should be pretty obvious.

    Do you want to know why the father has no right to "kill the kid"? Because it still resides in the mother's body. So to "kill the kid", the father would essentially be murdering or critically injuring the mother.

    It never ceases to astound me how people keep forgetting the woman and mother...
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Another way of describing the situation is that the mom has the right to opt out of parenthood, where the dad does not. From a standpoint of equal rights, the dad should have the same opportunity to opt out of the liabilities of a continued pregnancy as the mom, not by forcing a termination, but by a specified waiver of parental responsibility.

    Should Men Be Able to Opt Out of Fatherhood?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Found this looking for something else

    To good not to pass on

    All fixed now

    It's gods plan at work

    No need for any laws to regulate

    Take a moment and think about what Rick Warren said. Rick said, "He planned the days of your life in advance, choosing the exact time of your birth and death." Let's examine one simple implication of this statement. What this means is that God has pre-planned every abortion that has taken place on our planet.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. pluto2 Registered Senior Member

    I think it's selfish to bring children into this cruel world knowing that they will or could endure hardships, pain and bad experiences in their life.

    If I had the choice of never to be born then I would definitely choose the option not to be born into this cruel world.
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Fortunately, that is a choice you can make.

    I am glad we brought children into this world, and I hope they have a life that's been as full as ours. (And, of course, we can give them the support to do that - if they choose to.)
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    I once knew someone who believed the world would end in the year 2000. It occurred to me to rewind for a moment and ask her an obvious question: If you believed the world was ending, why did you have a baby? "Because," she explained, matter of factly, "I loved him that much."

    That is to say, expecting the world to end in six years, she got married and began intentionally attempting to have a child because she loved her unborn, unconceived, allegedly doomed son that much.

    There is always the possibility she meant that was why she didn't abort, but that was never the question, and this was allegedly a planned pregnancy.

    And speaking of selfish, I don't think I can begin to explain a melodrama in one corner of the extended family by which two psychiatrically incompetent parents might be planning to reproduce again as a political argument.

    Selfish parenting is at the heart of the American family experience during my lifetime. I don't think that's extraordinary in itself, but it's also true I've witnessed in my life and family two occasions when we might suggest the women have finally caught up to the men for selfishness and irresponsibility. It is easy enough to hedge, for the sake of general decency, against the casual indictment of a friend who seems to have treated pregnancy and motherhood as a social status; and, yes, there are questions of postpartum depression, but neither was her deliberate choice to carry a child especially influential over her behavior. One of the chief differences in her consumption behavior, for instance, was that she spent more time explaining why it was okay for her to have this drink in her hand. And, hey, at least she could hold up the cigarette in her other hand and acknowledge she was cheating.

    To the other, there is a cousin of some degree that makes this friend look like a model pregnancy. While the one didn't confirm her pregnancy medically until drinking too much alcohol on Saturday landed her in the emergency room on Monday after collapsing at work, at least she enrolled in a prenatal program and attended her appointments. Not listening to one's doctor is an American rite (and right) of some sort; skipping prenatal care entirely because it's inconvenient is the sort of thing that makes other people think twice, especially when there are learning disabilities. Typically, when I mention the bright-line of a dryfoot standard, people freak out about distractions intended to freak people out; my cousin's son's wife, whatever that makes her relation to me, is the living test. It's the old Poundstone joke come to life: Under law, anyone can have a kid, but you need a license to have a dog.

    The thing about not listening to one's doctor—my friend was more attentive to another doctor, and what was said about another patient—is that at least one is engaging with the doctor and choosing to ignore the advice. This, generally speaking, is considered somewhat normal, but only if we compare it to skipping care altogether. My cousin of some degree couldn't be bothered to ignore the advice; she preferred to never hear it in the first place.

    Yet, here we are today, with the public trust trying to figure out what to do with a blank-page ward quite apparently operating with multiple cognitive disruptions who happens to have survived falling off a building because his parents really are incompetent in multiple relevant forms of the word.

    And when it comes to societal policy, we do have an American joke, that Republicans are pro-life until you're born; and we can see the results of that American tendency in what happens next.

    Remember, best practices are too expensive.

    There is a reason Child Protective Services are generally loathed, but like many government agencies viewed as perpetual failures, they fail because we, the People, intend that they should.

    That is to say, given a choice between Sparta and something less morbid, we would seem to prefer to absolve our consciences than anything else. It's true, doing the "right" thing is expensive, but compared to just leaving children like my cousin's grandson to flail and suffer and eventually die, "Won't someone please think of the children?" sounds great. Except, you know, like so many other things, it's really expensive, and we don't really want it that badly, so we'll shortchange ourselves—tank our own endeavor—and complain about the results.

    Everything about this aspect of the discourse, at least in my society, is selfish. Indeed, that's part of why it's significant that the question of punishing a woman can generate all manner of chatter, but consideration of practical solutions, such as how to help reduce unwanted, unexpected, and unplanned pregnancies↗, finds silence quieter than the stones themselves.

    Think of it this way: Discussions pertaining to reproduction, rights, and politics, tend to foster stronger participation when the purpose is to insult women or consider how to punish them; when question is reducing the number of pregnancies leading to abortion demand, well, that means men need to be more useful than knocking women up, complaining about them, or telling them their place.

    Which in turn is why societies struggling with the anti-abortion proposition tend to focus on punishing and dehumanizing women. Which is also great right-wing fundraising and, for the politicking sector, job security. In the end, the anti-abortion question orbits whether or not the lobby can convince people to recognize in a zygote a human rights status they refuse to recognize in women.

    And there is a reason they find such considerable success as they do. Denigrating women is an historical custom of my society; and just like other irrational, flexible definitions perceived to lend to our empowerment, people aren't giving that up without a convincing logical reason. It's a convenient circle, kind of like nice work if you can get it, you know?
  11. Bowser Right Here, Right Now Valued Senior Member

    When her life is in jeopardy because of the pregnancy, that would be reason to abort. There are 256 birth world wide every minute. It's the most natural thing in life. And, yes, that life she carries is darned important, not a frivolous inconvenience to be extracted like a cancer.

    As for clinical manipulation? I do think it's morbid. Should there be legal boundaries? Maybe. Cloning people is illegal, the last time I checked.
  12. Bowser Right Here, Right Now Valued Senior Member

    Yet here you are. I think most every living creature has an instinctual impulse to survive. It's priority #1.
  13. Bells Staff Member

    So in your opinion, the "life she carries" is less "darned important", if her life is in danger..

    But if she is not in danger, then that "life she carries", somehow has more rights than she does.

    Do you not see the hypocrisy?

    And every day, at least 830 women die in childbirth or due to childbirth related causes..

    And every day, women are forced to give birth to unwanted babies, some rape victims, who are forced to give birth to the offspring of their rapists. Take this poor girl in Paraguay, as a prime example.. The country has banned abortions.

    The Paraguayan child sexual assault case attracted international outrage: A 10-year-old girl’s stepfather allegedly raped and impregnated her, and officials denied her mother’s request for an abortion. When her story came to light in April, the girl was already 22 weeks pregnant.

    On Thursday, the now-11-year-old girl she gave birth at a Red Cross hospital in the capital city, according to numerous reports. The baby was born via cesarean section and doctors reported no complications, Elizabeth Torales, a lawyer for the girl’s mother, told the Associated Press.

    Must be a pro-life Utopian dream..

    Her doctors recommended she be allowed to abort, as at 10 years of age, pregnancy could have killed her. The State refused to grant permission for an abortion. So an 11 year old girl, was forced to undergo a dangerous procedure, to give birth to a baby that was the result of being raped by her own stepfather. She is one of those 256 births world wide every minute.

    Pro-life laws have made the situation absolutely dire for women, Bowser, but you don't really care about that, do you? It's all about that "darned" important life that she carries.

    In countries where abortion is totally banned, the rates of maternal mortality rise because doctors are unable or too afraid to provide life-saving treatment when it can affect a pregnancy, even when it’s the only way to save a mother’s life, according to rights group Amnesty International. Outright abortion bans also mean women are more likely to undergo dangerous backstreet abortions, which put their lives at risk.

    These are the consequences and absolute realities of placing more value on the life of the foetus than that of the mother. Are you happy with those consequences? Is this what you actively want?

    Would you be happy with forcing an 11 year old to give birth to a baby that was the result of being raped by her stepfather, because "that life she carries is darned important"?

    I have to ask.. Why is the mother's rights and her life less important? Why is the woman's rights not as important?

    Carrying on.. That most natural thing in life?

    “Childbirth is the number one killer of teenagers,” the Metro today warned, while The Daily Telegraph reported that “one million teenage girls 'suffer death or injury from pregnancy'”.

    These alarming headlines stem from a new charity report looking at improving family planning in the developing world. The report, from the charity Save the Children, highlights the fact that girls under the age of 15 are five times more likely to die in pregnancy than women in their 20s, and that babies born to younger mothers are also at greater risk. It’s important to note that this is a global figure, which includes the high number of teenage pregnancies in the developing world. It should not cause unnecessary alarm to teenage mothers in the UK.

    Denying abortion, means forcing teenage girls have a much higher chance of experiencing the other natural thing in life...


    So is having control and a say over one's own body.

    Why do you wish to take it away from women?
    But if she has cancer, then "that darned life" does become an inconvenience and she can abort it?

    See the hypocrisy of your argument?

    See the twisted nature of it?

    She has no rights over her own body unless her life is in danger and that is the only time she should have a say or a choice over her own body? Gee, how kind of you...

    Wasn't talking about cloning. I was talking about things like IVF and research like stem cell research, which is tremendously important.
  14. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    And yet half the population can't do it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Besides, more people watch the Olympics, which isn't exactly a natural part of life.

    The only natural thing in life seems to be death.
    Everything else is up for grabs.
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Two-bit Mansplanation for the Gallery

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Click because she got the need.

    I would remind that we cannot take away what she never had in the first place.

    All human rights are established and recognized by convention. Most of us believe there is some reason for having them in the first place; to wit, as I sit here alive and unviolated, I would expect my consideration of human rights standards against murder and rape would have to do with something more than lamenting the inconvenience of being expected to not rape and kill. That is to say, if I absolutely must have an opinion on the subject, as such, then yes, I explicitly appreciate not being raped and killed at the moment, and if I am completely honest I must also acknowledge that human rights standards generally reduce the number of people who might purport reason to formulate my rape or death.

    Prohibitions and customary disdain for dueling must necessarily have some effect, for instance. Such circumstacnes do not mean nobody will ever challenge me, as such, but generally speaking it seems enough these days to bawl to or about moderators. And, besides, escalation seems to prefer mass shootings in my society—often about a girl, by the way—instead of duels—which, in turn, could also easily be about a girl, which reminds of the Iliad and Odyssey, which in turn remind that wars apparently obliging divine intervention can apparently be about a girl, too. Historically speaking, yes, I can imagine a conservative argument in by which one is not taking anything away from women, but, rather, protecting traditional standards of decency, or whatever the hell it is they might come up with this week or next, which in turn sounds an awful lot like last, or the week before that.

    But that's just the thing. I sometimes remind people they don't want me thinking for them. And, you know, yeah, I could probably come up with an argument by which we're not taking a damn thing away from a woman since she never had it in the first place, but historically such depictions of conservative conscience tend to offend conservatives, who in turn never really do get around to explaining what they're really after, because, well, that would mean admitting at least some of those seeming exaggerations and caricaturizations are reasonably accurate.

    Having control and a say over her own body? This is an occasion when it seems of utility to observe that these are the United States of America, as such; our essential discourse on the human rights of woman is, "Hush, dear, the men are talking."

    Part of our historical specialization is the separation of human from other. And as the enlightened world emerges from and reckons with any number of struggles derived therefrom, we Americans seemingly intend to parse the notion to its last inkling of possibility.

    No, really, that's how we do it. If woman is human, then rape is rape. You know, just to speak of having control and a say over her own body. But if we measure her as Adam's rib, we have some wiggle room on rape: Well, yes, rape is wrong, but you bear some responsibility in this. You married him, once upon a time, after all. That she was dumb enough to marry him in the first place is a mitigating circumstance in something like two-thirds of the states.

    Yes, really: Any excuse.

    In the American traditionalist outlook, we're not taking anything away from her, and more fool she for wasting her life with such fanciful notions as being anything more than a reflection of how men feel about themselves.

    And fertilization-assigned personhood: There is no conflict between the rights a "person" and a woman.
  16. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member


Share This Page