Abortion Penalty

[Weltall]

I'd like to impregnate the chick from Magus' avatar, and then let her have an abortion

[Ferien]

Everyone has morals. The problem arises when you try to make morals universal. You can't make rules or laws on something as subjective as morals.

Every rule and law in society is based on morality. Down to the base laws governing murder and theft, it's all based on morality.

[Xavier]

Everyone has morals. The problem arises when you try to make morals universal. You can't make rules or laws on something as subjective as morals.

Every rule and law in society is based on morality. Down to the base laws governing murder and theft, it's all based on morality.

What bullshit.

The only reason people agree to laws is for their own protection, self-preservation. Its the most basic, primal human instinct. Deep down, humans know their own survival comes before others, despite whatever "morality" you want to attach to a topic, which is why there will never be a majority opinion on abortion.

[Kuya]

Everyone has morals. The problem arises when you try to make morals universal. You can't make rules or laws on something as subjective as morals.

Every rule and law in society is based on morality. Down to the base laws governing murder and theft, it's all based on morality.

Not every rule and law in society is based of morals. How can you make such a broad statement? And thankfuly theft and murder being outlawed is plenty logical, regardless of it being based of the majority's morals.

[Charla]

Yup, unless you count 5-4 as a majority (/rimshot)

[Xavier]

Unfortunately 9 people is a pretty shitty majority to represent 300 million.

------------------------------------------

Freedom of choice is the best people can hope for, because there is never going to be a black-or-white solution.

Murder is illegal because two people can get together and logically conclude neither of them would like to be killed by the other, and so both enter into an agreement not to kill each other.

[Saphirea]

Punishment for Abortion? If that was ever instituted it'd also have to be illegal and so obviously it'd have a punishment to go alongside it. I'd say prison time for the doctor performing the abortion, as in this hypothetical world it would be malpractice, as well as prison time or a large fine for the successful or attempt at abortion, respectively. It'd be like that whole Euthanasia debate...

What I find so interesting about this question, and the reason I posted this thread in the first place, is because almost nobody thinks the woman should be punished. I'm honestly a little flabbergasted, all this time I've heard pro-lifers screaming that the mother doesn't have the right to choose that a human should die. But all of a sudden, when faced with this question, people are taken aback. Regardless of the fact that the mother is choosing to take the life of a "human", they shouldn't be punished. I honestly don't understand, but at the same time I'm intrigued, because it tells me that perhaps even pro-lifers realize that it isn't really murder.

We realize that it is murder. But an eye for an eye isn't what Jesus taught us. He taught us to forgive and to turn the other cheek. He taught to "Love they neighbor and that is my supreme commandment." Punishing another person isn't my right being that I as a sinner cannot persecute someone by murder for commiting another murder. Now I do believe that they need to be taught the correct ways of abstenice and NFP and that sex outside of marriage isn't the way that sex is supposed to be done.

Call me a crazy bible banger, won't be the first time I've been called that, and probably called worse. The thing that I'm trying to get across is that by teaching that sex is to procreate and give lovingly by a married couple you're doing exactly what God wanted us to do in the holy union of Matrimony: the promotion of the woman to motherhood.

The spouses not only give themselves to each other but also receive the other. In doing so the needs of each spouse are to be met and fulfilled as much as reasonably possible. This includes their mutual support, personal interests and their sexual lives together. Marriage is ordained for the giving of life to offspring and for guiding them and providing the growth to adulthood. How important are these goals or ends? Well, if a man or woman made the intention of “no children or no sexual life,” it would not be possible for him or her to actually make a marriage contract. One or both of the very purposes of marriage would be missing and both are essential for the contract of Holy Matrimony. (Taken from Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinis)

[Xavier]

When did God tell you this?

[Ferien]

Everyone has morals. The problem arises when you try to make morals universal. You can't make rules or laws on something as subjective as morals.

Every rule and law in society is based on morality. Down to the base laws governing murder and theft, it's all based on morality.

What bullshit.

The only reason people agree to laws is for their own protection, self-preservation. Its the most basic, primal human instinct. Deep down, humans know their own survival comes before others, despite whatever "morality" you want to attach to a topic.

What would you argue is a primal human instinct though? There are the obvious, such as hunger, thirst, the need for sleep, and self-preservation. Where does the line between instinct and morality come in? I can completely agree with you that we agree to laws in order to protect ourselves, but when it comes to protecting others? I'd argue that the only natural human instinct to protect others are to protect your kin.

And no, I'm not trying to argue that there shouldn't be laws. I'm just trying to pull apart a hypocrisy. In my opinion, you can't have a legal system without a moral system, and a group of people wouldn't agree to a specific set of rules unless they shared similar moral ideals.

[Kuya]

Punishment for Abortion? If that was ever instituted it'd also have to be illegal and so obviously it'd have a punishment to go alongside it. I'd say prison time for the doctor performing the abortion, as in this hypothetical world it would be malpractice, as well as prison time or a large fine for the successful or attempt at abortion, respectively. It'd be like that whole Euthanasia debate...

What I find so interesting about this question, and the reason I posted this thread in the first place, is because almost nobody thinks the woman should be punished. I'm honestly a little flabbergasted, all this time I've heard pro-lifers screaming that the mother doesn't have the right to choose that a human should die. But all of a sudden, when faced with this question, people are taken aback. Regardless of the fact that the mother is choosing to take the life of a "human", they shouldn't be punished. I honestly don't understand, but at the same time I'm intrigued, because it tells me that perhaps even pro-lifers realize that it isn't really murder.

We realize that it is murder. But an eye for an eye isn't what Jesus taught us. He taught us to forgive and to turn the other cheek. He taught to "Love they neighbor and that is my supreme commandment." Punishing another person isn't my right being that I as a sinner cannot persecute someone by murder for commiting another murder. Now I do believe that they need to be taught the correct ways of abstenice and NFP and that sex outside of marriage isn't the way that sex is supposed to be done.

Call me a crazy bible banger, won't be the first time I've been called that, and probably called worse. The thing that I'm trying to get across is that by teaching that sex is to procreate and give lovingly by a married couple you're doing exactly what God wanted us to do in the holy union of Matrimony: the promotion of the woman to motherhood.

The spouses not only give themselves to each other but also receive the other. In doing so the needs of each spouse are to be met and fulfilled as much as reasonably possible. This includes their mutual support, personal interests and their sexual lives together. Marriage is ordained for the giving of life to offspring and for guiding them and providing the growth to adulthood. How important are these goals or ends? Well, if a man or woman made the intention of “no children or no sexual life,” it would not be possible for him or her to actually make a marriage contract. One or both of the very purposes of marriage would be missing and both are essential for the contract of Holy Matrimony. (Taken from Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinis)

With all due respect, abstinance has already been proven to be inefficient. We've been using it for the better part of two thousand years. We have safer sex practices which are more effective than abstinance ever was.

[Saphirea]

When did God tell you this?

It's called attending Mass, participating in it and reading the Bible outside of Church as well as reading Papal documents and having interfaith discussions on topics.

I bring up this one last thing before I leave work for the day to the people who don't believe in God's existance.

Think of it this way, to gamble on God's non existance throughout this life and after death realizing that he did exisit you've risked everything to gain nothing in eternity. To the people that do believe; they risk nothing to gain everything. It goes vice-versa. If God doesn't exist, I've gained nothing in eternity yet haven't risked anything either. I forget who came up with this theroy, but it isn't my own and worded it probably incorrectly.

[Weltall]

But an eye for an eye isn't what Jesus taught us.

Correct. For those that have not read most/some/studied partially the Bible, then you should read more into what an "Eye for an eye" was actually referring to during Jesus' time. It has more to do with barrels of hay and livestock than it does a human life.

I am against the death penalty. I am pro-choice because it's not killing anyone.

[Saphirea]

Punishment for Abortion? If that was ever instituted it'd also have to be illegal and so obviously it'd have a punishment to go alongside it. I'd say prison time for the doctor performing the abortion, as in this hypothetical world it would be malpractice, as well as prison time or a large fine for the successful or attempt at abortion, respectively. It'd be like that whole Euthanasia debate...

What I find so interesting about this question, and the reason I posted this thread in the first place, is because almost nobody thinks the woman should be punished. I'm honestly a little flabbergasted, all this time I've heard pro-lifers screaming that the mother doesn't have the right to choose that a human should die. But all of a sudden, when faced with this question, people are taken aback. Regardless of the fact that the mother is choosing to take the life of a "human", they shouldn't be punished. I honestly don't understand, but at the same time I'm intrigued, because it tells me that perhaps even pro-lifers realize that it isn't really murder.

We realize that it is murder. But an eye for an eye isn't what Jesus taught us. He taught us to forgive and to turn the other cheek. He taught to "Love they neighbor and that is my supreme commandment." Punishing another person isn't my right being that I as a sinner cannot persecute someone by murder for commiting another murder. Now I do believe that they need to be taught the correct ways of abstenice and NFP and that sex outside of marriage isn't the way that sex is supposed to be done.

Call me a crazy bible banger, won't be the first time I've been called that, and probably called worse. The thing that I'm trying to get across is that by teaching that sex is to procreate and give lovingly by a married couple you're doing exactly what God wanted us to do in the holy union of Matrimony: the promotion of the woman to motherhood.

The spouses not only give themselves to each other but also receive the other. In doing so the needs of each spouse are to be met and fulfilled as much as reasonably possible. This includes their mutual support, personal interests and their sexual lives together. Marriage is ordained for the giving of life to offspring and for guiding them and providing the growth to adulthood. How important are these goals or ends? Well, if a man or woman made the intention of “no children or no sexual life,” it would not be possible for him or her to actually make a marriage contract. One or both of the very purposes of marriage would be missing and both are essential for the contract of Holy Matrimony. (Taken from Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinis)

With all due respect, abstinance has already been proven to be inefficient. We've been using it for the better part of two thousand years. We have safer sex practices which are more effective than abstinance ever was.

How is not having sex outside of marriage not safer? Theres no diseases, no children, no emotional attachment. Explain please.

[Shade]

It's easy to have an opinion on what other people should be allowed to do.

I don't really like abortion either... but instead of saying "abortion should be illegal", what about working towards things that would make it unneccessary?

Better sex education (!), universal availability of birth control for women, better systems in place for helping mothers take care of children, or for giving them up + finding them good homes. Less stigmatization of single moms, or single pregnant women ("Oh she got knocked up, what a slut"). Better public education in general... more/better systems for helping people who are down on their luck.

If you can get rid of the -reasons- for it, that's a big step towards making it unneccessary altogether.


But that's much more work, isn't it?


(also holy crap, like 10 replies added while typing this. talk about a hot button topic... )

[Weltall]

When did God tell you this?

It's called attending Mass, participating in it and reading the Bible outside of Church as well as reading Papal documents and having interfaith discussions on topics.

I bring up this one last thing before I leave work for the day to the people who don't believe in God's existance.

Think of it this way, to gamble on God's non existance throughout this life and after death realizing that he did exisit you've risked everything to gain nothing in eternity. To the people that do believe; they risk nothing to gain everything. It goes vice-versa. If God doesn't exist, I've gained nothing in eternity yet haven't risked anything either. I forget who came up with this theroy, but it isn't my own and worded it probably incorrectly.

Lovely to hear that you believe in God, but since you seem to know about him then you should understand that anyone who prays/believes to/in God over fear of Hell(vs. where you will spend eternity) will find him or herself there. Fear of Hell is an absolutely terrible reason to ask for forgiveness or try to believe in God. Read more of the Bible. It is not a game, and you should not look at it like you are trying to win a prize vs. other contestants.

[Kuya]

Think of it this way, to gamble on God's non existance throughout this life and after death realizing that he did exisit you've risked everything to gain nothing in eternity. To the people that do believe; they risk nothing to gain everything. It goes vice-versa. If God doesn't exist, I've gained nothing in eternity yet haven't risked anything either. I forget who came up with this theroy, but it isn't my own and worded it probably incorrectly.

I thought of this once, but when i thought it true, i came to the conclusion that God, being omnipotent and all, would realize what you're doing, and understand that you're playing on the safe side. This is not really the definition of faith. Believing in God out of fear isn't fun.

[Xavier]

And no, I'm not trying to argue that there shouldn't be laws. I'm just trying to pull apart a hypocrisy. In my opinion, you can't have a legal system without a moral system, and a group of people wouldn't agree to a specific set of rules unless they shared similar moral ideals.

Why must shared moral ideals be the basis for law?

If I feel that I don't want to die, and you feel that killing is wrong, and we both enter into an agreement not to kill each other, then morality had nothing to do with my acceptance of the law.

The only problem I have is when people act like their moral system IS their legal system, whereas, if they were the same thing, they wouldn't be defined as moral and legal, would they?

[divisortheory]

We realize that it is murder. But an eye for an eye isn't what Jesus taught us. He taught us to forgive and to turn the other cheek. He taught to "Love they neighbor and that is my supreme commandment." Punishing another person isn't my right being that I as a sinner cannot persecute someone by murder for commiting another murder. Now I do believe that they need to be taught the correct ways of abstenice and NFP and that sex outside of marriage isn't the way that sex is supposed to be done.

So you think it's murder, but not in the same category that a person walks up and shoots someone in the face? How severe is the "murder" of an unborn child compared to the following (please rank them in descending order):

A) Someone walks up and shoots someone in the face for no reason, killing them.
B) Someone shoots someone else in self defense, killing them.
C) Someone drowning their 5 year old son in a bathtub.
D) Someone leaving their 5 year old son in a hot car in summer for 3 hours, killing the child.
E) Abortion of an embryo that was conceived yesterday
F) Abortion of a fetus that was conceived 6 months ago.

Which of the people from A, B, C, D, E, and F should receive prison time?


Now that that's out of the way, I don't see how you can realistically argue that it should A) Be illegal, and B) Not be punished by jail time. You can't have it both ways. If something is illegal you go to jail for doing it. Certainly murder. If you don't think it's punishable by jail time, don't call it murder. Killing of a human being deserves jail time.

[Saphirea]

It's easy to have an opinion on what other people should be allowed to do.

I don't really like abortion either... but instead of saying "abortion should be illegal", what about working towards things that would make it unneccessary?

Better sex education (!), universal availability of birth control for women, better systems in place for helping mothers take care of children, or for giving them up + finding them good homes. Less stigmatization of single moms, or single pregnant women ("Oh she got knocked up, what a slut"). Better public education in general... more/better systems for helping people who are down on their luck.

If you can get rid of the -reasons- for it, that's a big step towards making it unneccessary altogether.


But that's much more work, isn't it?


(also holy crap, like 10 replies added while typing this. talk about a hot button topic... )

You bring up some very valid points and things that should be done. Especially in my opinion the legal bs red tape for people who activly want to adopt and end up having to go outside of the country due to the US process taking upwards of 2 years to legally adopt when you can adopt from outside the country in as little as an 8 months process.

[Devek]

I have 46 chromosomes. A normal gamete (that's sperm or egg, captain biology) has 23 chromosomes. A person with Turner syndrome has 45 chromosomes. A person with Down syndrome has 47 chromosomes. Now, according to your definition, "human DNA" requires having 46 chromosomes. But that would mean that miss Turner syndrome and mister/miss down syndrome are not human. No, 45 and 47 are not "close enough", and therefore you've just committed a logical fallacy and disproved your own point.

If you have 47 chromosomes and scientist examine your DNA they won't go, "oh shit! its a zebra!", they will say "Oh, its a human with down syndrome".

Life doesn't have a clear cut definition either, but when you're holding a woman you love and feel her stomach and something inside of there kicks your hand away you know what that is.. its life. It wasn't Sarah that kicked me, it wasn't me that kicked me, it was someone else that was unique and didn't deserve to be killed.

That argument (to be generous with the term) makes me furious. Your subjective experience does not justify attempting to force your opinions on others. Your own capacity to be a good parent does not mean that every American is capable of being a good parent. Your own (presumably) bearable childhood does not mean that every potential American will have a good childhood. I know that I would rather not live than live a bad life. I would thank you for "going back in time to before I had a brain" and preventing me from having that life. That is not intended as a justification of my opinions on this entire topic, and it may be a biased opinion (due to my own self-esteem issues and my opinions about the nature of physical and emotional pain as it relates to life). But even so, it still counters your emotion-based and therefore equally biased opinion about why a given entity "deserves" to exist simply because it is "unique".

1) I would prefer having a bad childhood than dying.
2) If you would prefer to die, you have the choice of ending it.

You can't ask someone who can't talk yet if they want to live or not, why not let them get a little older and they can make that choice themselves? If they decide their life isn't worth it they have the choice to end it. I am not trying to force parenthood on anyone, just a few months of pregnancy in exchange for a few years of good sex.

What I find so interesting about this question, and the reason I posted this thread in the first place, is because almost nobody thinks the woman should be punished. I'm honestly a little flabbergasted, all this time I've heard pro-lifers screaming that the mother doesn't have the right to choose that a human should die. But all of a sudden, when faced with this question, people are taken aback. Regardless of the fact that the mother is choosing to take the life of a "human", they shouldn't be punished. I honestly don't understand, but at the same time I'm intrigued, because it tells me that perhaps even pro-lifers realize that it isn't really murder.

I know realistically abortion will not be illegal anytime soon, but I think at the very least there should be a system for a man to be involved somewhere. I think an abortion should require signed consent from the father and if the father could not be located the woman would have to sign an affidavit that he is unavailable and a genetic sample of the child should be stored. If it could be proven later that the father was left in the dark and unaware of the abortion on purpose the woman should face prison. You could even add some sort of proactive way for a man to register his DNA with a service to be tested against any pending abortions to prevent one from happening without his consent.