A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[BuckToothMoron]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Make her vacuum and clean the kitchen for 5 years without watching The View.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Very simple...... the penalty for an abortion should be sterilization. We can discuss the specific type, but I'm in favor of complete removal of the ovaries.

Without anesthesia !

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Very simple...... the penalty for an abortion should be sterilization. We can discuss the specific type, but I'm in favor of complete removal of the ovaries.

But if it is murder as you righties believe it is, shouldn't the doctor and the woman both be convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to death?

No, torture!

 

[Czernobog]

OK, we got it, you like to thin the weeds.

OK, we got it, you life isn't worth shit so why would anyone else's, even the unborn, be worth anything? (I don't don't agree that your life isn't worth shit)

Can those who don't think either of the above carry on telling women what they carry is not just a blob of tissue? That they actually do have a choice? The pro-abortion folks offer only one.

First of all, I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I don't advocate abortion, I advocate women being allowed to make their own choices regarding the question, without interference from others. Second, your deflection did nothing to answer the question: What should be the appropriate punishment for the woman?

The premise of your question is flawed and you can't understand why, we get it. I advocate the people of the state make the decision. If they want to protect the life of the baby they should have that choice. So I'm the pro-choicer and you're the anti-choicer.

Except that's not pro-choice. That is the state dictating morality for all. You seem to think that, just because you advocate a more limited government agency (the State, rather than the federal government), that, somehow, that negates it being government mandate. It doesn't. I don't want any government control over people's individual choices. Why do you?

You just told one massive lie. Every crime committed by anyone is a choice and you just said you don't want the government having control over those choices. Who should?

Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.

Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.

And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

 

[TemplarKormac]

However, when you refer to a foetus as a child, and disagree with my first post when I set the premise that a foetus is considered a person...well...you can see where I might have drawn the wrong conclusion.

Perhaps I can clear this up.

I disagree with everything. It is only through debate and observation that I am swayed from that position.

As for a "foetus" yes, I do deem it as an unborn child. Because if it was an unborn dog, or cat, pro-choicers would recognize it as one. But human "foetuses" are nothing more than clumps of cells. However, I do not advocate what Oklahoma is doing.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

trump said there should be some form of punishment for women who have abortions, but then again, he may have switched that to a "suggestion" along with just about everything else he gets called on.

Yes, he did, then quickly walked that back, saying he misunderstood the question, and, most recently, he insisted that he meant women who have abortions would punish themselves - I can only presume he meant emotionally. So there is really no reason to believe Trump would support any punishment for women having abortions.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

When it comes to trump, there is no reason to believe anything he has to say.

Conversely, Hellary only speaks the truth- that was too easy

The 7 Wildest Lies From Hillary Clinton - The Political Insider

 

[TemplarKormac]

OK, we got it, you like to thin the weeds.

OK, we got it, you life isn't worth shit so why would anyone else's, even the unborn, be worth anything? (I don't don't agree that your life isn't worth shit)

Can those who don't think either of the above carry on telling women what they carry is not just a blob of tissue? That they actually do have a choice? The pro-abortion folks offer only one.

First of all, I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I don't advocate abortion, I advocate women being allowed to make their own choices regarding the question, without interference from others. Second, your deflection did nothing to answer the question: What should be the appropriate punishment for the woman?

The premise of your question is flawed and you can't understand why, we get it. I advocate the people of the state make the decision. If they want to protect the life of the baby they should have that choice. So I'm the pro-choicer and you're the anti-choicer.

Except that's not pro-choice. That is the state dictating morality for all. You seem to think that, just because you advocate a more limited government agency (the State, rather than the federal government), that, somehow, that negates it being government mandate. It doesn't. I don't want any government control over people's individual choices. Why do you?

You just told one massive lie. Every crime committed by anyone is a choice and you just said you don't want the government having control over those choices. Who should?

Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.

Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.

And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The prilovlem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral pop perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

I thought you were going to bed?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The prilovlem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral pop perspective, and have the right to codify their morality.

All this transgender nonsense is clearly attempts by liberals to "codify their morality." Abortion too, simply reference the case of Little Sisters of the Poor. Or Hobby Lobby.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.

So, having such understanding, why are you only concerned with the liberties of just one side?

 

[Czernobog]

The prilovlem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral pop perspective, and have the right to codify their morality.

All this transgender nonsense is clearly attempts by liberals to "codify their morality." Abortion too, simply reference the case of Little Sisters of the Poor. Or Hobby Lobby.

Except it's not. It is the exact opposite. No one is suggesting that you have to be transgender - or that you even like transgenders. Only that you leave them alone, and quit trying to demonize them.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The prilovlem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral pop perspective, and have the right to codify their morality.

All this transgender nonsense is clearly attempts by liberals to "codify their morality." Abortion too, simply reference the case of Little Sisters of the Poor. Or Hobby Lobby.

Except it's not. It is the exact opposite. No one is suggesting that you have to be transgender - or that you even like transgenders. Only that youbkeave them alone, and quit trying to demonize them.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

That don't want to be left alone, they want to be in the bathroom with the opposite sex, remember?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Only that you leave them alone, and quit trying to demonize them.

So, when have I been "demonizing" them? Seems to me the only people being demonized are those who oppose the idea of having someone of the opposite sex being in the locker room with their children.

 

[OKTexas]

So, if a foetus is a person from the moment of sterilisation, whenever there's a miscarriage there should be a murder investigation.

And, when should a woman report to the Proper Authorities that she's pregnant so that the foetus can be accorded the appropriate rights by The State?

Do you even bother to read what you write, or do you really not know the difference between sterilization and fertilization?

 

[idb]

So, if a foetus is a person from the moment of sterilisation, whenever there's a miscarriage there should be a murder investigation.

And, when should a woman report to the Proper Authorities that she's pregnant so that the foetus can be accorded the appropriate rights by The State?

Do you even bother to read what you write, or do you really not know the difference between sterilization and fertilization?

Thanks for pointing that typo out...I've edited now.
I hope I can reciprocate one day.

 

[Owsi68]

What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Hmm, good question. When it comes to murder amongst humans (post-fetal stage) the legal system has been ruthlessly strict. My understanding is that an accomplice to a murder gets the same punishment as the one who did the actual killing. Not that I agree with this. But I definitely think that the pregnant woman is obviously a knowing participant in an illegal act and should be punished.

As to what kind of punishment, I think that the doctor naturally has a greater responsibility because they are the trained professional so maybe start off by requiring the woman gets a minimum of 1/3 the punishment the doc receives.

 

[OKTexas]

OK, we got it, you like to thin the weeds.

OK, we got it, you life isn't worth shit so why would anyone else's, even the unborn, be worth anything? (I don't don't agree that your life isn't worth shit)

Can those who don't think either of the above carry on telling women what they carry is not just a blob of tissue? That they actually do have a choice? The pro-abortion folks offer only one.

First of all, I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I don't advocate abortion, I advocate women being allowed to make their own choices regarding the question, without interference from others. Second, your deflection did nothing to answer the question: What should be the appropriate punishment for the woman?

The premise of your question is flawed and you can't understand why, we get it. I advocate the people of the state make the decision. If they want to protect the life of the baby they should have that choice. So I'm the pro-choicer and you're the anti-choicer.

Except that's not pro-choice. That is the state dictating morality for all. You seem to think that, just because you advocate a more limited government agency (the State, rather than the federal government), that, somehow, that negates it being government mandate. It doesn't. I don't want any government control over people's individual choices. Why do you?

You just told one massive lie. Every crime committed by anyone is a choice and you just said you don't want the government having control over those choices. Who should?

Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.

Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.

And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really? You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life. How about I leave your shit alone, and just take what you advocate taking from them, you cool with that?

 

[Clementine]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

I am neither pro or anti-choice on abortion. Do want you want as long as it's legal. People should follow the laws. If you live in a state that outlaws it, then don't have one there. Simple.

I do think that people should make smart decisions and be willing to face consequences for their decisions. Babies aren't accidents. You have sex unprotected, you should be aware that getting pregnant is a common consequence. Take the pill or don't have sex. Otherwise, you are gambling and you have to deal it. If you do get pregnant and don't want a baby to be born, then make sure you get a legal abortion. And understand that you should have to pay for it because it was your choice. If a person was raped, the left says they shouldn't have to pay. I don't see how it's any different than if a person gets injured in a hit and run accident. There is a medical bill and the person must deal with it until the person responsible can be caught and sued. It all sucks, but that's life. Hell, the worst would be getting struck by lightning and knowing you can't sue anyone.

There have been botched abortions where the baby lived for a while. In those cases, I don't think it was appropriate to just leave the baby laying there in pain till it died. Once born and breathing, not even the most evil can claim it's not a person. I question the character of anyone who could set a crying, breathing newborn in a storage closet and leave it there to die.

We can't ignore laws simply because we don't agree with them. Obama seems to think he can but, trust me, no one else gets away with it.

Punishment usually follows when a person breaks a law. Get caught jaywalking and you pay a fine. Steal something from a store and maybe go to jail. Some misdemeanors might get you community service and a fine. If a mother has an abortion in a state or country where it's illegal, it wouldn't make much sense to do nothing. People know when they are committing an illegal act.

What kind of punishment? Suppose your newborn baby boy was in the ICU because of some problems, but had decent odds of survival. Then a person went in and deliberately murdered your baby. What punishment would be fair?

Abortion is legal, but there are some restrictions. Late term abortions are wrong. The left insists that one should be performed is if the woman's life is in danger, but it's quicker to either go through the whole birth or just do a C-section. Killing the baby isn't necessary to save the mother, removing it is. Partial birth abortions take longer and would put the mother in more jeopardy since they stop halfway through it to actually kill the baby.

There are time some limits. I thought it was 20 weeks, which is more than half way through the pregnancy. Babies born at 20 weeks have lived and done fine. In cases where an abortion is past the legal time period, I think there might be times when a doctor would be more liable. Suppose a Planned Parenthood doctor told a woman she was only 18 weeks and was within the legal limit when she was really 26 weeks, then the doctor would be responsible.

We always hear that the law is the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. We all are made to pay for the crime.

 

[Mertex]

First of all, I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I don't advocate abortion, I advocate women being allowed to make their own choices regarding the question, without interference from others. Second, your deflection did nothing to answer the question: What should be the appropriate punishment for the woman?

The premise of your question is flawed and you can't understand why, we get it. I advocate the people of the state make the decision. If they want to protect the life of the baby they should have that choice. So I'm the pro-choicer and you're the anti-choicer.

Except that's not pro-choice. That is the state dictating morality for all. You seem to think that, just because you advocate a more limited government agency (the State, rather than the federal government), that, somehow, that negates it being government mandate. It doesn't. I don't want any government control over people's individual choices. Why do you?

You just told one massive lie. Every crime committed by anyone is a choice and you just said you don't want the government having control over those choices. Who should?

Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.

Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.

And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really?

Right now they don't. Remember....Roe v Wade was passed a long time ago, and it hasn't gone away. It is legal to have an abortion.

You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life.

It has the potential to become a person, if he/she is ever born....just like an egg has the potential to become a chicken, if someone doesn't eat it before it is hatched.

 

[emilynghiem]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

College Student Suffocated Her Newborn Baby to Death After Giving Birth in Her Dorm Bathroom

Currently laws are already applied and enforced treating killing of newborns as murder.

What I have suggested to remove this unequal treatment of the woman,
when both partners were responsible for the decision to have sex if not the male
being more responsible in the case of rape, coercion or other sex abuse,
is to either

A. create a separate code, apart from civil or criminal, for health and safety violations
where relationship abuse can be complained of before it becomes a civil or criminal violation.
Then subject both partners to counseling where either partner complains; or another family
member complains where the complainant is also subject to go through counseling until the
problem is identified by a medical professional and the conflict is resolved.
If nobody is criminalized, and if both parties are required to undergo counseling including
the complainant, then both the perpetrator and victim and/or enabler of abusive behavior
can undergo therapy without necessarily blaming any person as in criminal or civil law.
Such a policy would be completely voluntary to opt into, such as a campus community
agreeing to "consent forms" before agreeing to have sexual relations.

B. creating a degree of statutory rape or abuse, where it could be illegal to have
sex if it results in unwanted pregnancy, unwanted abortion, unwanted children.
Any of these could be grounds for arguing the sex was unwanted. So if the
sex is illegal, then in the cases where men coerce women, the MEN would
held responsible instead of current laws that affect women more.

When I brought this up with prolife men, suddenly they were DISTURBED.
What if MEN were held responsible for rape in case of abortion?
Most people never consider what the women feel like to have the legal responsibility on them.
When you turn the tables and put it "all on the men,"
and they feel that's unfair, what does THAT tell you?

So that's why I would propose the approach in A with counseling for relationship abuse
where the responsibility for correcting the problems is MUTUAL and not faulted on any one party,
rather than B that is the reverse of putting too much unequally on women. But it makes a point.

NOTE: I'm anti-abortion in terms of believing in 100% prevention by free choice, by education and offering better options, so that prolife standards are met. I'm prochoice in terms of believing in equal constitutional protections of both prochoice and prolife beliefs equally. I believe in standards of law that will respect and include both sides' beliefs by preventing abortion as close to 100% as possible (we still can't prevent murder 100% either, but we can address and prevent most factors that otherwise lead there), while the preventative measures are enforced by free choice as the law stands now; and any further measures passed should be designed and written collaboratively so they are passed by consensus and don't violate either prochoice or prolife standards. I believe that standard of constitutional equality and inclusion would force all objections to be addressed and all conflicts resolved, so that consensus can be reached.

 

[Mertex]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Also, what about the man that got her pregnant? Doesn't that also fit into the equation....women don't get pregnant on their own....unless they're artificially inseminated. So why no punishment for him?