Certainly, but such a divide exists in the Netherlands as well, where (as I understand it) ethnic groups with more discomfort around sexual matters account for a very disproportionate share of the unplanned pregnancies and abortions.
I agree with that. No punishment for the doctor or ? wwhomever performed it.
I’d agree partially in that many in the pro-life movement in the United States otherwise are orthodox Republicans, who oppose virtually every policy that would actually help children post-birth (increased funds for education, universal preschool/daycare, guaranteed maternity leave etc.). At the same time, though, I see no reason to attribute this to active maliciousness (especially considering the lengths to which the pro-life movement often opposes abortion) as opposed to misguided politics and co-option by the overclass interests.
That doesn’t make Ireland any more theocratic than the 1950s United States was. And considering your mentioning of stoning, you clearly wanted us to think by theocracy of Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban, not simply socially conservative states such as Ireland.
I’m sure there are some self-hating women just as there was that black guy who dressed up in a Confederate uniform, but we’d still expect women to support pro-life policies at much lower rates if the main motivation to ban abortion was misogyny, but this isn’t the case.
Immediate execution, in fact I will volunteer to so for free.
Just joking I love women and would never want their execution, unless for murder.
Like it or not, plenty of women have always been at least as enthusiastic if not more so about persecuting other women as the most sexist of men. Just as men have often persecuted men. This is only one example of the phenomenon.
I’d vote at least the possibility of capital punishment, or failing that life without parole, just like any other premeditated murder.
Those are all good questions, and they’re the sort of questions that, if we ever get around to drafting a law, that the government (informed by medical science) will need to flesh out answers to. That isn’t unique to abortion, of course: killing in self-defence is generally allowed, but the exact line that differentiates ‘legitimate self defence’ from ‘being trigger-happy’ is a bit gray, and requires some judgment calls. I’d say that if a doctor (or a couple of doctors) certifies that there is a substantial risk of serious and permanent damage to the mother’s future health, then abortion should be allowed (if there are no better solutions). The exact thresholds for a substantial risk would be decisions that the doctors can make.
Your anecdote is interesting, but the upshot of the story is that modern medical care was able to keep you safe, which should tell us that medically necessary abortions might be rarer than in the past.
[/QUOTE]
How is this all going to be determined? Are you going to set up a committee of men who will sit there and tell women just how seriously ill they have to be to get moral sanction to have an abortion? How many people will be involved in this issue? Will it be composed of people with a medical background? Or just a group of sanctimonious men lecturing the ebil womens?
Do tell.
:dubious:
[/QUOTE]
I’d take a cue from countries today which restrict abortion to ‘mother’s health’ reasons. Parenthetically, I think it’s interesting that you assume that people sitting on the panel would be ‘men’. Do you think men are much more likely than women to be opposed to abortion rights? (They aren’t). If you mean that politicians are more likely to be men: well, yes, that’s true, and probably always will be, but doctors aren’t always more likely to be male, and I’m sure we could ensure gender neutral (or even mostly female) committees).
I’ve noticed that people who use ‘theocracy’ term very often have no clue what it means. It means rule by the clergy: it doesn’t mean having an official religion, it doesn’t mean religiously inspired moral codes playing a role in the laws, and it especially doesn’t mean a philosophical principle like ‘human life is to be protected from the moment of conception’ governing the laws about abortion. Most of the (Christian) countries which restrict abortion today have separation of church and state.
Believing that the laws should protect the unborn isn’t a ‘religious’ principle any more than believing the laws should protect Black people, Jews, etc.
I’d suggest that part of being civilized, is realizing that ‘failed birth control’, however much it might inconvenience you, is not exactly a legitimate reason to kill someone.
How about this. If a woman is caught trying to get an abortion, her kid gets the death penalty. That’ll teach her.
Yet many pro-lifers in this very thread are saying they would be against that.
Sorry Der Trihs but once again reality doesn’t match your fantasy.
I do not now or ever will understand why a raped woman has to carry the pregnancy to term & if she does, is then vilified for insisting that the state has to take the child to be raised. I have never heard of an antiabortionist who is that way using ‘murder’ as the reason offer to take the child & raise it.
If women do not have this basic control over their body, then women should be able to control which men can get a transplant.
If abortion becomes totally illegal except to save the females life, then how can we allow anyone to have a living will? Or to refuse medical care?
What is the difference in making your Mother suffer years of agony dieing from cancer because ‘they’ will insist on all life saving options.
And making a woman live a life time taking care of the child of rape? If is it not the same, then the state must pay the woman just as much as a surrogate mother gets and take the child no questions asked if the woman does not want it.
Of course you have to establish when human life really begins to be able to call it murder. Is there a time point that all antiabortion people agree on?
IMO, this is a place we have no business going. The individual woman has the right to her person as long as it contains the item in question. Women can decide to have or not have a tumor removed, well everyone can but can not have any say in a pregnancy?
By this thinking, IMO, all contraceptives should be illegal because they are not 100% effective. All women must live with that threat or no woman should live with that threat.
I have my green metal undies on so flame away. I may ignore you just as you may ignore me.
PS: If this comes to a vote again, I think every person in the country who can vote should have their vote registered & a data base established that anyone could access.
Having her unborn child who she wishes to abort killed, after which she goes free.
[QUOTE=]
Qin Shi Huangdi]
I’d agree partially in that many in the pro-life movement in the United States otherwise are orthodox Republicans, who oppose virtually every policy that would actually help children post-birth (increased funds for education, universal preschool/daycare, guaranteed maternity leave etc.).
[/QUOTE]
Could you please cite the universal resistance by the GOP to increased funding for education, and also the long-lasting benefits of universal preschool? TIA.
Regards,
Shodan
A tumour isn’t a person.
The ‘get rid of the secret ballot’ idea is…interesting, and I’m not sure I would make a principled argument against it, but you know that it would mean basically jettisoning liberal democracy as it exists in this country, right? Also, why specifically for abortion votes?
Sterilization.
StG
Neither is a fetus.
Yes they are.
Combine that with the birth control classes, and limit tom people who had “Oops” pregnancies, as opposed to people aborting a fetus with anencephaly, or a woman who just discovered she has cancer aborting a pregnancy so she can start chemotherapy, that’s at least thinking along the right lines.
I once saw a woman in the grocery store buying like eight cans of formula with WIC coupons, and a huge box of condoms, so people can learn.
[/sarcasm]Abortion should be legal, accessible, safe, and cheap.
No, it’s reality that matches what I say, not the rhetoric being used here. Governments with anti-abortion laws do condemn women to death. Usually by forbidding them medically necessary abortions or other medical care, and letting them die slowly. Or killing them for “fornication”, honor killings, and so on.