Sorry, I do not feel that it is anybodies right to tell any woman what she can and can not do with her own body.
In a perfect world, there would be no need for abortion, however this is not a perfect world and there can be any number of legitemate reasons for an abortion.
And yes, I am actually a pro-lifer, however I am also pro-choice as I firmly believe that the choice is up to each individual person and should not be interfered with.
Well aruvgan, the woman has a chlise of what she can do with her body, she chose to get impregnated. The baby is the one who is getting chopped up without giving his permission, does the baby have any say in what is done with his or her body?
Aw, c’mon, I killed this thread nine years ago with a clever pun, and you dig up its corpse?
Look again. About half of the pregnancies in the US were unplanned. In my case, I got pregnant three times. Once on the Pill, once using foam and condoms together, and once with an IUD in place. This was in a span of two years, each time was with my husband, and no, I did NOT choose to get impregnated. I was taking every precaution (except avoiding sex) to NOT get impregnated.
There is a definite person, here. That’s the woman. There’s something which might or might not be a person, depending on how far along it is. The person who is actually a person gets more say about what’s going on with her body.
I just thought of a rather interesting penalty for women who commit abortion - monthly “child support payments”, equal in value to what she would have reasonably paid for the raising of her child had she not aborted it. The payments end, naturally, 18 years after the child would have been born. This punishment would go a long way toward eliminating the “I have to abort because I can’t afford another kid” argument, since now you’re going to have to pay the money regardless of if you actually have the kid or not.
And what happens to all the funds from these “child support payments”? They go, naturally, to poor pregnant women who choose to actually keep their babies.
I was going :eek: at Susannan’s comments.
This is one of the dumbest ideas I’ve seen anywhere, ever.
It’s a bit dumb, yes, because it would mean rich people could get away with abortion much easier. But perhaps this could simply be in addition to more traditional punishments like imprisonment.
I’m glad for the necro-posting. it’s an interesting thread.
Susannans’s knows what she thinks and she stands behind it. she’s 100% wrong, but at least she knows and stands.
Why don’t you just cut out with the pretense and have them subjected to daily beatings by fundies screaming “Slut!” at them? With the occasional rape thrown in, of course.
And do the men who participated in those pregnancies also have to pay “child support”? I mean, if we’re going to punish the women, why shouldn’t we punish the men?
And how about, instead of the funds going to poor pregnant women, those funds go to free or low cost birth control?
That’s an interesting question… Oh wait, I know the answer! Maybe it’s because beatings and rapes are bad, and sexual promiscuity, while perhaps immoral (for both sexes equally), is no proper concern of the law. And you don’t have to be a “fundie” to be against abortion any more than you have to be a “fundie” to be against beatings and rape.
If the woman’s co-parent and/or partner was complicit in the abortion, well then obviously he should be equally responsible for paying the fine. I am amused by the recurring assumption that opposing abortion somehow entails being unfair to females. It simply happens to be that since it is rather difficult to perform an abortion against the will of the mother, the majority of abortions therefore have at least one female perpetrator.
Well it seems to me that helping families which already exist is a worthier goal than preventing families which might exist in the future.
Sexual promiscuity, hmmm? Each time I got pregnant, it was because I had sex with my husband. My sex life is pretty boring.
And I think that if you’re going to claim to be pro-life, and anti-abortion, it’s far more moral to prevent unwanted pregnancies than to subsidize larger families.
Um OK, what’s your point? The only reason I mentioned promiscuity is that another poster oddly implied that pro-lifers believe pregnant women are “sluts”.
Even if that’s true, I think contraception is rather cheaper than raising a child for two decades. So most of our efforts still should go towards supporting the destitute juvenile. (Contrary to the slanderous accusations that pro-lifers only care about children before they are born.)
Contraception is cheaper than child support. Exactly. So let’s help poor families/poor women put off having kids until they are more capable of affording them, rather than encouraging people to have more kids that they can’t really afford.
It does. Opposition to abortion is motivated by the desire to oppress, torment and kill women. It also is an assertion that a woman’s body doesn’t belong to her, and is the moral equivalent of rape.
It’s perfectly possible to coerce or outright force an abortion on a woman.
You repeat this assertion many times, but I don’t see why. There’s middle ground on the subject. I’m pro-abortion, but it isn’t hard to see that abortion of late term pregnancies, in particular, are not dissimilar to infanticide. In addition, I believe late term abortions also carry significant risk to both mother and child. A reasonable case can thus be made against abortion of a pregnancy that is sufficiently advanced, unless medically advised. Would you characterize anyone making this argument desirous of oppressing, tormenting and killing women?
It would be good if you could explain why you think any kind of penalty is necessary.
Well, the question is what pro-lifers would do if they were in charge. Apparently, that particular pro-lifer thinks that having kids that you can’t afford is a great idea, and should be subsidized.
Yes - but I thought it might help to try to understand this person’s underlying assumptions etc.