If abortion were criminalized should women getting an abortion and abortionists face prison time?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
its approaching midnight over here and I don’t want to be to tired for mass so I must go. God bless 🙂
 
catholictiger said:
I understand that but while it is absolulty no different in what you are killing, there is a difference in killing a 1 5 or 13 year old than killing a unborn human being. The women can’t see what she is killing, she would see what she is kiling of a one year old. She would probably be tricked into killing her child, instead of a women just going into the abortion clinic and saying get it done now. They are tricked into doing it. It just doesn’t seem like aborting a baby and killing a one year old is the same thing. It just doesn’t take the same amount of will power I guess you could say even though evil will power. I really honestly thing that women who is killing something that should clearly to her be human should be punished worse than a women who is killing something that to her may not be clearly human. They are both human and neither action is worse or better than the other. But to consider them the same type of act as far as what goes into it is a stretch.
Click to expand...
Well I’m not sure my friend. By the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, seeing and knowing are different things. By the Grace of God, every woman who is pregnant knows of the profound gift and blessing which she carries. It is a wonderful part of our biology designed by God for women to know this. There is a powerful, powerful, intimate connection between mother and child that begins 9 months before birth occurs, that no man will ever experience. I simply cannot imagine how a woman would not know this child to be a child, her child, less she has been exceedingly brainwashed either by the will of a sick and twisted group of people or a society morally depraved beyond what we have now.

And in these special circumstances in which the woman is indeed ignorant, she again would be tried as one who kills a born child in ignorance. But, this certainly is not typical.
 
subtract one in favor,add one to not sure.i should have read all the posts before voting,guilty of rash judgement.:o
 
FaithBuild18 said:
There is a powerful, powerful, intimate connection between mother and child that begins 9 months before birth occurs, that no man will ever experience. I simply cannot imagine how a woman would not know this child to be a child, her child, less she has been exceedingly brainwashed either by the will of a sick and twisted group of people or a society morally depraved beyond what we have now.
Click to expand...
Speak for yourself. For some people the new life just doesn’t feel “real” until about a month after the baby is born. It’s not all that uncommon, really.
 
AthenaC said:
Speak for yourself. For some people the new life just doesn’t feel “real” until about a month after the baby is born. It’s not all that uncommon, really.
Click to expand...
I find that very hard to believe.

Sure, if the parents don’t **want **the baby and if they are open to the idea of abortion, then they may say that they think the baby is “only a blob of tissue” and all the other slogans. But surely anyone of minimal intelligence and education realises that an unbiorn baby is a living human being.

When the parent want the baby, nobody has to “explain” to them that the unborn baby is a human being. They know. From instinct as well as science and plain common sense.
 
Petergee said:
I find that very hard to believe.
Click to expand...
Again, speak for yourself and please read what I actually wrote, not what you are reading into it. It is very possible (and not all that uncommon) to observe one’s pregnant belly, feel movement inside, know intellectually that there is life there, and still not “feel” that there is life there until about a month after the baby is born.
 
AthenaC said:
Speak for yourself. For some people the new life just doesn’t feel “real” until about a month after the baby is born. It’s not all that uncommon, really.
Click to expand...
Though you may think it to be uncommon, it certainly isn’t common. In which case, the exceptions to the rule should speak for themselves, and the general consensus should be spoken for in general terms.

Natural law and biological order dictate that a woman will naturally know that her unborn child is a living being. It does not take the intervention of others to convince her of this, rather it takes the intervention of others to convince her of the opposite. Left alone, she will know and feel it to be her living child.
 
FaithBuild18 said:
Though you may think it to be uncommon, it certainly isn’t common. In which case, the exceptions to the rule should speak for themselves, and the general consensus should be spoken for in general terms.

Natural law and biological order dictate that a woman will naturally know that her unborn child is a living being. It does not take the intervention of others to convince her of this, rather it takes the intervention of others to convince her of the opposite. Left alone, she will know and feel it to be her living child.
Click to expand...
I agree, that that is the rule, not the exception. Those who are in tune with their bodies definitely sense a change, and at some point (long before a month after birth!) the baby is active and moving. Makes it difficult not to recognize it as a person distinct from oneself!

I do think, however, that in the very early stages, many are in denial, and are able to support that denial due to the more powerful emotion to suppress the reality than to acknowledge it.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
I agree, that that is the rule, not the exception. Those who are in tune with their bodies definitely sense a change, and at some point (long before a month after birth!) the baby is active and moving. Makes it difficult not to recognize it as a person distinct from oneself!

I do think, however, that in the very early stages, many are in denial, and are able to support that denial due to the more powerful emotion to suppress the reality than to acknowledge it.
Click to expand...
Well of course, I can concede that a woman probably doesn’t know for sure she is even pregnant say 3 days after conception, let alone knows that it is a child, I was just trying to illustrate a point. Would it suffice to say that with knowledge of pregnancy comes knowledge of the child’s life (again, in general)? And I’m not saying she explicitly detects the presence of a life form in her womb, rather I’m saying that every biological creature has a profound sense of association between pregnancy and life. Animals will indeed defend pregnant individuals of their species because they know, without explicit knowledge, rather with implicit knowledge, that what they have is alive. I contend that the knowledge of life in the womb is an implicitly understood facet of our biology, meticulously woven into the fibre of our being by the Lord.

And yes, I think you’re right about denial, I think it’s a great point, and I think our culture is a very very large part of that.
 
FaithBuild18 said:
Well of course, I can concede that a woman probably doesn’t know for sure she is even pregnant say 3 days after conception, let alone knows that it is a child, I was just trying to illustrate a point.
Click to expand...
That’s not what I meant by the phrase you bolded “very early stages.” What I meant was that once there is laboratory confirmation to her that she is pregnant, the separate life within her is often a matter of denial, due to some ability to do that, given the size of the conceptus. Sometimes that denial remains even should she have morning (or evening) sickness & other dramatic indicators. The size and the quietude of the tiny life enables more denial when one wants strongly to believe against that. The mind is a powerful thing.

When that life begins to be both visible and physically felt as a separate entity, that’s another thing entirely.

That was the meaning of my post.
 
FaithBuild18 said:
Though you may think it to be uncommon, it certainly isn’t common. In which case, the exceptions to the rule should speak for themselves, and the general consensus should be spoken for in general terms.

Natural law and biological order dictate that a woman will naturally know that her unborn child is a living being. It does not take the intervention of others to convince her of this, rather it takes the intervention of others to convince her of the opposite. Left alone, she will know and feel it to be her living child.
Click to expand...
I am curious how you know what a pregnant woman’s perceptions are. Have you ever been pregnant?
 
AthenaC said:
I am curious how you know what a pregnant woman’s perceptions are. Have you ever been pregnant?
Click to expand...
That’s the appeal to emotion/personal attack logical fallacy. If one has to be a woman and been pregnant to be qualified to speak about abortion then the same ones who say this have to also say that Roe vs Wade is invalid since it was decided by an all male Supreme Court. By the same standard, only pregnant women would be qualified to give their opinion about abortion and not women who haven’t ever been pregnant. This would mean that most lesbians don’t have a right to give their opinion about abortion. Are you willing to say that? But many women who have had an abortion say they deeply regret it.
 
With the research that is floating about (I don’t know if it is "good’ research or not) about the hormones released at childbirth and in close proximity to it, like the oxytocin hormone, perhaps we now know that nature provides a way for a woman to be more securely attached to her infant at the time that it is born. If so, maybe women who are pregnant are naturally less attached during pregnancy than they are shortly after birth, making it seem more unnatural to kill an already born infant, based upon our expectations about mothers and how we’ve seen them behave during our lives.

Just hypothesizing here that people have expectations based upon what they have observed, and it is influencing the standards they hold the mothers to. I don’t mean you people here. I mean people in the world who are making the laws.
 
livingwordunity said:
That’s the appeal to emotion/personal attack logical fallacy. If one has to be a woman and been pregnant to be qualified to speak about abortion then the same ones who say this have to also say that Roe vs Wade is invalid since it was decided by an all male Supreme Court. By the same standard, only pregnant women would be qualified to give their opinion about abortion and not women who haven’t ever been pregnant. This would mean that most lesbians don’t have a right to give their opinion about abortion. Are you willing to say that? But many women who have had an abortion say they deeply regret it.
Click to expand...
Please do not read into what I did not say. We currently have not one but two posters (both of whom I suspect are male) announcing what “women” universally experience during pregnancy. I am curious how they know this; the natural question is whether or not they have ever been pregnant.
 
Pug said:
With the research that is floating about (I don’t know if it is "good’ research or not) about the hormones released at childbirth and in close proximity to it, like the oxytocin hormone, perhaps we now know that nature provides a way for a woman to be more securely attached to her infant at the time that it is born. If so, maybe women who are pregnant are naturally less attached during pregnancy than they are shortly after birth,
Click to expand...
Attachment to an infant comes from the conscious choice to take care of said infant, during and after pregnancy. It is not magically granted upon conception. Such attachment (in many cases) is not fully realized until about a month after birth.

That is all I was saying, and I am wondering on what basis certain posters are saying that this isn’t the case.
 
AthenaC said:
Please do not read into what I did not say. We currently have not one but two posters (both of whom I suspect are male) announcing what “women” universally experience during pregnancy. I am curious how they know this; the natural question is whether or not they have ever been pregnant.
Click to expand...
Where did they say they know what a woman experiences during a pregnancy? Can you provide a quote of them making this claim?
 
AthenaC said:
Attachment to an infant comes from the conscious choice to take care of said infant, during and after pregnancy. It is not magically granted upon conception. Such attachment (in many cases) is not fully realized until about a month after birth.

That is all I was saying, and I am wondering on what basis certain posters are saying that this isn’t the case.
Click to expand...
I can’t speak to the basis for what some here say. I’m saying the little research I’ve seen shows nature does provide a way to attachment, but the stuff I’ve read concerns nursing and birth and skin to skin touching, not conception. No one’s ever told me secure attachment happens right away at conception. *If *in fact of experience women are more likely to be securely bonded to their infants at a time not too long after birth, but not as much before birth, then this will likely change the expectations that humans have of mothers, having observed mothers and developed expectations. Expectations might be influencing law.
 
I say no because the person carrying out the abortion is not vulnerable - the woman may be.

The woman may have been pressurized by family/father of child/pimp in the case of women who have been forced into prostitution.

In a Western country, the person carrying out the abortion may well be doing it solely for financial reasons.

It would be disproportionate in relation to other laws - for example a person who sells drug is criminalized to a greater extent than an addict. A person who sells alcohol to someone who is drunk/under age is held responsible - the purchaser of the alcohol is not.

In the case of a woman who seeks an abortion because she has been raped or a victim of incest - should the rapist/child abuser bear responsibility for rendering them vulnerable? Putting them in a position where they would seek an abortion?

What about women who behave irresponsibly while pregnant? If they do not have the intention to harm/kill their child, how responsible should they be held if it happens?
 
Pug said:
I can’t speak to the basis for what some here say. I’m saying the little research I’ve seen shows nature does provide a way to attachment, but the stuff I’ve read concerns nursing and birth and skin to skin touching, not conception.
Click to expand...
If that’s what data out there says, then that’s fair. It is interesting to me that I’ve never met anyone who experienced things this way. Since I have known quite a few moms, either there is an issue with the data, or I am friends with a population that is a walking statistical aberration (as a group). I am more inclined to think something is wrong with the data, but I could be wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top