Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 6740688)

Are there any ironies for a society that accepts abortion but abhors the death penalty?

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 6740695)

I guess you could argue, abortion is killing an innocent soul where as the death penalty is killing a killer.......not that I necessarily agree with that but I could see that reasoning

Edit : oh sorry you meant the other way round

Originally Posted by Jesus. (Post 6740699)

The title and the OP don't tally up.

Originally Posted by Jesus. (Post 6740703)

I support abortion and oppose the death penalty, but there isn't a contradiction there. I support the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies. I don't support the state to make decisions about whether a person should live or die.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 6740713)

But you support the right of an individual to decide whether a person should live or die?

I actually think most people's support of abortion hinges on an inherent misunderstanding of the abortion process; that it is clean, quick and clinical. They believe the "bundle of cells" rhetoric which in fact only applies to very early stage abortions. Later stage surgical abortions, are effing barbaric. They follow one of two scenarios; either the baby is removed whole, in which case it can live (kicking, trying to breathe, making little noises) for several minutes after removal. It's an ethical minefield for the abortionist to physically kill it, so they tend to just be put in a surgical tray with a cloth over them and allowed to slowly die.

In the other scenario, they are mechanically torn limb from limb inside the womb and then extracted piece by piece. Research on this has (obviously??) shown very high levels of fetal distress during this process. They certainly feel it.

Of course - there are even worse, outdated methods... like when they used to use chemical solutions that effectively burned them out. Then you get a combination of the above. Sometimes they came out alive, writhing, covered in hideous burns. Before dying, of course.

A society that finds this morally acceptable in the name of "woman's body, woman's choice" is abhorrent to me. Not least because it's very rarely actually about the woman's body; it's very rare that people choose abortion because of the physical toll of pregnancy. They choose abortion because of the toll that a baby will have on their life. And that is... well... it's ****ing hideous.

There are only two scenarios where I find abortion ethically reasonable. The first is if a pregnancy (healthy baby or otherwise) poses a direct risk to the LIFE of the mother, in which case, there's obvious justification. The second is where there are severe abnormalities in the fetus that mean it's unlikely to be able to live any sort of normal life or, especially, where it's likely that they will be born (and live) in pain. But then, I also support euthanasia, so that sort of falls in line with that.

The issue of rape is also quite murky. But I think it should be a part of "rape general knowledge" if you will, that the morning after pill should be taken as a precaution. I'm aware that people might obviously not be thinking clearly, but that's why it should be driven home as "the thing to do". If anything, it's far less traumatic than discovering a pregnancy after rape and having to make that choice and then go through the abortion process.

Other than that? Yes, her body her choice. The choice is to not get pregnant. If you take risks during consensual sex (and it's ALWAYS a risk, just a smaller one with contraception) then you have already made the choice to accept the possibility of pregnancy. You don't get to just kill human beings because you made a mistake whilst getting your rocks off. It's madness.

Originally Posted by Jesus. (Post 6740725)

No, I support the right of a female to decide what is best for her and her body. When women don't have control over their own reproductive organs is when we have societies riddled with old time poverty. I don't support the rights of the unborn foetus over the mother, absolutely not. What we have is an imperfect system, but it is better than forcing people who may have neither the psychological or financial abilities to care for a child, to care for a child for 18 years.

And that last paragraph is really bizarre. Abstinence is the only sure fire way to avoid the need for any abortion, but you seem to make the mistake in thinking that abortion is a form of birth control, when it's not, it's the last resort for people who've made informed decisions.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 6740748)

Then do you support the rights of a young mother to smother her three month old in its' bed because it's "best for her"? I see no ethical difference. Genuinely. A 16 week old fetus is no less human and no less a person than a young infant. Like I said; I honestly believe that if more people knew the realities of abortion, that it's not always a clean clinical process and passing a little blob of cells and that an actual baby-shaped baby is born, alive, and then left to die... far fewer would choose it.

Also; no, the last paragraph is not bizarre. If someone is old enough to engage in consensual sex then they are an adult. By making the choice to have sex (even with contraception) an adult should understand that one of the risks is that they will become pregnant, and have a baby. With properly used contraception, the risk is tiny, but it is a risk nonetheless.

And abortion is by definition birth control? Completely and literally. Yes it's the last resort for people who have made the decision not to have a baby. The last resort method of birth control.


I don't actually think abortion should be made illegal. It would only lead to more home-grown abortion methods and back street butchery. I do, however, personally think very little of anyone who chooses to kill a healthy baby conceived through consensual sex. It has no place in a supposedly civilised society. I sometimes imagine an advanced alien race looking down on us watching, saying "Oh look! The miracle of life, this man and woman have conceived a child and... and... oh... oh they're inserting metal clamps into her and ripping it limb from limb then scraping it out into a dish." Wow.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 6740748)

Then do you support the rights of a young mother to smother her three month old in its' bed because it's "best for her"? I see no ethical difference. Genuinely. A 16 week old fetus is no less human and no less a person than a young infant. Like I said; I honestly believe that if more people knew the realities of abortion, that it's not always a clean clinical process and passing a little blob of cells and that an actual baby-shaped baby is born, alive, and then left to die... far fewer would choose it.

Also; no, the last paragraph is not bizarre. If someone is old enough to engage in consensual sex then they are an adult. By making the choice to have sex (even with contraception) an adult should understand that one of the risks is that they will become pregnant, and have a baby. With properly used contraception, the risk is tiny, but it is a risk nonetheless.

And abortion is by definition birth control? Completely and literally. Yes it's the last resort for people who have made the decision not to have a baby. The last resort method of birth control.


I don't actually think abortion should be made illegal. It would only lead to more home-grown abortion methods and back street butchery. I do, however, personally think very little of anyone who chooses to kill a healthy baby conceived through consensual sex. It has no place in a supposedly civilised society. I sometimes imagine an advanced alien race looking down on us watching, saying "Oh look! The miracle of life, this man and woman have conceived a child and... and... oh... oh they're inserting metal clamps into her and ripping it limb from limb then scraping it out into a dish." Wow.

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 6740875)

Well that's just logistics I suppose law, but it's surprising how laws affect your moral reasoning.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 6740892)

Is that reply to me?

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 6740875)

Well that's just logistics I suppose law, but it's surprising how laws affect your moral reasoning.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 6740916)

There's a big difference between aborting a foetus and killing a person.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 6740907)

Wouldn't it be the other way round.......moral reasoning affecting the laws?

Originally Posted by Jesus. (Post 6740774)

A 16wk old foetus is most definitely different from what would be classed as a 12month foetus (3 month old baby). Hey, you may see no ethical difference, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 6740925)

Ok what is the big difference, and bear in mind the person is a repeat offending murderous paedophile?

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 6740953)

A foetus isn't a human being yet, it's just a collection of cells that can't survive outside of the womb. The death penalty is 'justifiable' murder.

The concepts are completely different, you can be for one and against the other without a conflict occuring. I'm pro choice and I'm vehemently against the Death Penalty since I don't think murder is ever justified, state sponsored or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 6740944)

It appears not, if you ask in the places with the death penalty if they're immoral they'll say no.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 6740982)

So? Maybe people in those places have a different morality code to us, laws are made by people so therefore must be driven by the morality codes of those people and not the other way round

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 6740984)

Laws are made by governments not people, and governments tell people what to think by creating laws, it's called formal social control.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 6740986)

Governments aren't made up of people then? :joker:

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 6740994)

Of course they are, I meant they are not made by society in general. Your point was moral reasoning affects laws, I don't think they do I feel laws affect moral reasoning Niamh.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 6740946)

And a newborn child is most definitely different to a walking, talking 3 year old. Is there an ethical difference between killing a three year old and drowning a newborn? Historically there are many people who would have argued that there is, as newborn drownings were common not all that long ago (within the last hundred years in the western world, and ongoing in some parts of the world). I actually think there's a strong argument that murdering a 3 year old (who has formed relationships and connections and is aware of complex emotions) IS morally "worse" than killing a newborn. That doesn't make drowning a newborn ethically acceptable.



It's not birth control in the sense that you understand birth control to be, as clearly you are considering "birth control" and "contraception" to be synonymous when they are not. An abortion is not contraception, as contraception is "the prevention of conception". It clearly IS birth control, as birth control is plainly "the prevention of birth". Birth control encompasses contraception but they are not interchangeable terms.




I would like to see an end to the abortion of healthy offspring. I would like people to wake up and see it for what it is; the deliberate termination of a human life. That might be arguably acceptable where the consequences are dire, e.g. a likelihood of death or disability for the mother or severe psychological trauma as may be the case with rape. It might be ethically arguable when the child is going to be born with severe disabilities. It SHOULD be morally abhorrent when it's the healthy product of consensual sexual activity. As for abstinence - I'm not saying "don't have sex if you don't want a baby". Contraception used correctly is almost, but not entirely, 100% effective (the small percentage where it's ineffective is almost always down to incorrect use, the risk with correct use is a tiny fraction of a percent). I *am* saying, if you're not ready to accept that tiny fraction of a possibility of dealing with the consequences of sexual activity, then just don't. Don't have vaginal sex. Lick and suck and finger whatever you want, but keep the babymakers separate, or accept the tiny risk.

I don't want it to be illegal, for completely separate reasons.



Flawed statistics - this has been achieved through contraception. Taking abortion out of the equation would not make a significant difference to the overall birth rate. Unless you're suggesting that every family with 2 children in the western world has gone through 6 - 8 abortions. It also completely ignores the fact that developed nations currently rely on net immigration to be economically sustainable; overpopulation is not a concern in the countries where abortion rates are high, but not BECAUSE abortion rates are high.

Also flawed logically - "poor families" in global terms do not have access to abortion as an option, and DO have a high birth and infant mortality rate. Due to lack of education and contraception. Not due to a lack of said abortion facilities.

A final point would be that most abortions are NOT economically motivated in the sense of being literally unable to afford to raise a child. Most (non-rape, not related to disability) abortions are for comfort, convenience and because they disrupt a "life plan". I do wish that, at least, people would be honest about this unpalatable fact.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 6740998)

I disagree, if that were the case nothing and no laws would ever change, they change because society demands it of their governments, if moral opinion starts to change amongst it's people. Of course each country is different and I think religion may have alot to do with different countries moral compasses