Tropical Wilds
Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
- Oct 2, 2009
- 4,790
- 3,133
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Mandatory punishment for women who abort.
- Thread starter Phronesis
- Start date
- Status
Yes you are technically correct but I feel it falls under the category of punishing mothers for the act of abortion, though it seems to narrowly define punishable abortion, it's along the same lines.
The original thinking is the same it seems, abortion is akin to homicide or miurder, and ought be punished. So this seems to me a natural extension of pro-life principles.
The original thinking is the same it seems, abortion is akin to homicide or miurder, and ought be punished. So this seems to me a natural extension of pro-life principles.
Upvote
0
IreneAdler
more binah in her finger than in your whole body
This is just disgusting. And "abortion" doesnt' necessarily mean a D&C. You can see if a woman has been pregnant but it's hard to tell WHY it didn't come to fruition. Abortion also means miscarriage by natural means. Not to mention, forced pelvic exams are an infringment on their rights as human beings. Why all the onus is on women is beyond me. Maybe some of the men who participated in these pregnancies (hypothesized pregnancies) should just be castrated as well for not being good husband material, or for being man-harlots. (tongue in cheek) This is just... disgusting. I don't know how else to describe it.
Upvote
0
L
LilyLayola
Guest
#
I hope every woman you go near is revolted by you. I am. And I pity your wife if you are married because you clearly have no respect for her body or privacy. My uterus is mine business, if you went along with this how many women would be jailed for early miscarriages as I have had at six weeks twice, I didn't bother to see a doctor, both times I had only just realise I was pregnant.
Do you think that Jesus doesn't forgive women who have abortions? He is more compassionate and more loving than so many Christians that claim to stand for him. Thank God that he is better than that.
I'll bet you are the type to whine about big Government but you are happy for it invade a woman's body. Any woman that thinks this is a good idea, I recommend The Handmaids Tale by Margaret Atwood.
Upvote
0
L
LilyLayola
Guest
Then men should be subject to frequent rectal probes because if this kind of law if ever imposed, then homosexuals will be stoned I am sure. How else are we going to be sure that you are not a secret homosexual, many closeted homosexuals hid in churches some are even very famous. So rectal probes to check of anal sex will be have to required, just to sure society is free such activity. Of course the bleeding may just be your piles or it maybe a tear from a six inch invasion. Of course you will have to jailed for it anyway.
That is roughly an idea of how invasive, judgemental and sick your post is.
For the record I am not in anyway attacking homosexuality, I have no real issue with it but I'll bet you do.
Upvote
0
Skaloop
Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
- May 10, 2006
- 16,332
- 899
- 47
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-NDP
Rape is already illegal, so let's use the hypothetical approach of the OP to address rape. Since most rape involves a man raping a woman, I will focus on that.
Because rape is illegal and also morally heinous, it should be persecuted tot he full extent of the law. In order to achieve that, I propose the following:
Every man shall submit a form of all current sexual partners, along with a signed affidavit from each proclaiming to be his consentual sexual partner and a sample of each partner's DNA. Each male shall then be subject to daily tests for the presence of female cells on his genitals. If any are found they will be compared to the DNA on file. If they do not match, the man must bring forward the un-listed sexual partner to confirm her consent and for DNA testing to verify that she was the un-listed partner. If he fails to do so, a further investigation will be launched to investigate his wherabouts and activities since the previous exam.
Because condoms could prevent the transfer of female skin cells, all condoms will be sold by prescription only, to males only, and quantities will be reviewed on a daily basis, during the genital exam. Any condoms unaccounted for will trigger further investigation, as above.
Now, some rapists will still slip through the cracks I suppose, through the washing of genitals, or through the rape of a partner who is on their list, but certainly such measures as I have described would go a long way towards catching rapists. And since rape is actually illegal (as opposed to abortion, currently), surely such measures should be enacted, regardless of the possible privacy issues it would impose on men, most of whom would never rape a woman and thus have nothing to really worry about.
Because rape is illegal and also morally heinous, it should be persecuted tot he full extent of the law. In order to achieve that, I propose the following:
Every man shall submit a form of all current sexual partners, along with a signed affidavit from each proclaiming to be his consentual sexual partner and a sample of each partner's DNA. Each male shall then be subject to daily tests for the presence of female cells on his genitals. If any are found they will be compared to the DNA on file. If they do not match, the man must bring forward the un-listed sexual partner to confirm her consent and for DNA testing to verify that she was the un-listed partner. If he fails to do so, a further investigation will be launched to investigate his wherabouts and activities since the previous exam.
Because condoms could prevent the transfer of female skin cells, all condoms will be sold by prescription only, to males only, and quantities will be reviewed on a daily basis, during the genital exam. Any condoms unaccounted for will trigger further investigation, as above.
Now, some rapists will still slip through the cracks I suppose, through the washing of genitals, or through the rape of a partner who is on their list, but certainly such measures as I have described would go a long way towards catching rapists. And since rape is actually illegal (as opposed to abortion, currently), surely such measures should be enacted, regardless of the possible privacy issues it would impose on men, most of whom would never rape a woman and thus have nothing to really worry about.
Upvote
0
CreedIsChrist
Well-Known Member
I just love how pro-abortionists talk about "rights" while conveniently ignoring the unborn child's right to life.
Listen, if your defending abortion your in no position to talk about rights. You deny the rights to unborn children. <staff edit>
<staff edit> 60 million children have been murdered by their own mothers <staff edit>
rofl..
If you don't want the womans body "invaded" then why are you invading the babys body with tools of death? You contradict yourself.
<staff edit>
Heres an early apostolic patristic writing about abortion
The Didache
"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).
The Letter of Barnabas
"The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).
The Apocalypse of Peter
"And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion" (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).
Athenagoras
"What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?
. . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it" (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).
Tertullian
"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).
"Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.
"There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] "the slayer of the infant," which of course was alive. . . .
"[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive" (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).
"Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (ibid., 27).
"The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]" (ibid., 37).
Minucius Felix
"There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide" (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).
Hippolytus
"Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!" (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).
Council of Ancyra
"Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]).
Basil the Great
"Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not" (First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374]).
"He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees" (ibid., canon 8).
John Chrysostom
"Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).
Jerome
"I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder" (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).
You see, all early Christians were against abortion. The defense of abortion is a relatively new thing
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
lux et lex
light and law
<staff edit>
Why does the fetus get all the rights in a pregnancy situation and the woman gets none?
Why does the fetus get all the rights in a pregnancy situation and the woman gets none?
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Skaloop
Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
- May 10, 2006
- 16,332
- 899
- 47
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-NDP
Do the rights of the child/fetus/baby supercede the rights of the mother? You seem to think so. So I ask you, why do the rights of the child/fetus/baby supercede the rights of the mother?
I don't deny that a fetus has certain rights. I do deny that those rights take precedence over the rights of the mother.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
L
LilyLayola
Guest
I am not Pro- Abortion and I find the figures disturbing. I am not dogmatic, I don't think it's existance means that society has bad mothers because of it. Some of the most screwed up children come from good God -fearing, homeschooling Christians. I assume the Priests that molested children, came from good Catholic homes and were taught to be good Catholics but something went wrong, they lived in a society that expected big families and no abortion, divorce or contraception. I'll bet many of them were abused too. (I am Catholic and think we have lost alot of ground on moral authority here. I am not attacking The Church, just those that abuse children and allow those that do to go unpunished.)
It think when people that are so obsessed about abortion, start caring about the living children that are living to dire poverty more, we might make progress. We may get more respect when we say abortion is wrong.
We need to make it so those women do have a choice other than an abortion or having a baby born in poverty. How many people call abortion murder and the single mother that has the child a scrounger and a burden of society when they have the child?
If abortion is murder what about the bombs that drop on living children, what about children who basically live on rubbish dumps and have no clean water, while western governments exploit them to make cheap sportswear? That isn't respecting the living child or does the right to life stop when a baby is born? How many women in the world choose abortion are in those circumstances, for whom life doesn't seem such a great privaledge? Comdemning them and telling them they are murderers won't help, when they can't feed the children they have.
Abortion is never an black and white issue to me, and right to life is about more than
what is happening in the womb.
It think when people that are so obsessed about abortion, start caring about the living children that are living to dire poverty more, we might make progress. We may get more respect when we say abortion is wrong.
We need to make it so those women do have a choice other than an abortion or having a baby born in poverty. How many people call abortion murder and the single mother that has the child a scrounger and a burden of society when they have the child?
If abortion is murder what about the bombs that drop on living children, what about children who basically live on rubbish dumps and have no clean water, while western governments exploit them to make cheap sportswear? That isn't respecting the living child or does the right to life stop when a baby is born? How many women in the world choose abortion are in those circumstances, for whom life doesn't seem such a great privaledge? Comdemning them and telling them they are murderers won't help, when they can't feed the children they have.
Abortion is never an black and white issue to me, and right to life is about more than
what is happening in the womb.
Upvote
0
CreedIsChrist
Well-Known Member
what rights exactly are being superseded?? The right to murder? how is murder a right all of a sudden? Just because a woman does not want her child all of a sudden justifies child killing??? The exact same justification could be used for killing anybody! 'Oh gee, I don't like those people in the Grocery Store, so I'm gonna kill them, they infringe on my right because they stole my parking space". That isn't logic or rights, that is insanity...
Both the mother and child are 2 beings with their own rights. Babies don't force themselves into a womans womb, they get there by the action of 2 culpable adults. Hence the child is innocent, and in no way should suffer the consequences of someone elses action. That is called injustice. Killing someone who has committing no crime, only the "crime" of existing.
So as long as you don't recognize the rights of EVERYONE, then don't talk about human rights. If your for abortion, then your not for human rights considering EVERYONE starts from the womb. That's why its impossible to be truly christian and pro-choice, because it goes against everything the Gospel stands for and is an attack against God's natural law. Abortion is not only an attack on children, who Jesus says "thus is the kingdom of God", and that whoever hinders them "it is better a milestone to be hung around their neck and thrown into the sea", but it is also an attack on the image of God. It is no different than when Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents in order to find Jesus. Taking a life is one thing, but taking a life that is innocent and has committed no crime is a much greater weight because of the level of injustice involved..
If a woman sleeps with someone, she is already consenting to the chance of getting pregnant. This makes her fully culpable. If she cannot be a mother, then there is always adoption and centers to help pregnant women. In fact there are twice as many pregnancy help centers than there are abortion clinics...
Upvote
0
Skaloop
Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
- May 10, 2006
- 16,332
- 899
- 47
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-NDP
You don't have a right to a parking spot, though, so analogy fail.
You do have the right to be secure in your person. If someone is trying to harm or kill you, you are justified in defending your person.
You do have the right to be secure in your property. If someone is invading or destrying your property, you are justified in defending your property.
You do have a right to be secure in your body. If someone is using your body without your permission, you are justified in defending your body. Even if it's not necessarily harming you directly!
A woman having an abortion is in the third position. It matters not that it is "her fault" or that the fetus is innocent. Nobody, born or in the womb, has the right to use a person's body against their will. She is defending her body.
As soon as a fetus/embryo/blastocyst can be kept alive in an incubator at any point during gestation, without the need of the mother's womb, then I might agree with you on stopping abortions. Until then, no, because the fetus has no more of a right to the mother's body than a homeless person does to your house, even if throwing him out means he will die on the streets.
If you hit me with your car, and I will die unless I get a kidney transplant, and you are the only possible donor, there are very few who would argue that you must be compelled to give me your kidney. You can if you want to, but you cannot be forced to do it. Because I have no right to use your body, even though I am an innocent victim of your "mistake".
Upvote
0
My right of bodily autonomy is the right being superseded.
No one has the right to use my body against my will.
Forcing a woman to carry to term and give birth against her will is no different than rape.
No one has the right to use my body against my will.
Forcing a woman to carry to term and give birth against her will is no different than rape.
Upvote
0
lux et lex
light and law
Consider this my response Creed, because I completely agree with it.
And stop refuting the fact that I am a Christian, and so are other pro choice people like me. Accept it and move on.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
When was the last time any of you 'pro lifers' donated bone marrow? A kidney?
Come, come, you advocate torturing a woman in the name of 'life', why won't you undergo a much less painful process that is over far faster in the name of 'life'?
Put up, or shut up.
It never ceases to amazing me how many 'pro-lifers' aren't organ donors and have never given blood in their lives.
Come, come, you advocate torturing a woman in the name of 'life', why won't you undergo a much less painful process that is over far faster in the name of 'life'?
Put up, or shut up.
It never ceases to amazing me how many 'pro-lifers' aren't organ donors and have never given blood in their lives.
Upvote
0
Or, alternatively, you can stop sticking your nose into other peoples' reproductive lives and concentrate more on your own life and the various failings you have in it.
Upvote
0
blessedmomof5
Contributor
Isn't that making a JUDGEMENT call? i am not prolife, but i would never assume anything about anyonehow do u know such a thing did they tell you this? Unless you know this to be FACT Do not accuse anyone of anything, that is not Christlike.
May God Bless you and Have Mercy on you and me Both
May God Bless you and Have Mercy on you and me Both
Upvote
0
faithfulfollowerofYeshua
Galatians 2:19-21
I am an organ donor, I have given blood numerous times, and I have given birth to multiple children. I am pro-life and to me that is being Christlike. It never ceases to amaze me how many people who profess to be Christian are not pro-life and yet still profess Christ as their Lord.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Skaloop
Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
- May 10, 2006
- 16,332
- 899
- 47
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-NDP
Since studies show that only around 5% of eligible donors actually donate blood, it's a pretty safe assumption that most pro-life people do not donate blood. Many probably do, and good for them, but it's a safe bet than more often than not, they don't.
Bone marrow donation is even less prevalent, so an even safer assumption.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
