If Abortion became Illegal, what would the punishment be?

Yea I personally think so but in real life a person cannot go to jail for life for killing a fetus, it's how do you say unethical and un moral?

This is real life we're talking about. And you personally think so.. what?

Why is it unethical to go to jail for life for 'killing a fetus' or terminating a pregnancy, but it's ok for killing a person?

Personally I think abortions sucks because I feel that every child born can better lives and contribute to helping the world become stable.

Also, it's NEVER OK to kill another human being unless that human being killed someone else.

Ok but... it's not the point if abortion sucks. Your opinion on abortion is not the point, nor your opinion about what a child can do once their born. I realize you think an abortion is very sad and 'everyone deserves a chance to live'. That's irrelevant.

Your last statement is... very contradictory, I hope you know that. Saying that "it's never ok to kill someone" and "it's ok if they've killed someone else" in the same sentence, doesn't make much sense. It would make more sense for you to say "it's perfectly okay to kill someone so long as they've done it first", since that seems to be what you mean...

Going from that then... (back to the topic) if an unborn child is a person, would it be ok to put the girl carrying it to death if she aborted it? Why is she special if you don't think so?

Also, should she be punished in the first place? Some people I've talked to think that 'the abortion itself is punishment enough', and no further punishment should be necessary.

Unfortunately, Men do not have equal rights As long as men do not have equal rights, why should men be held responsible? He cannot, under current law protect his child.

A man, in current American political life only has one choice(technically two) A: Wear a Condom or B: A vasectomy.

A vasectomy is irreversible, so in my mind as a male it's utterly unacceptable. Not only from a long-term perspective but from a ego perspective.

Obviously, a law to protect fetus's should be enhanced by greater laws against rapists, those who commit incest etc.

But as far as between a lawful, consensual relationship. For "punishments" against male sexual behavior, I could only lawfully consent(as a male) if we were given long lost equal rights in the sexual discussion.

the women would have her tubes tied and would never be allowed to get pregnant again

Erm, forgive me for not taking an article, published in ELLE, written by a celebrity gossip columnist, whose claim to fame is something called "The Slant: There's always more to the story"... completely seriously. Also, a single article about one guy who got into a fight with his girlfriend and they ended up not being on the same page about pregnancy? Not enough to constitute saying that all men don't have equal rights.

Also, while I agree that an abortion and the punishment thereof should be theoretically about a woman since it is her body in question, for a lot of pro life people; The life within the woman was created by the man as well. I'm sorry, but saying he doesn't have any responsibility doesn't make sense to me at all. As soon as the child is born, a the father (as that one article mentioned) can easily legally be roped into having to support the child for years... why does he bear no responsibility when the girl is pregnant?

Actually, there are -plenty- of other methods other than vasectomy and condom. A man can insist on the various other methods of female contraception (the pill, female condoms, spermicidal lube, sponges, diaphragms...), a man can use the Rythm Method to help ensure 'safe' days, and there are leaps and bounds now being done for the RISUG injection, which will be available in the near future and allow a sort of temporary vasectomy.

And, what sexual rights exactly are you referring to? What exactly is it that women have that is sexually superior to men? Is it the numerous strip clubs that idolize half naked women as sexual objects? Is it the fact that the pill takes a prescription and a monthly payment to get while condoms are handed out for free at any planned parenthood clinic? Or maybe it's the fact that if a guy and a girl come to ends after finding out their pregnant and have different opinions on what to do about it, a woman is allowed to have the final say in what she is going to do with the life-threatening, non-sentient and unfeeling clump of mass in her body, instead of the male getting the last word like he does he has been doing for the past two millennia. Could that possibly be what you're referring to?

Just cuz a condom broke? Seems a little harsh, no?

It is, thank you. Try to avoid double-posting, though. Keep all your replies to one post.

just wondering are you saying that if a women is basically using her reproductive organs to have a child that a man didn't want and they had already previously discussed on not having for personal/financial reasons that the women is allowed to have the baby(which is her choice),
And then force the man to pay for it(which was not his choice and law clearly takes sides with women) forcing him to give up on long term goals eat away savings and make him be a "unofficial father" (meaning he's referred to as the biological father and made to pay child support but is completely unable to raise or see his child at all) that its ok for her to force him in such a horrid financial (and emotional) state

to be honest I think that's just abuse of reproductive power and legal systems,
and my main view is this I'm not saying guys should get all the power I'm just pointing out the fact that its two lives in this situation that get effected and both should be allowed to have the right to say no at any time and if one forces the baby then they should pay for it on there own regardless of male or female

she killed something that had no defense and if she wasn't ready to have a child she shouldent be having sex in the first place are used the max possible amount of protection the chance is so very low but every time you have sex you take that chance you put murders away for most of there life i say never haveing kids if pretty good compared to that

You're still making a really large assumption that the fetus is in fact alive. As I stated earlier, not only are scientists still out on this question (and the most they can find is that, for almost all early case abortions the fetus is even incapable of feeling, much less having a mind to comprehend anything...), so saying that you're killing something with an abortion is a stretch. There's no factual information that I've found that's been published saying a fetus is in the sense of the word, alive, although I've seen many pro life pamphlets that try to skew it that way, but they don't have any real research to prove their findings.



That being said, you're basically saying that if you don't want a kid, don't have sex... that too seems mighty invasive. Outlawing sex for people who can't afford a kid or don't want one would be even more controversial than people getting abortions, and would be a gross invasion of privacy and could probably be argued to be unconstitutional. Yeah, every time you have sex you take that chance, but why should the option for simply reversing the accident that happened be such a harsh punishment?



I agree with what you're saying, and I think that if the father didn't want anything to do with the child, no, he shouldn't be forced into paying for it, but not only is that very hard to prove, but there are plenty of cases where women weren't allowed to get abortions either, and then no one wants the child, and adoption agencies, while getting better, are still bleak lives for children. How often do you hear about guys getting girls pregnant and then skipping off and not having anything to do with her? It's not really a black and white issue.

The other problem arises when a couple gets pregnant, what happens if a man wants the baby and the woman doesn't? This is probably one of the less highlighted but more fought over issues when it comes to potential parents, because at the end of the day it's the woman's body, and she should have the final say. While I agree that if the child is born against one of the parent's wills then they should be exempt from having to pay for it (which can be done legally by removing all rights to the child, btw... you are only legally bound to support the child so long as you still want to be able to say it's yours...), and cases where parties are bullied into child support are wrong. This is part of the reason why I support abortions in general, because if no one wants the child that will result of the pregnancy, why bother bringing it into the world anyway?

Just a little bit of a perspective. I don't fully agree with his point of view, mostly because I tend to look at other circumstances that bypass the rule, he still makes a sizable point in where we pay attention in our society.

OT: If abortion were to become illegal, it would be under the pretense of murder, because that is the only real crime it could commit, and would be seen as child cruelty and such. The proper punishment as such would be a murder or manslaughter sentence.

What else was I referring to? Oh, and I disagree with your disgusting sentiment on it. Do you know why?

Because your delusion doesn't match reality :).

That site states that we have a 58/42 ratio in the negative for "complicated pregnancies". In other words, more than half of the pregnancies world wide have no complications.

But of the 42% of complications, only 15% result in death.

So may we use a bit of subtraction: 42-15=27.
Now a bit of addition: 58+27=85.

85% of pregnancies result in a successful birth worldwide!

I'll continue laying it on you: The same site said that less than 1 of 10,000+ women in developed countries(like say the U.S) died from complications of pregnancy.

So that percentage is actually being weighed down by the lesser developed countries.

In short, I'll use an Umineko Red Truth:

Your theory that babies are a existential threat to their mothers is
virtually nonexistent!

Oh sure, there've been quite a few who have died and quite a few more who've suffered complications from pregnancy. But to look at pregnancy as some form of Russian Roulette has been Liberal Dishonesty.

If Liberals want to call themselves intellectuals, they need to deal more closely with the facts.

But even if your delusion did match reality, do you realize how cold your sentiment is? Do you even realize you're talking about yourself? No more than a couple of decades ago, you were a threat to your mother's life(according to you)

Do you not feel any self-guilt or blame? Doesn't that make you feel disgusting?

See, I recognize that I was once a fetus. I recognize that's the only scientifically acknowledged form of birth! Thereby every Human Being that ever was and probably ever will be will come from the womb.

Thereby to desensitize the womb is to desensitize life itself.


Worse yet, this philosophy is spreading across the world.

Life begets life, even immigration is a half-assed "solution" to salvage the flawed Liberal theory. If developed countries have their birth rates decline as well, then where will these immigrants(never mind if they're skilled or not) come from?

The real solution is to apply Humanism from a geopolitical perspective. The more births the better, the more healthier births the better. The higher education the better.

Mankind perpetuated itself to be the domineer of the earth, should it continue its retardation to actually refuse its own perpetuation, we will meet our own end as the dinosaurs did.

Firstly, 100-15 also equals 85, so your convoluted math was totally unnecessary. And no, you're wrong. 85% of pregnancies are death-free. 58% are "successful". If there's a complication, things can still go wrong after the birth.



Firstly (again), don't quote Lelouch, or Light, or this Umineko shit because you just look like a weeb. Secondly, your "Red Truth" isn't completely true. In your article it said that in the lesser developed countries 1 in 11 mothers died during pregnancy. But, if you're to keep it to just the most developed countries, then yeah, the risk is extremely low. Still the risk for complications and there's still the hospital bill to deal with. Way more expensive than an abortion (note the part on premature birth in the first link).


Why should he? If nothing happened to his mom and he's alive, then nothing went wrong. Just because he was a threat doesn't mean he should feel guilty now, after the fact and when nothing (presumably) went wrong. Besides, even if there were complications during his birth, he couldn't do anything about it. In either situation, no guilt should be felt.

Blah, blah, blah, way easier said than done at least in your lifetime so just forget about it. Also, the dinosaurs didn't kill themselves...a meteor did. Unless you think the movie Armageddon is gonna happen.

If abortion were illegal, such a medical procedure would not occur any longer, and any black market operations would be a federal offense. The hospitals would not sanction illegal operations even if it would kill the patients to have their baby.

However, I see some merit in abortion ONLY FOR ONE REASON: Girls under the age of 16 shouldn't stay pregnant, because having child birth often carries a high probability of killing them.

Other than if you might die through child birth, I do not condone EVER getting an abortion. You would have someone kill your own child so that you don't have to raise it? Or just because you're 'not ready'? You sick, motherfucking cunt-licking bitch.

Be a good person, and if you don't NEED an abortion, DON'T have one. These are human lives we're dealing with, people.

I'll do what I want(as it pertains using Umineko's truth system, I find it rather fun).


The definition of a Successful Birth: When the fetus is successfully delivered and both the mother and the child are alive

A complication is just that, a complication. We all deal with them later in our lives, except for those out of world geniuses, we've all failed at least one test or got several problems wrong even in a passing grade.

Would you call it a failure because of your trials and errors?

And so as to prove the validity of my statement: This is the definition of a Live Birth






Firstly, I don't care what you think of me :D. Actually, that's been proven to be negative anyway so no matter what I would do, I could never actually please you. So, why bother caring at all?

Secondly, to the argument at hand. It's worth noting that while you call it a risk, you at least refrained from putting it in terms that would make it seem like a gambit. However, the rational for the argument now shifts towards economic costs.

Certainly, it's very costly. And yes, your right an abortion costs much less. Weighing a Human Life in economic costs though, is very morally lacking. We could very well say the same for the prison population of death row inmates and life sentences.

Instead of keeping them around with needless appeals, costing the state hundred of thousands of dollars, we could execute them outright.

But allow me to make a counter argument: It's more beneficial to bring the child into this world of ours.

See This

This as well

And whatever costs come from the initial cost of raising a child are more than
offset by that child's productivity into adulthood. Both from a familial standpoint and the greater societal standpoint.

In short, infants are like an investment, but the sunk cost of a potential life isn't high(and it's even lesser among more economically feasible families). The variable in this case, is the amount of productivity from said life.

Not every child will be a golden ticket, but surely every healthy, sane, morally bound child will produce in the future.

And finally, let's take a look at this:

Women protect themselves from the mainstay leading causes through a healthy pregnancy

And the actual odds of death from pregnancy are probably akin to the odds from dying by lightning or a bee sting

From women, in their own words effectively they concur that the primary reason for abortion is economics. And 'rape, incest, etc' amount to 1%

I know I've mentioned these statistics before, and you've countered that there might be some "X people" who've yet to come out of the closet about their abuses.

If you allow me to use Umineko, this is a Devil's Proof. However, it's one on both of our accounts. Just as I can't disprove the existence of "X", you cannot prove the existence of X either. You're supposing for the benefit of your argument.

However, allow me to put a dagger in your supposition: There's only so many women in the world, and a significant portion of them have made their positions or reasonings known.

In other words, the pool of "X's" are dwindling. And among that dwindling number of "X's", if we use past references to look into future probabilities, chances are the vast majority of "X's" will turn out to be duds.








Honestly, the argument I presented was the same as White Guilt, which I generally reject but I used it to make a point. The fetus is not a threat, it is not a living organic body with the intent to kill it's host! But rather, as your own article points out, complications happen for a variety of reasons, some(many) of which can be planned for, or at least the damage can be minimized.


I contend if you believe life to be nothing more than a blob that was a danger to your mother, then that's essentially the way you should feel about yourself.(I mean, that's obviously the logical conclusion).

I felt the opposite, my mom had me in a C-Section. She took great risk to herself to bring me in the world(for the record, my birth was 36 months.) And did I have complications? Indeed, Cerebral Palsy being the main one(but I still can walk, talk and in fact obviously I have at least above average intelligence.) and from what we just read, I can probably think that my lungs aren't as developed since I developed asthma at age 9.


Do I wish mom waited longer? Hindsight's 20/20 but I'm utterly thankful that she brought me into the world. The challenges I faced as a result of my birth, have groomed me(in my opinion) for bigger and better things.

In many ways, I believe in the sanctity of life. And I can only support Eugenics(which is what Abortion is) under two circumstances:

A: If the family is truly unfit for parenting(but even then, adoption is a viable alternative and perhaps more economic benefits should go to adoption centers and families, see my proposal).

B: If the complications prevent a sufficient standard of living to the newborn. Down's Syndrome for example and some other major infancy problems that will prevent future engagement in society.

I was instilled in a Private School called Devereux(which dealt with these type of children, among others) and I always thought to myself how tragic their lives were. The only way they could communicate to the outside world was a fucking sticker board.


And later on in my teens, I did develop a Light Yagami-thesis for them. Out of kindness and consideration, we should put them to "sleep".



You know, we Human Beings have said the same thing since antiquity: "War isn't going to go away in your lifetime" and through perpetuation, another "lifetime" comes around and war doesn't end.

We haven't been knocked out, this isn't the 9th round of a boxing match. We Humans give up too too quick

Don't say "never". Say "It can be done."

I've been following this conversation for a while after my post, and I have to say, I am both pleased and displeased with both sides of the argument.

In my opinion, life is something to be cherished(agreeing with the point above), and should never, EVER be considered completely unproductive(disagreeing with the point above).

For example, a friend of mine has high-functioning down syndrome, another has mid-functioning turrets syndrome, and both of them lead relatively productive lives, the former being a school teacher with a master's degree and the latter working full time at a Rite Aid as a cashier.

Those with complications after birth are no exception, and if they manage to live through their complications, they could do great things. I imagine that those who put them down and tried to stop their progress must be feeling rather embarrassed after seeing what great people they've become.

Otherwise, they must be horrible people. Another good example is the world's most intelligent physicist, Steven Hawking, can't even speak using his own lungs and is severely crippled, and yet he does amazing things, coming up with theories and proving them possible, things that we cannot begin to imagine with our small amounts of intellect.

That being said, I am also not happy that people devalue the human life to an economic standard. There is an ancient phrase: 'What is the cost of a human life?' Apparently, it's not considered to be much by people who get abortions for 'economic reasons'. You can ALWAYS adopt out your child if you know you cannot support them, and if you don't want to give birth to children... DON'T HAVE SEX.

To commit the courtship act of making love without expecting children, rather, shunning the thought of having a child, is very selfish, and it deprives a life that could have been a chance to live. This is one of the main reasons our society, as well as many others, have a declining birth rate, so that the death rate is catching up, if not exceeding it.

If you believe that humankind will not go extinct withing our lifetime, you are probably right - but if we continue on this path of avoiding childbirth and embracing the eventual sterilization of our species, then we will surely, albeit after many years, meet our complete and utter demise. If humans stopped producing altogether, and everyone in the world became sterile, what could we do to survive?

The answer: Absolutely nothing. If you think it is possible to create 'clones' or whatever, here's a few facts: The human body is made of cells. These cells can reproduce, but only a limited number of times over our lifetime. Therefore, even by creating a successful human clone we will more than likely witness their demise long before our own, since the replication of our body's cells is limited.

In short the solution to this problem is simple: Make more babies, value their lives no matter what, and shape them all into as productive of people as you possibly can. That should be our main focus, not silly, superficial things like 'concentrating the wealth' or 'avoiding the financial costs of life', or even 'trying to keep our economy afloat by means of keeping the least productive people rich and happy, and allowing them to take advantage of those who work hard at their own expenses, only to be abused by those in control'.

I think I've said my pieces for now, feel free to give me your applause, or your criticism, I care not either way. However, please do make sure you have some knowledge in the area before trying to discredit me in my claims, or I will follow suit by discrediting your claims that mine are false.

Enough was said, I believe.

Bauer out.

Okay, cool story bro. Tell that to the mother whose prematurely born baby dies within the first year. But hey, at least she had a successful birth. And your complication comparison is way off, but I shouldn't be surprised. A medical complication is not the same as an everyday life hindrance. The fact that you're comparing things like premature birth to failing a test should make that abundantly obvious.



Except prisoners are actually people. Many have friends and family. You're assuming that a fertilized egg is a person when that debate has been going on for a long time (and it won't start here; there's another thread for that). And if you're going to tell me that a sperm and an egg are on the same level as a person who has been alive for years (even if they've committed a crime), well, I'd love to see if someone you knew got imprisoned.



lol what. This article just talks about waiting to deliver the baby to reduce health risks...for the baby. It doesn't have anything to do with benefiting the world or economic anything.



I'm pretty sure anyone who wants to get an abortion (and, in this case, illegally), doesn't believe in any of that. There's a reason they're considering or have gotten one.



Already discussed this. In the most developed countries risk of death from birth is low, yadda yadda.



I don't know what the fuck this is except random, irrelevant nonsense.




Except when you are that blob, you have no control over anything you do. You literally just sit there and grow. Here's my own little anecdote: I was supposed to be a twin. But apparently the other twin died early on in the womb. I probably ate it or absorbed it or something. Do I feel guilty? Hell no. I had no control over my actions when I was in the womb. So there's no reason someone should feel guilty for being part of the birth cycle.



Yet again, claiming your opinion as fact.



Except many adoption homes are shitholes and your kid would still be growing up in a pretty bad environment. Obviously not always the case, but it happens. And to ask people not to have sex is downright stupid. We're animals. Lawl and you had sex 6 days a week for 7 months and are telling people not to have sex. Besides, sometimes condoms break, etc., so you can't always fault people.



Are you totally ignorant of China and India? India's population growth is so fast that in the next 50 years its population will exceed China's. People seem to have these tinted glasses that the world=first world countries.



The fact this sentence exists means you do care. Also, lul, "applause".

There's always birth control, and other similar contraception methods for the women who aren't ready, while sadly, men are stuck with condoms. I personally prefer that my woman is on reliably birth control or uses a contraception ring, or both on her unsafe days, in order to have a higher pregnancy prevention rate than a simple condom. Especially since I'd hate to go back to using them. Ragardless, if you're going to have sex, at least don't be stupid about it and expect not to have children whilst not using contraception. You're a moron if you think so.



Nope. On another forum I posted a similar response some time ago, and the solution was to have those countries adopt their children out to families in other countries. While this isn't a be-all-end-all solution, it means that many children who could have been without a future, or even worse, killed at birth, will have a future, and possibly a bright one. Many more will continue to suffer in poverty, many will die, and that is sadly, something that is unavoidable. Life isn't fair, after all.



Hmm, do I care? Only a tiny bit. This certainly serves as an entertaining argument after all. And, it's not like I outright asked for your applause, I could care less of the opinion of someone who's going to dislike me regardless of what I say or do. But feel free to keep believing that I care about this more than life or some shit - that's your own decision. We all have free will to think what we want, and do what we see fit.