I'm just intrigued by people who oppose abortion. They say it's baby killing, but most of them don't support the death penalty or life-in-prison for women who have abortions. Why do you support banning abortion? When a woman kills her (born) children, what should the punishment be? When a woman has an abortion, what should the punishment be? If the punishment is different, why?

Reply

I already stated in the 'Abortion' thread that I do not believe it is my place to decide what the punishment should be for the people who commit the crime, and I do not want to.

However, IF I absolutely had to choose... I believe that the punishment should be that of any other murder, and that both the person that consented for the abortion to take place and the one performing the abortion should be punished.

If you have the stomach for it, search for pictures of aborted babies, what you will see is something utterly disgusting. You cannot tell me that is not a gruesome as any other murder, and the penalties should be as such.

Reply

2 million women in the U.S. have abortions each year. Executing 2 million women and young girls is o.k. with you?

How will we be able to hold women accountable who fly or drive to Canada or Mexico for an abortion? Realistically, women with money will get their abortions across the border. Women with no money will be executed for doing what the rich do and get away with it.

What about women and girls who are bullied by the father or parents to get an abortion? Shall they be executed, too?

What will the world say about a country that executes millions of girls each year? What will Jesus say?

 

 

 

Reply

[1] I never said that the penalty for abortions should be death.
[2] I never said what the penalty for murder should be. Nor do I feel like I should decide what it is.
[3] What I did say, is that the abortion penalty should be equivalent to the murder penalty. Now, because I did not specify what the murder penalty was, it could be anything. As I said before, I'm not interested in talking about what the penalty for murder should be, but since abortion=murder in my book, should the penalties not be the same (regardless of what they are).

As well, if you were to make abortions illegal, their rate drops. Once the rate drops, you do not have as many cases, and so you do not end up having to:
This is not to say that the penalty should be execution. Again, it should be the same as what the murder penalty is, which I am not interested in discussing what that should be.


Doesn't this already happen every day? Rich people getting away with crimes? Just because people can escape a law does not mean it shouldn't exist. As stated before, abortion rates drop if it becomes illegal. Again, you should omit the word executed, as I did not specify on an penalties.

If you are forced or coerced into committing a murder, you are still guilty of murder. Sorry, but that is how it works. Again, omit execution, as I did not specify on the form of punishment.


Omit execution, as I did not specify on the form of punishment.

In short, abortion is murder, if murder has penalties, abortion should have the same penalties.
On another note: KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE A KID (of course, that statement does not include cases of rape, etc.

Reply

You're not making much sense in this post—to me, you contradict yourself. Here, let me show you how:

[1]If over 2 million abortions are occuring each year in the U.S., these children are bound to be female themselves, therefore executing females are already occuring, so why do you ask like as if it matters?—this pretty much covers the majority of your post.

[2]They'd accept it, for the world aborts their children too. See how evil the world is? Indeed, executing children—both girls and boys who are defenseless.

Consider your own reasoning, and i hope you change your mind.

---

[3]What does this have to do with Jesus?

Reply

Personally, i dont think abortion is wrong. The baby will never know - its not concious. Infact in many cases, it is the right decision, like, the parents are underage, or the family cant afford to support the child.

I think there should definately be no punishment for abortion, as then there would be an increase in underage parents, and cildren starving or dying as the parents have abbandoned them, or cant afford to feed them.

But the penalty for killing a born, and concious baby, should be the same as normal murder, because that is what it is.

Often people who are against abortion say that the aborted baby could have been a great artist, or could have found the cure for AIDS or something amazing.
But if you think about it, using contraception, has just the same effect.

Reply

[1] So if I sneak up behind someone and shoot them in the back of the head, it isn't wrong because they didn't know it was going to happen? If you know cannot support the child, put it up for adoption. And regarding underage parents: people hundreds of years ago were getting married and having children in their teens. If your body is able to have a child, you are not underage. If you don't want to have a child, keep it in your pants. (Of course, that statement does not include instances of rape)

[2] If you make abortion illegal, I guarantee you that there would be less 'underage' parents. Not more. Parents abandoning their children is wrong, but so is murdering them. Neither should be done by a parent/soon-to-be-parent.

[3] The penalty indeed should be the same for killing a baby. You seem to believe that unborn babies are not conscious, is there any scientific evidence for this? If you can find some, please share .

[4] Contraception is different than abortion. Contraception is used to prevent a pregnancy, while abortion is used to end pregnancy. Contraception should not even be considered the same as abortion, if anything, contraception helps to prevent abortions. However, you are correct contraception does technically end the chance of a baby 'who could have been a great artist', etc. However, that is only one argument that you have been able to disprove.

Reply

Most people don't consider an embryo/fetus to be a baby, so the only people being killed would be the 2 million women, their doctors, and the fathers who bullied many of them into the abortions, or would you (probably a male) let the father off the hook? If the abortion money is traced to somebody else, shouldn't it be treated as a contract killing?

The world doesn't consider an embryo to be a person, so no, they would NOT accept an atrocity of slaughtering millions of women for having abortions. Such a genocide by men against women would surely be seen as evil by God, who states in Exodus that if a man should beat a (pregnant) woman causing her to lose the baby, he shall pay a fine, but if the woman dies, a life for a life. Doesn't this mean that God doesn't consider a fetus' life to be equal to a mother's?

And if God thought fetuses were so special, why would he do such a poor job designing women's reproductive systems resulting in millions of miscarriages each year? God's unintelligent design makes him responsible for millions of dead babies. Shall we condemn God?

Reply

From this verse, it is clear that child birth was not painful before the fall of man. I think that this 'pain' would also include such things as miscarriages, etc. God did not design reproductive systems poorly. They are very complex, and they do what they are supposed to.

In short, miscarriages and other pregnancy mishap are the result of sin.

Also lets keep this thread on track... After all, this thread is about the punishment for abortion, not whether abortion is immoral or not. It is ok if we venture into that area a little, but lets not change the point of the thread.

Reply

(By the way, your use of the words "baby" and "child" imply that both a born and unborn baby are equivalents. Of course, life doesn't start after being born—it happens before.)

[1]Why is consciousness a deciding factor on whether or not it should be terminated? Should a person that has been born who later became unconscious be terminated by the will of others? Being inside or out of the mother shouldn't make a difference either.

[2]How does that make it right? That only makes it worse. Because of the irresponsibility and non-sense of the parent(s), the child should not be responsible for that.

[3]Why would you want an increase in under-age pregnancies and all that other stuff that followed?

[4]Not necessarily, bearing potential doesn't start until there is life, for it is uncertain whether or not the contraceptives will work and it is uncertain whether or not the mother will get pregnant.


[1]Of course those that want abortion to exist aren't going to consider it a baby—doing so would give them a guilty conscious. Also, consideration in this sense does not define life, as i have showed that the logic behind it is flawed.

[2:1]We haven't established any laws for you to say who will be killed.
[2:2]If the assumed law was active, the father would not be left off the hook, only those that didn't want the abortion will be left off the hook, for they were forced to have an abortion. Anyone who wanted and set forth the abortion will be subject to the law.

[3]Actually, you're assuming that other countries would care about other countries. But to entertain this assumption, their views are flawed due to the logic behind their consideration.

[4]Why emphasize the differences between the mother and child's life? In either case, the one that caused damage must pay the price, therefore implying that abortion is wrong.

[5:1]You're assuming He did a poor design.

[5:2]Shall we accept only that which we see as "good" and not what we personally dislike from God? God is giver of life: He gave it, therefore He has the right to take it away.

Reply