The hypocrisy of abortion not '' being murder ''

[pateuvasiliu]

And yet the poster I quoted would want to go to prison. That's some serious irony right there.

You will also have your worth and effort taken away if you go to prison. Even more so. Apart from, like I said, being locked up with no freedom whatsoever for years, your entirely life will be significantly harder once you get out of prison. How many people do you think are going to hire you after poisoning someone compared to before? You are basically like: "Hey, I don't want my life to be fucked up by you, so I am going to fuck it up even more myself out of spite!"

There's no irony.

You'd be going to prison because of your own actions. YOUR choice.

Not someone else's.


Imagine you build yourself a good business and have a nice income. And now someone's going to suck a big chunk of it because she decided to keep the kid and you as a man have no rights regarding that.

I wouldn't want someone to live a good life off my back.

[Dezerte]

Bodily autonomy, this doesn't have to be complicated. And neither was he convicted of murder.

[pateuvasiliu]

Just because some women want to have abortions doesn't mean it's ok to force other women to have them. Why is this even a thread?

Read the thread and you'll find out.

[zoomgpally]

The fetus is being treated as something precious in this case, whereas at the same time it has no rights when you want to abort.

The fetus is not being treated as something precious in this case.

He seems to primarily be charged with

Section 245. Any person who terminates a pregnancy, or who aids and abets thereto,
when the statutory requirements for such an operation have not been fulfilled, or an
administrative decision for such termination has not been made by any person authorized
to do so, is guilty of criminal abortion and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding three years. If the act is committed for the purpose of gain or under especially
aggravating circumstances, the penalty shall be imprisonment for a term not exceeding
six years. If the offender has acted without the woman's consent, imprisonment for a term
not exceeding 15 years shall be imposed, but not exceeding 21 years if she dies as a result
of the felony.
The penal provision in the first sentence of the first paragraph shall not apply to
women who themselves terminate their own pregnancy or aid and abet thereto.

[pateuvasiliu]

Go on, OD someone on heroin, get caught, and tell us what kind of sentence you get even if the person didn't die.

A big one, because heroin fucks up your body big time?

Why are you comparing it to abortion pills, though?

You don't get years of life get taken from you from a hormone pill.

[Deleted]

Please, it is a Norwegian prison we are talking about here.

Point taken. That said: It's not an US prison or the like, but it's still prison. It's years of your life that you will never get back.

No, that's silly. Why would anyone feed a woman that isn't pregnant abortion pills?

So basically, you are making assumptions that seem plausible to you in order to further your argument - without anything to actually back them up? Just so that we are clear about what is going on.

I wouldn't want someone to live a good life off my back.

So yes. You'd be throwing your life away purely out of spite. Because you sure will not have a net gain from it.

[Skulltaker]

Abortion pills can cause... pain. A lot of it, in bad cases.

But that's about it. They won't fucking kill you.

7 years?

You get that for assault.


The issue everyone has here is the miscarriage, not the pain the woman went through.

This IS assault. He put the woman through physical and psychological stress. If he didn't want a child, he should have used protection.

Also, an abortion can reduce fertility. What if she's unable to concieve again as a result of his action? He'd have ruined her life.

[Slant]

Pregnancy related crimes are weird, because the law sees a fetus as something between "a thing" (like a chair) that has very little protection and "a human", which has very, very high legal protection. This leads to all kinds of funky punishments for trying to mess with pregnancies, depending on the state the pregnancies are at. And, of course, depending on the country you live in.

But leaving that aside, poisoning someone with a chemical like that is a pretty harsh crime. 7 years is absolutely within the limits even by our "soft" European standards. If you've noticed the mental scars an abortion leaves in some women, you might understand.

[Raelbo]

Why? The fetus has no rights. It can be chopped up by a doctor legally.

So how is poisoning a pregnant woman graver than poisoning a non pregnant woman?

That's the hypocrisy.

It's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy requires equivalence and you're arguing a false equivalence.

Firstly the crime is for killing an unborn foetus. That's why it's not the same as giving an abortion pill to a non-pregnant woman.

The second question you raise is why is it ok for a mother to decide to abort, but if someone else decides to then it's a crime: Well the answer is simple enough:

The value of an unborn foetus is determined by the mother.

If a mother has committed to bringing her foetus into the world then, to all intents and purposes, that foetus becomes a child, because once the mother has decided to commit to her pregnancy, then the outcome would be a child, and any attempt to terminate the foetus is effectively killing that child.

A foetus in and of itself has no right to life. That right is contingent on the mother choosing to bestow that right upon the foetus. And only the mother can rationally, logically, ethically, legally and reasonably bestow that right, but once it is bestowed, it is only rational that any attempt to terminate that life is tantamount to murder.

Also, I know OP that you have a long and glorious history on this forum as an outspoken misogynist, but seriously, if you genuinely cannot understand what makes this story so heinous, then that displays a complete lack of empathy on your part. While I won't judge you for that, it does mean that you simply lack the capacity to understand the topic, and therefore the best you can do is listen to the explanation and accept it.

[pateuvasiliu]

If the offender has acted without the woman's consent, imprisonment for a term
not exceeding 15 years shall be imposed

That's way too much and I've seen punishments much more lenient for far less dire crimes.

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't fucking matter if it's not as dangerous. Tricking someone into unwillingly ingest anything that can possibly harm them is considered poisoning which is assault and battery. This guy seems to have been charged with feticide which is basically a specific type of assault which involves harming a fetus.

Even IF the woman wasn't pregnant, it would still be considered a poisoning. You're giving someone drugs unknowingly. Even if it were vitamins that caused mild side effects, it would still be poisoning.

The moral value of a fetus is subject to the person carrying it. If they want an abortion, it's worthless. If they want to carry it to term, it now has moral worth.

Morally speaking there isn't much of a difference I'll admit, but practically speaking there's a pretty big difference.

Moral value? How do you quantify that in court?

- - - Updated - - -

Point taken. That said: It's not an US prison or the like, but it's still prison. It's years of your life that you will never get back.


So basically, you are making assumptions that seem plausible to you in order to further your argument - without anything to actually back them up? Just so that we are clear about what is going on.


So yes. You'd be throwing your life away purely out of spite. Because you sure will not have a net gain from it.

No, I wouldn't. Business and all.

And that's assuming you get caught, too.

[Skulltaker]

A big one, because heroin fucks up your body big time?

Why are you comparing it to abortion pills, though?

You don't get years of life get taken from you from a hormone pill.

So does an abortion. It drastically alters the way the body works and can cause damage for life.

[pateuvasiliu]

Firstly the crime is for killing an unborn foetus. That's why it's not the same as giving an abortion pill to a non-pregnant woman.

Why are you punished for killing something which has no rights, again?

The value of an unborn foetus is determined by the mother. If a mother has committed to bringing her foetus into the world then, to all intents and purposes, that foetus is a child,

lol, what?

That's ridiculous.

So something has rights, but only if you want it to?

A fetus only has rights if the mother wants it to? What about the father?

- - - Updated - - -

So does an abortion. It drastically alters the way the body works and can cause damage for life.

I have a feeling the damage caused by abortion doesn't come anywhere near heroin. Just a tingle.

- - - Updated - - -

it is only rational that any attempt to terminate that life is tantamount to murder.

No, that's moronic.

Murder is killing a person.

You wanting that kid doesn't make it a person.

[pateuvasiliu]

Then what makes it a person?

Being alive, self aware, having the ability to think.

[Dezerte]

Just to be clear, he's being punished for violating her body.

[pateuvasiliu]

Just to be clear, he's being punished for violating her body.

Yeah. And I agree with that.

What I disagree with is this violation being seen as anywhere near as bad as force feeding someone heroin or beating them up.

[Skulltaker]

Why are you punished for killing something which has no rights, again?

lol, what?

That's ridiculous.

So something has rights, but only if you want it to?

A fetus only has rights if the mother wants it to? What about the father?

- - - Updated - - -



I have a feeling the damage caused by abortion doesn't come anywhere near heroin. Just a tingle.

- - - Updated - - -



No, that's ridiculous.

Murder is killing a person.

You wanting that kid doesn't make it a person.

The child is part of her body, not the fathers. Biologically speaking, of course. He doesn't feed it, carry it, protect it, until it is born. All he does is provide 50% of the genome. And thats it.

That's why women get the right to decide.

And your feeling is wrong. That tingle you are sensing might be your ignorance. The abortion can rob you not only your life, but also that of the child. Heroine just ruins your own. 2 vs 1 is very simple math, even someone with your lack of perspective should be able to figure that out.

[pateuvasiliu]

The child is part of her body, not the fathers. Biologically speaking, of course. He doesn't feed it, carry it, protect it, until it is born. All he does is provide 50% of the genome. And thats it.

That's why women get the right to decide.

And your feeling is wrong. That tingle you are sensing might be your ignorance. The abortion can rob you not only your life, but also that of the child. Heroine just ruins your own. 2 vs 1 is very simple math, even someone with your lack of perspective should be able to figure that out.

There's no child here. Its rights are null.

And abortion pills killing you? Come on, how rare is that?

[Symphonic]

Being alive, self aware, having the ability to think.

fetuses meet the scientific requirements of a "living being". what do you mean by self-aware? Is my 2 year old self-aware? Is a week old newborn self-aware? Any more self-aware than a baby in the womb?

[May90]

A pregnant woman wants to give birth and raise a child, you ruin it, essentially violating her bodily autonomy without her consent - one story.

The woman choosing to abort the fetus willingly - another.

[Tasttey]

The fetus is only a bunch of cells when you want to abort it.

He essentially performed a medical procedure on her (a chemically induced abortion without her consent) that is what the crux of this is about.

Your kidney is just a bunch of cells to the person who wants to harvest it right?