Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Abortion becomes a constitutional right in France


Zetorian

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, TigerBright19 said:

Any woman who finds herself pregnant should regard herself as a carrier and protector of another life.  If they loved it then they would be willing to sacrifice their own life so that their child can live.  If there is an obvious complication that will end both of their lives, then an abortion would need to take place with the mother's consent.  If only one life can be saved, then the mother should be allowed to make the choice to sacrifice her own life so that the infant may live.

If she however wishes to forgo her maternal duties and end that life because it is simply inconvenient or unwanted, then the mother should be granted the right to have the abortion with the clear understanding that she will be prosecuted afterwards.  A simple deterrent to persuade loose women to treat their bodies with greater respect.  The same of course applies to men who fail to take paternal care of both the mother and child throughout the pregnancy.  If they neglect their duties then they too should be prosecuted and declared an unfit father.

Sound common sense really.

Sure, makes perfect sense.

While we're at it, let's prosecute any men who get women pregnant where the mother or fetus comes to harm as a result. GBH or murder depending on the outcome.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
2 minutes ago, Setton said:

Sure, makes perfect sense.

While we're at it, let's prosecute any men who get women pregnant where the mother or fetus comes to harm as a result. GBH or murder depending on the outcome.

If the injury was caused by incompetence or deliberate intent, then yes the perpetrators should be held accountable for their actions, so long as they can be proved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TigerBright19 said:

If the injury was caused by incompetence or deliberate intent, then yes the perpetrators should be held accountable for their actions, so long as they can be proved.

So just to make sure we're on the same page:

A man intentionally gets his wife pregnant. Complications during pregnancy result in the death of mother and fetus. The man is charged with the murder of both.

All good?

A simple deterrent to encourage loose men to treat women's bodies with greater respect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I don't think so

The US had just ruled what should be an individual right as a criminal activity. That precedent needs highlighting. France doesn't want a future where draconian laws like that are implemented in France. America's theocratic decision should be shamed by the rest of the globe.

Can't have an abortion, but can open carry and kill each other. 

America is bizarro world.

George Carlin said something like the State is intensely involved with the welfare of a child until the moment it is born. After that, it's on its own.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, pellinore said:

George Carlin said something like the State is intensely involved with the welfare of a child until the moment it is born. After that, it's on its own.

“When you’re pre born you’re fine, when you’re pre school you’re f@@ked.”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/30/2024 at 8:58 AM, Zetorian said:

So you are trying to answer the question I asked someone else by asking me the same question? Are you ok? 

yeah i'm ok... i'm asking you separately: 'are you against abortion?' because it's your thread but have not yet said where you stand on it!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Setton said:

So just to make sure we're on the same page:

A man intentionally gets his wife pregnant. Complications during pregnancy result in the death of mother and fetus. The man is charged with the murder of both.

All good?

A simple deterrent to encourage loose men to treat women's bodies with greater respect.

If the act of procreation was not consensual, then the perpetrator should be held responsible and prosecuted.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2024 at 12:24 PM, Setton said:

Sure, makes perfect sense.

While we're at it, let's prosecute any men who get women pregnant where the mother or fetus comes to harm as a result. GBH or murder depending on the outcome.

That's an interesting view. But that is suggesting that men have a shared responsibility for pregnancy. Not a view that goes down well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2024 at 7:17 AM, TigerBright19 said:

Any woman who finds herself pregnant should regard herself as a carrier and protector of another life.  If they truly loved and valued its life, then (you would think) they would be willing to carry it to term and sacrifice her own life so that their child can live, but that should be a personal choice and how she personally connects with the life growing inside her.

If there is an obvious complication that will end both of their lives, then an abortion would need to take place with the mother's consent.  If only one life can be saved, then the mother should be allowed to make the choice to sacrifice her own life so that the infant may live, but again her choice.

If she however wishes to forgo her maternal duties and end that life because it is simply inconvenient or unwanted, then the mother should be granted the right to have the abortion with the clear understanding that she will be prosecuted afterwards.  A simple deterrent to persuade loose women to treat their bodies with greater respect.  The same of course applies to men who fail to take paternal care of both the mother and child throughout the pregnancy.  If they neglect their duties then they too should be prosecuted and declared an unfit father.

Sound common sense really.

Also a legal clause could be made on the marriage certificate which says that they agree to be jointly prosecuted if they decide to terminate a pregnancy for selfish reasons.

 

image.png.0c871fc6ed204c4e309b73237db17962.png

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, pellinore said:

That's an interesting view. But that is suggesting that men have a shared responsibility for pregnancy. Not a view that goes down well.

It takes two to tango.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Occupational Hubris said:

image.png.0c871fc6ed204c4e309b73237db17962.png

Yes, fathers have a shared responsibility to ensure their child comes to no harm if a doctor says the mother is irrational and a threat to the child's wellbeing.  She needs help to raise the child, not encouragement to end it.  Mothers carry the child and are more in danger if something goes wrong, but that doesn't absolve the father's shared responsibilities.  My great grandmother had 11 children, the father abandoned her and went to America and never came back.  She raised them in extreme poverty in Ireland and starved on many occasions so they could be fed.  The struggles that women went through because they valued human life should not be forgotten.  A life is sacred.  

A mother has the right to end a life because she is the carrier, but there should always be a penance if that life was terminated for unacceptable reasons e.g.  she wanted to go on holiday and did not want a bump to spoil her swimsuit etc.  There has to be a  legitimate reason to terminate a growing life.  Imagine if she knew the father was black and wanted an abortion because her child might be born a colour she did not want, or if the child might have a minor defect, or was the wrong gender, and what if the mother is not thinking in a rational way at the time she makes the decision.  If she is married then there should be a legal clause which states that the father is allowed to make decisions on her behalf if approved by a doctor.

There has to be a proper legitimate reason to end a life with the option of having a legal guardian to make decisions on her behalf if she is not in a fit state of mind e.g.  her child is due to be born on an unlucky date, or month and she wants to endanger the life by forcing an early birth or terminating it.  Imagine how many great doctors, scientists and charitable people today would not be alive if their grandparents had terminated their child because it was inconvenient to their lifestyle during the Great Depression.  They sacrificed everything they had to raise their children while their fathers went to war to ensure their safety.  We owe it to them to value life with respect and share the responsibility when it is needed.

 

Edited by TigerBright19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TigerBright19 said:

My great grandmother had 11 children, the father abandoned her and went to America and never came back.  She raised them in extreme poverty in Ireland and starved on many occasions so they could be fed.  The struggles that women went through because they valued human life should not be forgotten.  A life is sacred.  

Did she even have a choice?  This seems to be a concept you have trouble comprehending.

 

1 hour ago, TigerBright19 said:

A mother has the right to end a life because she is the carrier, but there should always be a penance if that life was terminated for unacceptable reasons e.g.  she wanted to go on holiday and did not want a bump to spoil her swimsuit etc.  There has to be a  legitimate reason to terminate a growing life.  Imagine if she knew the father was black and wanted an abortion because her child might be born a colour she did not want, or if the child might have a minor defect, or was the wrong gender, and what if the mother is not thinking in a rational way at the time she makes the decision.

Evidently your IQ is in the double digits.

 

1 hour ago, TigerBright19 said:

If she is married then there should be a legal clause which states that the father is allowed to make decisions on her behalf if approved by a doctor.

No one should ever be forced to have a child against their will.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Did she even have a choice?  This seems to be a concept you have trouble comprehending.

 

Evidently your IQ is in the double digits.

 

No one should ever be forced to have a child against their will.

Infant mortality rate was low in those days.  Mothers were lucky if their kids lived to reach 10 and then went to work.  They were also extremely religious.  You referenced high IQ as a means of basing a superior opinion.  Jimmy Savile had a high IQ.  I believe quality is more relevant than quantity.  People who speak a dozen languages don't exactly have any superior right to an opinion than anyone else.  Just saying.

If a mother becomes pregnant by consent, then you would hope she should have the ethical duty to carry the child to birth.  She has after all willingly forfeited her right as an individual and has become a carrier of another life by her own choice (if consensual).  The child comes first even on a sinking ship.  If there is no legitimate reason for an abortion and she still wants one, then (in my opinion) she should be registered as an unfit mother because she willingly chose to end a life without any reason.

The same should apply to mothers who willingly endanger the infant they carry by taking excess amounts of drugs and toxins which they know will affect the child's growth and increase the chance of disability due to the mother's gross negligence of the child she carries.  She can still have an abortion.  She just has to bare the consequences of it which hopefully would act as a deterrent.  If a man procreates with a woman and abandons her at any stage of her pregnancy then he should be registered as an unfit father and the same punishment should apply to him.  They still have the right to do what they want.  On a related note.  Suicide and assisted suicide is against the law, and if the end of life is prevented by rules and regulation then it makes sense that the creation of life should have a similar protection to safeguard the life that has been jointly created.

 

Edited by TigerBright19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TigerBright19 said:

Infant mortality rate was low in those days.

Historically infant mortality rate has been high.

 

1 minute ago, TigerBright19 said:

Jimmy Savile had a high IQ.

Is there something else you have in common with him?

 

1 minute ago, TigerBright19 said:

She has forfeited her right as an individual and has become a carrier if another life.

And people like you should be sterilized.

 

1 minute ago, TigerBright19 said:

She can still have an abortion.  She just has to bare the consequences of it which hopefully would act as a deterrent.  If a man procreates with a woman and abandons her at any stage of her pregnancy then he should be registered as an unfit father and the same punishment should apply to him.  They still have the right to do what they want.  Suicide and assisted suicide is against the law, and if the end of life is prevented by rules and regulation then it makes sense that the creation of life should have some kind of regulated protection.

I'm not aware of any European country that still has suicide criminalized.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Historically infant mortality rate has been high.

 

Is there something else you have in common with him?

 

And people like you should be sterilized.

 

I'm not aware of any European country that still has suicide criminalized.

Such a bizarre response.  You don't like alternative opinions on the value of life and why it has been a contentious subject for many years.  Also I meant to say high mortality rate.  This darn auto-fill has a mind of its own sometimes.  Also my girl friend from high school died aged 29 after complications from childbirth.  Her husband respected her choice to carry on with the pregnancy knowing the risks.  She died and her baby girl survived.  In my eyes she was a heroine who chose to save the life of her child at the cost of her own.  Forgive my attitude if you think I do or don't care about the feelings of women who frequently abuse their bodies and treat the creation of life as a tumor they want destroyed and removed.  All life is sacred.  It should be celebrated into the world and not torn or flushed out due to inconvenience just because it might come out the wrong colour or gender.

As I said above if there is a legitimate reason for it then with the mother's consent it should be done.  The only issue people have is what constitutes a legitimate reason.

e.g.  A pregnant woman decides to blackmail her husband and says she will terminate the child if he refuses to buy her the dress she wants.  No.  She has complications with the pregnancy which endangers their lives.  Yes.

There has to be a legitimate reason.

Edited by TigerBright19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, TigerBright19 said:

Such a bizarre response.  You don't like alternative opinions on the value of life and why it has been a contentious subject for many years.  Also I meant to say high mortality rate.  This darn auto-fill has a mind of its own sometimes.  Also my girl friend from high school died aged 29 after complications from childbirth.  Her husband respected her choice to carry on with the pregnancy knowing the risks.  She died and her baby girl survived.  In my eyes she was a heroine who chose to save the life of her child at the cost of her own.  Forgive my attitude if you think I do or don't care about the feelings of women who frequently abuse their bodies and treat the creation of life as a tumor they want destroyed and removed.  All life is sacred.  It should be celebrated into the world and not torn or flushed out due to inconvenience just because it might come out the wrong colour or gender.

As I said above if there is a legitimate reason for it then with the mother's consent it should be done.  The only issue people have is what constitutes a legitimate reason.

e.g.  A pregnant woman decides to blackmail her husband and says she will terminate the child if he refuses to buy her the dress she wants.  No.  She has complications with the pregnancy which endangers their lives.  Yes.

There has to be a legitimate reason.

You're not short of asinine scenarios.  Safe to say no one is going to be impacted if we ignore your deranged opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

You're not short of asinine scenarios.  Safe to say no one is going to be impacted if we ignore your deranged opinion.

Bizarre.  I clearly value life more than you and protecting life when it is in danger.  There is a difference between a responsible mother and an irresponsible mother.  Sorry you don't see that.

You said I should be sterilised at birth because I believe that life is sacred and the creation of life carries shared responsibilities and that abortion should only take place for a legitimate reason.  I'm sorry you don't share that belief.   I only hope that if someone offers to save your life you will not reject that offer because they don't share your beliefs and that you will have the courtesy to say thank you to them and not tell them they should be sterilized at birth.  When a terrorist bomb killed 29 people in Omagh, Northern Ireland the death toll was raised to 31 because one of the victims was pregnant with twins.  This of course has been a source for contention because people disputed for a long time that the death should have been raised from 29 to 31, and for many of us who lived through the troubles the death toll was unofficially recognised as 31.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

You're not short of asinine scenarios.  Safe to say no one is going to be impacted if we ignore your deranged opinion.

e.g.

Depending on how you value life.  29 were killed or 31 were killed.

 

IMG-20240414-221714.jpg

IMG-20240414-221901.jpg

IMG-20240414-221826.jpg

IMG-20240414-221752.jpg

IMG-20240414-221621.jpg
 

As shown above everyone from any background or community can share their belief on what constitutes a life created and a life needlessly taken.  This also matters when compensation is given to the grieving relatives of victims and legality of claimants when it comes to defining a pregnant woman as more than one victim or a single victim.

 

Edited by TigerBright19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TigerBright19 said:

Bizarre.  I clearly value life more than you and protecting life when it is in danger. 

Do you give a lot of your money to charities working in Ukraine, Gaza, Ethiopia, and Somalia, just to mention four areas where the life of children is endangered daily? You don't need to answer, I'm just wondering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pellinore said:

Do you give a lot of your money to charities working in Ukraine, Gaza, Ethiopia, and Somalia, just to mention four areas where the life of children is endangered daily? You don't need to answer, I'm just wondering.

I'm signed up with local children's charities e.g. Chestnut Treehouse and Barnardo's.  Helping people in general is just a natural impulse.  I recently gave financial support to a single mother at work and emotional support to a colleague who lost his young daughter and saw no future in his life.   I've seen people through the darkest chapter of their lives and carry the burden of always being the cheerful guy they can depend on.  My only regret is that I rarely use cash nowadays when I go shopping, so there is little change available to put in the charity tubs or give to the homeless outside when they ask, and I have to apologise to them on many occasions for using card only.  My father and sister have both worked in Israel as volunteers and they contribute to their charities.  I also have two disabled relatives and their families support their charities.  Apparently Northern Ireland is the most charitable region in the UK.  We may be flat broke most of the year, but we still put the needs of others first when we can.

 

IMG-20240415-005704.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TigerBright19 said:

Bizarre.  I clearly value life more than you and protecting life when it is in danger.  There is a difference between a responsible mother and an irresponsible mother.  Sorry you don't see that.

You said I should be sterilised at birth because I believe that life is sacred and the creation of life carries shared responsibilities and that abortion should only take place for a legitimate reason.  I'm sorry you don't share that belief.   I only hope that if someone offers to save your life you will not reject that offer because they don't share your beliefs and that you will have the courtesy to say thank you to them and not tell them they should be sterilized at birth.  When a terrorist bomb killed 29 people in Omagh, Northern Ireland the death toll was raised to 31 because one of the victims was pregnant with twins.  This of course has been a source for contention because people disputed for a long time that the death should have been raised from 29 to 31, and for many of us who lived through the troubles the death toll was unofficially recognised as 31.

Did women hurt you?  Is this why you pull ridiculous scenarios out of your ass, making them out to be bad guys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TigerBright19 said:

e.g.

Depending on how you value life.  29 were killed or 31 were killed.

 

This clutching at straws only shows how desperate you are.  You've gone from completely idiotic scenarios to now bombings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2024 at 11:21 AM, TigerBright19 said:

Imagine how many great doctors, scientists and charitable people today would not be alive if their grandparents had terminated their child because it was inconvenient to their lifestyle during the Great Depression

Imagine how many murderers, rapists and terrorists wouldn't have harmed people if only their parents had had an abortion.

16 hours ago, TigerBright19 said:

When a terrorist bomb killed 29 people in Omagh, Northern Ireland the death toll was raised to 31 because one of the victims was pregnant with twins.  This of course has been a source for contention because people disputed for a long time that the death should have been raised from 29 to 31, and for many of us who lived through the troubles the death toll was unofficially recognised as 31.

And the death toll would be zero if his mother had terminated the pregnancy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Setton said:

Imagine how many murderers, rapists and terrorists wouldn't have harmed people if only their parents had had an abortion.

And the death toll would be zero if his mother had terminated the pregnancy.

The point I was making is that different news agencies reported different death tolls because they recognised a pregnant woman carrying twins as three victims and increased the death toll from 29 to 31.

This is important when it comes to compensation claims, conviction and passing sentence, because if a pregnant woman with twins is murdered then a judge and jury may recognise that 1 life was taken or 3 lives were taken and increase the sentence based on three counts of murder instead of one.

When a judge is found to be too lenient the family can appeal for a tougher sentence which on occasion is granted because the victim was pregnant.

 

IMG-20240415-130943.jpg
 

IMG-20240415-130917.jpg
 

That is the point I was referring to.  Personal beliefs are what they are and a judge and jury should have the freedom to make their own decision based on what they constitute as a life lost and if the family wish the sentence to be increased by a court of appeal.

 

Edited by TigerBright19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
3 hours ago, TigerBright19 said:

The point I was making is...

Nothing interesting.

I am making a different point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.