NationStates Jolt Archive

In the midst of any abortion debate comes up the point, from some pro-lifers, that pregnancies are a punishment for promiscuous women who have fornicated outside of the marital realm and therefore now must act as a beast of burden; an incubator for 9 months. That God is punishing the woman for seeking sexual fulfilment.

To some single women, pregnancy is unwanted.

To some married women, pregnancy may be unwelcome as well.

However, some single women may welcome it even if they don't want to be married because they have the maternal instincts telling them that they want a child.

At which point is the pregnancy not considered punishment? If the woman wanted to be pregnant, even if it wasn't her intention, would it still be a punishment for her desire to have sex? If she was married but didn't want it, would it be punishment, or are the rules different for 'wed' and 'unwed' women?

I actually can't say I've seen that argument, at least not in this incarnation of NB. In all honesty, I don't think we have all that many pro-lifers here.

I believe, in that case, the baby grows up gay to further punish the mother.

Or at least that's what I'd expect to hear from someone ignorant enough to make the aforementioned argument.

I actually can't say I've seen that argument, at least not in this incarnation of NB. In all honesty, I don't think we have all that many pro-lifers here.

True and when it rains logic, they run for their little rocks. :D

I think you are misunderstanding, they hardly ever say "punishment" they say "consequence"

a consequence does not have a negative connotation by nature, it's just "what happens" or "what can happen"

I actually can't say I've seen that argument, at least not in this incarnation of NB. In all honesty, I don't think we have all that many pro-lifers here.
Wait. They'll be here.

I'm betting some will show up to deny they ever made such an argument and then, if an abortion rights debate starts, they will commence making precisely that argument.

I think you are misunderstanding, they hardly ever say "punishment" they say "consequence"

a consequence does not have a negative connotation by nature, it's just "what happens" or "what can happen"
That's disingenuous, Smunkee. We've seen such debates many times. Put "consequence" in the context of the actual arguments, and it is pretty clear they mean it in the same sense as "imprisonment is a consequence of breaking the law," i.e. punishment.

I think you are misunderstanding, they hardly ever say "punishment" they say "consequence"

a consequence does not have a negative connotation by nature, it's just "what happens" or "what can happen"

You've just explained why I chose not to use consequence and used punishment instead.

Consequence is a neutral word because it is both positive and negative.

In the context of my OP, I needed to use punishment because it has the negative connotation to structure my question the way I wanted it to read.

Further, 'consequence', based on my OP is used in a negative way when talking about pregnancies not otherwise intended when the woman is unwedded.

That's disingenuous, Smunkee. We've seen such debates many times. Put "consequence" in the context of the actual arguments, and it is pretty clear they mean it in the same sense as "imprisonment is a consequence of breaking the law," i.e. punishment.
getting wet is a consequence of walking in the rain. getting pregnant is something that can happen when you have sex.

You've just explained why I chose not to use consequence and used punishment instead.

Consequence is a neutral word because it is both positive and negative.

In the context of my OP, I needed to use punishment because it has the negative connotation to structure my question the way I wanted it to read.

Further, 'consequence', based on my OP is used in a negative way when talking about pregnancies not otherwise intended when the woman is unwedded.
so in order to frame your question in the best trollish way you had to change the word? yeah? that's what I thought.

I said this in the other thread and i'll say it again. A pro lifer will very rarely use that as a serious argument against abortion. It normally only occurs as a quick shot.

Well, you got to ask whether the punnishment of the woman is worth the new life that is created.

Just because the child isn't "wanted" doesn't mean it deserves death.

so in order to frame your question in the best trollish way you had to change the word? yeah? that's what I thought.
:rolleyes: So it's trollish now? But if I used consequence, it wouldn't be? Right... I explain my position/"reasoning" (since reasoning is relative) and it gets dismissed as trollish, even though I wanted to make it clear?

It's not trolling. Nor is it trollish. I never changed the word! I didn't edit my OP to put in that word. I made the substitute while writing it because I wanted to make my question clear.

Yes it's not the most neutral word I could have used but I wanted a word that was inherently negative by nature. When making a question, or writing, each word selected is often chosen with a certain intent in mind, and I wanted to convey a negative meaning.

Well, you got to ask whether the punnishment of the woman is worth the new life that is created.

Just because the child isn't "wanted" doesn't mean it deserves death.
I'm not asking if it deserves anything, I'm asking when is the line drawn between when a pregnancy is considered a punishment and when it is not. I'm not asking if the foetus should be aborted or not.

:rolleyes: So it's trollish now? But if I used consequence, it wouldn't be? Right... I explain my position/"reasoning" (since reasoning is relative) and it gets dismissed as trollish, even though I wanted to make it clear?

It's not trolling. Nor is it trollish. I never changed the word! I didn't edit my OP to put in that word. I made the substitute while writing it because I wanted to make my question clear.

Yes it's not the most neutral word I could have used but I wanted a word that was inherently negative by nature. When making a question, or writing, each word selected is often chosen with a certain intent in mind, and I wanted to convey a negative meaning.

why are you asking?

your attitude in the OP leads me to believe that you don't care to debate at all, that you are just trying to get a rise out of whatever Pro-lifer you can find that is unlucky enough to fall for your question or maybe you want all the Pro-choicers around to pat your on the back for your new take on a poor argument?

why are you asking?

your attitude in the OP leads me to believe that you don't care to debate at all, that you are just trying to get a rise out of whatever Pro-lifer you can find that is unlucky enough to fall for your question or maybe you want all the Pro-choicers around to pat your on the back for your new take on a poor argument?

I want an opinion and you've taken it to be something else entirely.

I didn't want to hijack the current thread that is about abortion as this is not about abortion. I never asked about abortions.

I wanted to know how people make the simple distinction since I can't see the difference. I'm asking a question and I wanted to put my opinion into the question. Yes it's biased and I know it.

I'm NOT looking to trap anyone. I wanted either speculation or an answer.

If you interpret it as such, then it's not my problem.

And I rarely use any of the smileys in the side bar, but... right now... :headbang:

I want an opinion and you've taken it to be something else entirely.

I didn't want to hijack the current thread that is about abortion as this is not about abortion. I never asked about abortions.

I wanted to know how people make the simple distinction since I can't see the difference. I'm asking a question and I wanted to put my opinion into the question. Yes it's biased and I know it.

I'm NOT looking to trap anyone. I wanted either speculation or an answer.

If you interpret it as such, then it's not my problem.

And I rarely use any of the smileys in the side bar, but... right now... :headbang:
fine, I don't think pregnancy is ever a punishment, I think it's something that can happen when you have sex, being as sex is the main way that reproduction occurs. I don't think STD's are punishment, I think it's something that can happen when you have sex, because that's how most STD's are passed around.

does that help any?

fine, I don't think pregnancy is ever a punishment, I think it's something that can happen when you have sex, being as sex is the main way that reproduction occurs. I don't think STD's are punishment, I think it's something that can happen when you have sex, because that's how most STD's are passed around.

does that help any?

A little yes.

A little yes.

do you understand the difference between a consequence and a punishment?

I'm not asking if it deserves anything, I'm asking when is the line drawn between when a pregnancy is considered a punishment and when it is not. I'm not asking if the foetus should be aborted or not.

Hmm, well, there is a fairly large group of people that think the creation of a new life shouldn't be considered a punnishment at all. Personally, I think its not pregnancy itself that should regarded as the punishment, but the social connatations around it.

do you understand the difference between a consequence and a punishment?

Yes I more than do. Which is precisely why I chose one word over the other. Consequence is a very neutral word because it's the result of an action, which too can be either positive or negative.

Hmm, well, there is a fairly large group of people that think the creation of a new life shouldn't be considered a punnishment at all. Personally, I think its not pregnancy itself that should regarded as the punishment, but the social connatations around it.

Interesting. Would you care to explain what you mean by "social connotations"?

Interesting. Would you care to explain what you mean by "social connotations"?

I think that usually, the reasons a pregnancy s unwanted is usually that it'll make a career harder, the baby will be hard to financially support and that there'll be a... stigma surrounding it, as a single mother is still viewed as sinful in many parts of the world.

If those three things were worked out, pregnancy need not be viewed as a punnishment at all, what with medicine and everything.

Then again, I aint got ovaries, so what do I know?

Yes I more than do. Which is precisely why I chose one word over the other. Consequence is a very neutral word because it's the result of an action, which too can be either positive or negative.

can you point me in the direction of a pro-lifer who has ever used the word "punishment" instead of "consequence"?

can you point me in the direction of a pro-lifer who has ever used the word "punishment" instead of "consequence"?

The fact that a word can be used without negative connotations does not mean that it is always used without said connotations.

It is painfully and unfortunately obvious in many of these debates that some people use "consequence" to mean "punishment." Every person who uses the "dirty whore" argument is doing son and they seem to take a scary perverse pleasure in thinking of a baby as a punishment for sinful ways. I think Kryozerkia was just trying to make it clear that it is these people who are being addressed in the OP.

so in order to frame your question in the best trollish way you had to change the word? yeah? that's what I thought.

Trollish? In what universe, Smunkee? That you don't like the consequence of his word choice doesn't make the question trollish.

I am not sure if it is sinful for a woman to have a child against the wishes of the father and not put the child up for adoption. I am not sure if it is sinful for an unmarried woman to have a child. However, I think that both of these actions are wrong. However, in a free society, I think that the only "punishment" that we should give such a woman is to make her 100% financially responsible for her wicked decision. If she cant afford to take care of the baby she should put it up for adoption. If she cant take care of the baby and she does not put it up for adoption, then she should be arrested for child abuse and the baby or child put up for adoption.

In the midst of any abortion debate comes up the point, from some pro-lifers, that pregnancies are a punishment for promiscuous women who have fornicated outside of the marital realm and therefore now must act as a beast of burden; an incubator for 9 months. That God is punishing the woman for seeking sexual fulfilment.

To some single women, pregnancy is unwanted.

To some married women, pregnancy may be unwelcome as well.

However, some single women may welcome it even if they don't want to be married because they have the maternal instincts telling them that they want a child.

At which point is the pregnancy not considered punishment? If the woman wanted to be pregnant, even if it wasn't her intention, would it still be a punishment for her desire to have sex? If she was married but didn't want it, would it be punishment, or are the rules different for 'wed' and 'unwed' women?


Ummm it does seem to be a strange sort of religion that see's children as punishment though?

I believe that the remains of aborted fetuses should be used as hot dog filler.

I believe that the remains of aborted fetuses should be used as hot dog filler.

I bet animal fetuses and uteruses find their way into hot dogs. Apparently, everything does.

I bet animal fetuses and uteruses find their way into hot dogs. Apparently, everything does.

At least the fetuses would be "wanted". And, since we're chopping them up anyway...

getting wet is a consequence of walking in the rain. getting pregnant is something that can happen when you have sex.

But GIVING BIRTH is not.

Being forced to continue being pregnant against your wishes is not.

Forced childbirth is not a consequence of sex, it is a punishment.



so in order to frame your question in the best trollish way you had to change the word? yeah? that's what I thought.
It's not a trollish question at all. It's perfectly legit. I've seen countless anti-choicers make precisely that argument (that women who get pregnant should be forced to carry to term against their wishes because it's their fault for slutting around, and they shouldn't be allowed to escape this enforced punishment by getting to make their own medical decisions).

But GIVING BIRTH is not.

Being forced to continue being pregnant against your wishes is not.

Forced childbirth is not a consequence of sex, it is a punishment.



It's not a trollish question at all. It's perfectly legit. I've seen countless anti-choicers make precisely that argument (that women who get pregnant should be forced to carry to term against their wishes because it's their fault for slutting around, and they shouldn't be allowed to escape this enforced punishment by getting to make their own medical decisions).

Yes. But what you need to realize is the fact that
A: It is their fault. If it was rape, incest, or some other special circumstance, than completely understandable.
B: When you have sex, you SHOULD be realizing the fact that when you have sex, its very PURPOSE is to make a child.

Key thought: If you can't feed 'em, DON'T BREED 'EM.

No man or woman should ever have a child that he or she does not want. Anything else is a punishment. Having sex is not consent to giving birth or having a child. What pro-lifers either do not understand or do not care about is that once a baby is born it is tough for a lot of people to give it up for adoption. Abortion is so much better because it removes the risk that you will keep the baby after it is born. I hate anti-abortionism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes

But what if the universe doesn't want to have babies?

Everyone knows God created AIDS to destroy the homosexuals and Magic Johnson.

B: When you have sex, you SHOULD be realizing the fact that when you have sex, its very PURPOSE is to make a child.
Sex != Penis with positive sperm count ejaculating inside ovulating vagina.

Yes. But what you need to realize is the fact that
A: It is their fault.
B: When you have sex, you SHOULD be realizing the fact that when you have sex, its very PURPOSE is to make a child.

Wrong. The overwhelming majority of sex among human beings will not result in the making of a child. Today, in my country, the majority of sex among human beings is not remotely intended to make a child.

But, more importantly, sex does not (and has not ever) made a single child. Ever. In the history of the world.

Sex MAY, sometimes, result in a fertilized egg. However, it is only through the active, continual, intensive involvement of the female body that a fertilized egg becomes a human child.

To claim that sex makes a child is to completely ignore the realities of human biology, and is a direct slur against every single female human being who has physically made a child.

still posting intelligent arguement bottle ;-)

you know I could never keep my temper long enough to lower myself to constructive critisism haha...nice to see you again x

It's not a trollish question at all. It's perfectly legit. I've seen countless anti-choicers make precisely that argument (that women who get pregnant should be forced to carry to term against their wishes because it's their fault for slutting around, and they shouldn't be allowed to escape this enforced punishment by getting to make their own medical decisions).

Can someone please please give me a link where anyone has actually used this argument in a serious debate.

Can someone please please give me a link where anyone has actually used this argument in a serious debate.

Define "serious debate." It's certainly thrown around openly online, but it's done more subtly in the newspapers, etc.

Yes. But what you need to realize is the fact that
A: It is their fault. If it was rape, incest, or some other special circumstance, than completely understandable.
B: When you have sex, you SHOULD be realizing the fact that when you have sex, its very PURPOSE is to make a child.

Key thought: If you can't feed 'em, DON'T BREED 'EM.

Sex is not just for procreation any more. Get your head out of the 19th century and into the 21st.

Sex is more than for just 'breeding'; it's an expression of the love the two people are supposed to have for each other.

Often women who seek abortions are those who have been actively using contraception. But the contraception failed (ie: the condom broke). It breaks even for married couples.

It is merely a byproduct of the act of sexual intercourse. The primary function is for partners to physically express their love for each other.

It takes two to tango and yes, it is as much as the guy's fault as it is the chick's because it takes his sperm to fertilise an egg; her magical sinful wiles don't make the sperm jump overboard against their will.

However your tone indicates that it is soley the girl's fault and she must carry the child because it's the consequence (punishment) for her actions because she didn't keep her legs shut.

No man or woman should ever have a child that he or she does not want. Anything else is a punishment. Having sex is not consent to giving birth or having a child. What pro-lifers either do not understand or do not care about is that once a baby is born it is tough for a lot of people to give it up for adoption. Abortion is so much better because it removes the risk that you will keep the baby after it is born. I hate anti-abortionism.

Hence why for unmarried women or "sluts" (or any other demeaning variant) must carry the child in their eyes.

I fully agree that the child must be wanted to be loved, even if the pregnancy was initially an accident, which happens sometimes.

Wrong. The overwhelming majority of sex among human beings will not result in the making of a child. Today, in my country, the majority of sex among human beings is not remotely intended to make a child.

But, more importantly, sex does not (and has not ever) made a single child. Ever. In the history of the world.

Sex MAY, sometimes, result in a fertilized egg. However, it is only through the active, continual, intensive involvement of the female body that a fertilized egg becomes a human child.

To claim that sex makes a child is to completely ignore the realities of human biology, and is a direct slur against every single female human being who has physically made a child.

And the wisdom of Bottle adds clout to the logic machine. She is the serem from the needle that gives logic life.

Nicely done.

Sex is not just for procreation any more. Get your head out of the 19th century and into the 21st.

Sex is more than for just 'breeding'; it's an expression of the love the two people are supposed to have for each other.

Often women who seek abortions are those who have been actively using contraception. But the contraception failed (ie: the condom broke). It breaks even for married couples.

All well and good. Yet...

Women get a choice (and I'm not against it) to end the pregnancy.

However, as a male, I most certainly do not. Let's say I don't want to raise a child, and the condom broke. And let's say the woman wants to have the baby.

I'm stuck, eh? Where are all your fancy 21st century notions then? Am I now being punished for having sex?

All well and good. Yet...

Women get a choice (and I'm not against it) to end the pregnancy.

However, as a male, I most certainly do not. Let's say I don't want to raise a child, and the condom broke. And let's say the woman wants to have the baby.

I'm stuck, eh? Where are all your fancy 21st century notions then? Am I now being punished for having sex?

I've always wanted to hear someone actually answer this as well. I've brought this up numerous times and all I usually get in return is "you should've thought of that before you had sex."

It's always seemed like once the deed is done, the guy is along for the ride no matter what his wishes are. I don't want to be a parent, ever, but if an "accident" happens and my wife wants to keep the baby, I'm SOL. Of course I could leave her in that instance, but even then I'm facing a two-fold punishment of having to leave my wife and the social stigma of leaving her with a child to take care of (the "man-up" argument).

All well and good. Yet...

Women get a choice (and I'm not against it) to end the pregnancy.

However, as a male, I most certainly do not. Let's say I don't want to raise a child, and the condom broke. And let's say the woman wants to have the baby.

I'm stuck, eh? Where are all your fancy 21st century notions then? Am I now being punished for having sex?

Right now men are oppressed and only the man hating feminazis and old school traditionalists say otherwise. You have the inalienable human right to not be responsible for any children that you do not want to take care of at least if you let the woman know this while she can still get an abortion so she can make an informed choice of whether to have a baby that will not have a father in the picture financially or emotionally.

Unfortunately, this basic inalienable human right is not recognized in this country yet. I believe that it will though unless abortions are made illegal by the damned Christian pukes.

All well and good. Yet...

Women get a choice (and I'm not against it) to end the pregnancy.

However, as a male, I most certainly do not. Let's say I don't want to raise a child, and the condom broke. And let's say the woman wants to have the baby.

I'm stuck, eh? Where are all your fancy 21st century notions then? Am I now being punished for having sex?


This is why, I am a firm believer of allowing men to deny all rights to the child. If you don't want any access to the child, then you shouldn't be required to pay child support. If you want visitation, or even just a phone call and a picture once in a while, then you had better be willing to pay up.

but, that's just me.

can you point me in the direction of a pro-lifer who has ever used the word "punishment" instead of "consequence"?

The first poster is saying that the word used by pro-lifers has been deliberatly chosen to be neutral but it is obvious that the pro-lifer intends it to be negative.

He/she has substituted consequence for punishment in order to ask his/her question.

The question is basically at which point does a pro-life person decide that a pregnancy is a curse and when is it a blessing

The best answer I can think of is that it depends how far down the path of ignorance that the person as gone, by this I do not mean that pro-life is ignorance just that it is usually the stance taken by people that like others to do their thinking.

All well and good. Yet...

Women get a choice (and I'm not against it) to end the pregnancy.

However, as a male, I most certainly do not. Let's say I don't want to raise a child, and the condom broke. And let's say the woman wants to have the baby.

I'm stuck, eh? Where are all your fancy 21st century notions then? Am I now being punished for having sex?

Time was a man could walk out but that changed when women got "rights"; I know, a damn inconvenience isn't it? :p

Besides, if being pregnant is the girl/woman's punishment for having sex, then it should be for guys to; after all, it is the 21st century! :D

But you do raise a valid point.

This proves that there needs to be a middle ground, one that respects a true pro-choice position that reflects the need of both parties. But there are no such middle grounds because as it has been pointed out here on NSG in the past, people are irrational, some more than others.

Perhaps something like a court ruling while the woman is pregnant. Maybe treat it like the right to an abortion; the right to disconnect yourself from this unborn child must be done within a certain amount of time. Otherwise you agree to raising or having it put up for adoption.

It would be a legal contract but it must be acquired with the knowledge of the woman even if she doesn't agree, since the man won't always agree with her choice to keep it or abort it, depending on his opinion. The contract would be required before the cut off date for legal, elective abortions (as oppose to emergency ones, which can happen any time).

In the midst of any abortion debate comes up the point, from some pro-lifers, that pregnancies are a punishment for promiscuous women who have fornicated outside of the marital realm and therefore now must act as a beast of burden; an incubator for 9 months. That God is punishing the woman for seeking sexual fulfilment.

To some single women, pregnancy is unwanted.

To some married women, pregnancy may be unwelcome as well.

However, some single women may welcome it even if they don't want to be married because they have the maternal instincts telling them that they want a child.

At which point is the pregnancy not considered punishment? If the woman wanted to be pregnant, even if it wasn't her intention, would it still be a punishment for her desire to have sex? If she was married but didn't want it, would it be punishment, or are the rules different for 'wed' and 'unwed' women?

Did they mention what the punishment is for the fathers of these children? Or are men exempt?