The Student Room Group

Pro-life society...

Scroll to see replies

Original post by When you see it...
I am against the morning after pill. Just am.
It is worse than killing an animal (although I disagree with that too) because humans have more rights than animals and I believe that foetuses are humans. Most of my opinions on these issues locigally follow from my opinion that a foetus has the same rights as a human being.
The comfort of one human being is not worth the life of another, for example. Once you understand my viewpoint on what a foetus is, all of my other viewpoints can be deduced.
I am a bit indifferent towards IVF. The spare embryos are (I think) used in stem cell research, so you have to factor in whether it is for the greater good of humanity or not to use these embryos for research. I personally believe it is, but my main objection to stem cell research is the fact that it discriminates against certain people (i.e. certain embryos must die for the greater good). If it harmed everyone equally, then I would definitely support it. I don't like the idea of IVF though because our population is too big as it is, surely it is a blessing that some people have fertility problems.
BTW everyones definition of murder in this context is different, you have to respect other people's viewpoints.


How can you be indifferent to IVF, specifically that the spare embryos are destroyed (they are destroyed unless the parents consent to their use in stem cell research) but even so it is destroying a life the same way the morning after pill and abortion do, yet you say you are against these?

What exactly do you mean when you say that IVF discriminates against certain people?

You say that it is a blessing that certain people have fertility problems because the population is to big? So you are against the creation of a very much wanted life but totally against the idea of abortion in the case of rape and other cases where the pregnancy is very much unwanted??
Original post by Lizzeraptor
What about when contraception fails due to no ones fault?


How often does contraception failure really result in unwanted pregnancies? I'm sure the pill has a higher success rate and the guy can wear a comdom too.
Original post by When you see it...
Not at all. :confused:
Are you serious, you can't see where I'm coming from?
Your entire post doesn't take into account the fact that some people believe foetuses to have the same rights as fully-formed people, which would make it wrong to kill them regardless of whether it would bring comfort to the mother. That is all it is - comfort (because once it is born it can be sent to a care home, so stopping the women from having an abortion is not exactly forcing her to raise a child. All abortion achieves is bringing comfort to the mother).
.


I've never had one so I wouldn't know but I'm pretty sure no woman would be comforted by having an abortion? I think it all sounds pretty traumatic..
Original post by NDGAARONDI
How often does contraception failure really result in unwanted pregnancies? I'm sure the pill has a higher success rate and the guy can wear a comdom too.


With the pill its every 1 in 1,00 women every 3 years. Condoms are 99% effective. Theres always a risk even if you use both, so unwanted babies happen considering how many couples there are who do have sex.
Original post by Lizzeraptor
With the pill its every 1 in 1,00 women every 3 years. Condoms are 99% effective. Theres always a risk even if you use both, so unwanted babies happen considering how many couples there are who do have sex.


True but I wonder how much for contraception to fail must contribute to the annual number of abortions because I swear the contraception failure is being overplayed as a reason. It happens but to the extent that it does? I mean, the figures for abortions are on average going up I last read and the age of consent has remained and, I assume, contraception has got better over the years in effectiveness so what gives? More sex?
Does anyone on here actually think abortion should be illegal? Surely that wouldn't stop it from happening, it would just put the mother in danger (due to 'back-alley' abortions or whatever they're called carried out by untrained folk) and possibly give a helping hand to organised crime (as abortion would likely then be one of the 'services' they provide and would inevitably lead to more people getting sucked in to gangs and the like). I know that some people have 'back-alley' abortions even now that it's legal, but it would happen more if it was made illegal, so what is the point of illegalising it?
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by When you see it...
Does anyone on here actually think abortion should be illegal? Surely that wouldn't stop it from happening, it would just put the mother in danger (due to 'back-alley' abortions or whatever they're called carried out by untrained folk) and possibly give a helping hand to organised crime (as abortion would likely then be one of the 'services' they provide and would inevitably lead to more people getting sucked in to gangs and the like). I know that some people have 'back-alley' abortions even now that it's legal, but it would happen more if it was made illegal, so what is the point of illegalising it?


Why would it not stop happening? It seems at least plausible that some mothers would carry on with their pregnancy rather than preferring an illegal abortion.
Original post by Calumcalum
Why would it not stop happening? It seems at least plausible that some mothers would carry on with their pregnancy rather than preferring an illegal abortion.


Some is not all. You just answered your own question, tbh.

Having skimmed through most of this thread; I honestly believe a mother's life is masses more important than the bunch of cells/potential human being incubating inside of her. I used to not think I personally could have an abortion ever. Then in the middle of my final year at University, I had a pregnancy scare, and abortion was a very real possibility.

I find it very hard to understand why men should have such strong pro-life views, to be honest. In my mind, it's unjustifiable; a man will never have to go through an unwanted pregnancy, so they have no right to dictate whether a woman is right or wrong in her decision. Fact is, pregnancy and childbirth is still dangerous, despite how far we've come in medical research and practice.
Original post by SpangleMagnet
Some is not all. You just answered your own question, tbh.

Having skimmed through most of this thread; I honestly believe a mother's life is masses more important than the bunch of cells/potential human being incubating inside of her. I used to not think I personally could have an abortion ever. Then in the middle of my final year at University, I had a pregnancy scare, and abortion was a very real possibility.

I find it very hard to understand why men should have such strong pro-life views, to be honest. In my mind, it's unjustifiable; a man will never have to go through an unwanted pregnancy, so they have no right to dictate whether a woman is right or wrong in her decision. Fact is, pregnancy and childbirth is still dangerous, despite how far we've come in medical research and practice.


Right, but no one would suggest that making it illegal would stop all abortions - that would be a complete strawman. I think many pro-lifers would be very happy indeed if they could prevent at least some abortions.

(Apply a parallel argument to murder: well, clearly we haven't prevented all murders by making it illegal, but is that a decent reason, in itself, for making it legal?)
(edited 12 years ago)
But I personally just can't fathom why you pro-lifers would think you have the right to prevent any abortions, at all? I literally cannot get that understanding into my head.

At the end of the day; it's not your body. Preventing someone from having control over their own body is stripping away one of their fundamental human rights.
Original post by SpangleMagnet
But I personally just can't fathom why you pro-lifers would think you have the right to prevent any abortions, at all? I literally cannot get that understanding into my head.

At the end of the day; it's not your body. Preventing someone from having control over their own body is stripping away one of their fundamental human rights.


It's about where new life begins, effectively.

At the end of the day, the unborn child isn't the mother's body either, so treating her body in such a way that that other life is ended is - however one views that significance - an act with a certain moral gravity.

The "It's my body!" argument ends when I use my body to end your life.
Original post by Invictus_88


The "It's my body!" argument ends when I use my body to end your life.


... I really fail to see how that's the same thing, at all.

But I guess that's the problem here; I don't classify a bunch of cells that couldn't possibly function outside the womb as a life. I think there is a case for the upper limit for abortion to be lowered, yes, but until the foetus can survive on its' own or with limited help, then I don't believe it is a life at all.
Original post by Bellissima


i mean who actually bonds over their feelings on abortion?


I actually know a married couple who met each other and fell in love with each other through doing pro life work.
I'm in :party:
Original post by SpangleMagnet
But I personally just can't fathom why you pro-lifers would think you have the right to prevent any abortions, at all? I literally cannot get that understanding into my head.

At the end of the day; it's not your body. Preventing someone from having control over their own body is stripping away one of their fundamental human rights.

I wouldn't want to make it illegal (mainly because that wouldn't really stop it from happening and would instead make abortions more dangerous for the mother as they would be performed by untrained people (because if abortion was illegal, then formal training of the procedure would obviously not happen)) but as someone else said, for 'pro-life' people this issue is not one of freedom, because from this point of view the foetus is alive and therefore you have about as much right to abort it as you do have a right to murder it when it becomes a person.
Like you said though, you don't consider a foetus to be alive so for you it is a freedom/choice issue, just understand that if you did consider them to be alive, then you would probably view the issue in a different way.
Reply 155
I was browsing this debate and felt compelled to respond to a myth that is frequently voiced about the status of the embryo in the uternus a myth that has been perpetuated on this thread with the claim that human life from the moment of conception is a potential human being.

“A split second after conception, this one-celled forty-six-chromosomed human being possesses everything it needs to grow into an adult human being except time. It is not a blueprint of a human being, it is not a part of a human being. It is a human being.” (James Watkins The Why Files)

Because words are so important in this debate, we need to remember that it cannot be refuted with any scientific credibility that abortions do indeed kill human life.

I am copying the following forward as a preamble (or setting the scene if you wish) to a report entitled “Ireland’s Gain The Demographic Impact and Consequences for the Health of Women of the Abortion Laws in Ireland and Northern Ireland since 1968.” I should point out that one of the most startling conclusions of the Report is that 93,000 babies are alive in Northern Ireland who would not be here today if the Abortion Act in the UK had been extended to NI.

FORWARD

The analysis by Patrick Carroll at PAPRI compares available statistical data on abortions carried out on women resident in Ireland and Northern Ireland over the epoch1968-2010 with the corresponding data for Britain with regard to the demographic characteristics of the various parts of the two islands and discusses the implications for the health of women.

The study provides an in-depth ecological analysis that constitutes a unique insight into the effects, or lack thereof, of national and regional policy to restrict termination of pregnancies. The discussion of premature birth rates, stillbirth rates, mental health resource usage, medication usage for mental
health, breast cancer rates, and immunological disorders all point to an urgent need to examine more fully the impact of liberalization of abortion laws and their adverse impact on women’s health. Public health officials and legislators responsible for shaping national and regional policies for women’s health must seriously engage the questions raised by the PAPRI report for the need to restrict and monitor termination of pregnancies.

Byron C. Calhoun, MD, FACOG, FACS, MBA
Professor & Vice-Chair
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology
West Virginia University, Charleston

The above precedes the report written by Patrick Carroll of the Pensions and Population Research Institute (PAPRI) based on statistical evidence which can be found here: http://papriresearch.org/ESW/Files/Irelands_Gain.pdf

I have been extensively involved in the abortion debate on TSR for many years. I’ve seen all the opinions from both sides without witnessing anything new. I wanted those involved in this most recent debate to have the benefit of seeing the concerns of Obstetric and Gynaecological professionals of the failure of legislators and national/regional policies to examine the impact of abortion on women’s health, and to engage in the question raised in the above report.


I bow out of this debate and leave it to your good selves to continue mindful of this new evidence.

Edit: For the attention of SpangleMagnet; there is a need to dwell on the fact that this view reveals ignorance of human physiology: the life growing within the mother is not her body. It has very different chromosome structure with a separate circulatory system and often a different blood type. There's even a fifty-fifty chance it's a different gender! And to pre-empt the common claims of anti-pro life adherents that the growing human being in the uterus is parasitic, try telling the mother who is ecstatic that she will hold her child in her arms within a few months that her 'baby' is a parasite!
:frown:



(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 156
Original post by When you see it...
I wouldn't want to make it illegal (mainly because that wouldn't really stop it from happening and would instead make abortions more dangerous for the mother as they would be performed by untrained people (because if abortion was illegal, then formal training of the procedure would obviously not happen)) but as someone else said, for 'pro-life' people this issue is not one of freedom, because from this point of view the foetus is alive and therefore you have about as much right to abort it as you do have a right to murder it when it becomes a person.
Like you said though, you don't consider a foetus to be alive so for you it is a freedom/choice issue, just understand that if you did consider them to be alive, then you would probably view the issue in a different way.


Those who embrace this particular "pro-choice" position are guilty of ignoring their own conscience by allowing for the destruction of human life.

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
(Martin Luther King.)

"You many choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know." (William Wilberforce - 18thc anti-slavery campaigner)

Now I really must bow out folks! :wink:
Original post by yawn
I was browsing this debate and felt compelled to respond to a myth that is frequently voiced about the status of the embryo in the uternus a myth that has been perpetuated on this thread with the claim that human life from the moment of conception is a potential human being.

“A split second after conception, this one-celled forty-six-chromosomed human being possesses everything it needs to grow into an adult human being except time. It is not a blueprint of a human being, it is not a part of a human being. It is a human being.” (James Watkins The Why Files)

Because words are so important in this debate, we need to remember that it cannot be refuted with any scientific credibility that abortions do indeed kill human life.

I am copying the following forward as a preamble (or setting the scene if you wish) to a report entitled “Ireland’s Gain The Demographic Impact and Consequences for the Health of Women of the Abortion Laws in Ireland and Northern Ireland since 1968.” I should point out that one of the most startling conclusions of the Report is that 93,000 babies are alive in Northern Ireland who would not be here today if the Abortion Act in the UK had been extended to NI.


The above precedes the report written by Patrick Carroll of the Pensions and Population Research Institute (PAPRI) based on statistical evidence which can be found here: http://papriresearch.org/ESW/Files/Irelands_Gain.pdf

I have been extensively involved in the abortion debate on TSR for many years. I’ve seen all the opinions from both sides without witnessing anything new. I wanted those involved in this most recent debate to have the benefit of seeing the concerns of Obstetric and Gynaecological professionals of the failure of legislators and national/regional policies to examine the impact of abortion on women’s health, and to engage in the question raised in the above report.


I bow out of this debate and leave it to your good selves to continue mindful of this new evidence.

Edit: For the attention of SpangleMagnet; there is a need to dwell on the fact that this view reveals ignorance of human physiology: the life growing within the mother is not her body. It has very different chromosome structure with a separate circulatory system and often a different blood type. There's even a fifty-fifty chance it's a different gender! And to pre-empt the common claims of anti-pro life adherents that the growing human being in the uterus is parasitic, try telling the mother who is ecstatic that she will hold her child in her arms within a few months that her 'baby' is a parasite!
:frown:




Some people believe that the foetus is not sentient etc.
As far as I am aware, there is no evidence either way for this, but I am against abortion because if we eventually found out that they were sentient, then we would regret all of those abortions that happened whereas if we found out if they weren't, there would be far less to regret, therefore it makes sense to favour 'keeping' even unwanted babies until there is new evidence.
Also that 'except time' quote is fairly stupid because the foetus relies on the mother for sustainance (unless we can make an artificial growth medium for human foetuses? I guess that would be a good idea) so the arguments that the foetus is only a potential human being does have weight (not saying I agree with it).



Original post by yawn
Those who embrace this particular "pro-choice" position are guilty of ignoring their own conscience by allowing for the destruction of human life.

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
(Martin Luther King.)

"You many choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know." (William Wilberforce - 18thc anti-slavery campaigner)

Now I really must bow out folks! :wink:

I believe abortion should be legal in the same way that I think murder should be legal - why should the government decide what acts are acceptable and what aren't? I am against all forms of government intervention on social issues. Well, most...
My point is that making it illegal wouldn't stop it from happening anyway, so it isn't 'allowing' it to happen, as it would happen anyway.
I think the best way to stop abortion is more wide use of contraception, which would come from better (and earlier) sex education.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 158
When you see it...
...


As I've already said, I'm not engaging in any further debate as I've seen all the points raised in such debate over the last few years on TSR.

I've included the statistical report because it's something new for debaters to look at and carry on debating in view of the substantial evidence that's produced in said report...rather than citing old debates which have been refuted time and again, such as you've highlighed, ergo 'sentience etc' which detract from the crux that abortion destroys human life.

Thanks for your comments to me, regardless. :smile:
Original post by SpangleMagnet
... I really fail to see how that's the same thing, at all.

But I guess that's the problem here; I don't classify a bunch of cells that couldn't possibly function outside the womb as a life. I think there is a case for the upper limit for abortion to be lowered, yes, but until the foetus can survive on its' own or with limited help, then I don't believe it is a life at all.


If that's where you draw the line, that's where you draw the line, but we're all bundles of cells, you and me both. And if I was ever reliant on life support, I like to think I would be given the days, weeks (or nine months?) necessary for me to open my eyes again without being killed by someone who considered me unworthy of a future.

Quick Reply

Latest