This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Why abortion should be illegal
Scroll to see replies
Original post by TGhulam
I think abortion should not be illegal, because there are some cases within which the only solution is to end the life of the fetus (e.g. when the mother's life is in danger or when the pregnancy is the result of a sexual assault etc. etc.). Also I am quite sure that abortion is not a light decision for a woman, therefore she has the right to decide.
1. why not save both lives or attempt to in which the loss of the child's life is not a result of "kill the child." do you see a moral difference in this?
2. if the choice is woman's why is the question between life or death? do you believe one human can decide death for another ?
3. there many women who feel depression and guilt and even physical damages from an abortion. why support that outcome?
4. sadly some women do not have free choice as their choice is pressured into having an abortion. an act of death that is sooner to support the person who did the sexual assault/rape/incest.
would one agree abortion can be a way to hide an assault?
Original post by NUSTweb
as God said in Quran...killing one innocent is like killing whole humanity...
You should read those verses (5:29-38) more carefully, because what your god was saying was that had been his attitude in the time of the Biblical Jews but it no longer was going forward for Moslems, and that severe physical and corporal punishments were, for such transgressors as thieves and atheists, now the order of the day.
In other words it says exactly the opposite of what you say it says.
Original post by da_nolo
1. why not save both lives or attempt to in which the loss of the child's life is not a result of "kill the child." do you see a moral difference in this?
4. sadly some women do not have free choice as their choice is pressured into having an abortion. an act of death that is sooner to support the person who did the sexual assault/rape/incest.
would one agree abortion can be a way to hide an assault?
4. sadly some women do not have free choice as their choice is pressured into having an abortion. an act of death that is sooner to support the person who did the sexual assault/rape/incest.
would one agree abortion can be a way to hide an assault?
It is often safer to abort than to go through with a pregnancy that may pose unavoidable risk to mother and baby - sure if she keeps a baby then miscarries it's not 'killing' the baby, but the result of this could result in harm to the mother, which would've been avoided with an abortion. It is unfair to make the call here suggesting that it is worth risking one fully established life on the off chance that a new one may come of it.
I understand your point, but that is not the fault of the assault victim, you are suggesting that they may be hiding the assault, which they may well do, because many rape victims are shunned from communities, rejected by their families, or even killed as there are still many that believe the victim is to blame for their assault. Of course some rape victims will happily choose to keep the child, but it is unfair to force a standardised coping method upon all victims (e.g suggesting they will get over it or be happier if they have a child conceived through their assault) and thus, it is unfair to suggest that victims should keep the children as if to abort them is a destruction of evidence that somehow showing the victim to be condoning their attacker's behaviour.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by da_nolo
1. why not save both lives or attempt to in which the loss of the child's life is not a result of "kill the child." do you see a moral difference in this?
1] A foetus isn't technically a life
2] Even if said thing was saved can you guarentee it a good quality of life as having seen the cluster **** the care system is sending one there isn't exactly a blessing.
2. if th
e choice is woman's why is the question between life or death? do you believe one human can decide death for another ?
the poster isn't saying shoot a child. Once again these aren't alive, atleast not at said stage anyway.
3. there many women who feel depression and guilt and even physical damages from an abortion. why support that outcome?
And plenty become depressed having said child whats your point?
4. sadly some women do not have free choice as their choice is pressured into having an abortion. an act of death that is sooner to support the person who did the sexual assault/rape/incest.
What a load of ****.
would one agree abortion can be a way to hide an assault?
More tripe... in no conceivable way can anyone argue an abortion hides a crime. Removes the result maybe but no more.
Original post by jamesthehustler
it shouldn't be illegal and here's why
once the state bans something
it will go underground
and then you have women dying thanks to botched abortions all the time
once the state bans something
it will go underground
and then you have women dying thanks to botched abortions all the time
How or why is that a reason? If abortion is illegal, it would not transpire in the quantity it would when it is legal.
The move to making it illegal would include various alternatives.
There are also botched abortions done in countries where it is legal. Would there be much of a change?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by TGhulam
I think abortion should not be illegal, because there are some cases within which the only solution is to end the life of the fetus (e.g. when the mother's life is in danger or when the pregnancy is the result of a sexual assault etc. etc.). Also I am quite sure that abortion is not a light decision for a woman, therefore she has the right to decide.
You might as well say that committing several other crimes is a difficult decision for some, and thus they should be able to decide their own moral course. The law doesn't really work like that.
I don't really have much of a problem with people who say "a foetus before x stage of development can be aborted freely". It's the ones who suggest there should be regulation of abortion, but with exceptions. That's, as far as I can see it, an admission that you're depriving life. While obviously that's a reasonable medical judgement to make where, say, the mother's life is at risk, how you can possibly justify it in cases of sexual assault is beyond me.
If, however, you accept there is no consideration at all acceding to a foetus, then that's quite rational.
Original post by Napp
There's not a technical definition of what "a life" is. That's a philosophical point. From a scientific perspective, a foetus is certainly alive. There is a clear distinction there.
2] Even if said thing was saved can you guarentee it a good quality of life as having seen the cluster **** the care system is sending one there isn't exactly a blessing.
2. if th
the poster isn't saying shoot a child. Once again these aren't alive, atleast not at said stage anyway.
2. if th
the poster isn't saying shoot a child. Once again these aren't alive, atleast not at said stage anyway.
What's the point of making an argument that you're going to directly contradict in the next sentence?
Original post by Little Toy Gun
1. should fetuses receive their own welfare, eg money and housing, before they were born?
2. Should a pregnant woman be charged extra on a flight because it's two instead of one human?
3. Should fetuses be given and required to carry a passport?
4. Should age be counted from the moment of conception?
5. Should the fetus be arrested for violation of any law? For example, you cannot insert yourself to someone's vagina without their consent; so can a woman potentially sue her fetus for rape?
2. Should a pregnant woman be charged extra on a flight because it's two instead of one human?
3. Should fetuses be given and required to carry a passport?
4. Should age be counted from the moment of conception?
5. Should the fetus be arrested for violation of any law? For example, you cannot insert yourself to someone's vagina without their consent; so can a woman potentially sue her fetus for rape?
1 - Pregnant women and mothers get increased welfare. It's a baby, not an adult.
2 - You pay for seats taken not people, hence why huge people buy two seats.
3 - The foetus isn't going to sneak out of the womb to illegally get past Israeli border control is it? Of course it doesn't need a passport.
4- That seems like a silly semantic question, although it's probably easier to start counting age from birth because that's the time frame that doctors use and it makes pinpointing a birthday very easy.
5 - Criminal responsibility starts age 10.
Original post by L i b
There's not a technical definition of what "a life" is. That's a philosophical point. From a scientific perspective, a foetus is certainly alive. There is a clear distinction there.
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE THREAD.
I don't want to control anyone's bodies. But the fact is that the only non-arbitrary point to start counting a person as being alive that makes any sense is conception. It's an undeniable fact. And once you admit that, it follows that abortion is murder. You can't kill children because they're inconvenient to you. "My body my rights" is a stupid argument - nobody has the right to kill children.
Original post by Nottie
People may not like the idea of abortion but its not them who have to go through pregnancy, giving birth and parenthood. Let every woman decide for herself. Or take the kid and bring it up yourself if you are so triggered by someone's decision.
1. What about expectant fathers, they get no say?
2. Why should everybody keep paying for careless people's mistakes? Abortions cost the NHS tens of millions of pounds a year.
Original post by jape
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE THREAD.
I don't want to control anyone's bodies. But the fact is that the only non-arbitrary point to start counting a person as being alive that makes any sense is conception. It's an undeniable fact. And once you admit that, it follows that abortion is murder. You can't kill children because they're inconvenient to you. "My body my rights" is a stupid argument - nobody has the right to kill children.
I don't want to control anyone's bodies. But the fact is that the only non-arbitrary point to start counting a person as being alive that makes any sense is conception. It's an undeniable fact. And once you admit that, it follows that abortion is murder. You can't kill children because they're inconvenient to you. "My body my rights" is a stupid argument - nobody has the right to kill children.
Why is that the 'only non-arbitrary' point to say life begins?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by L i b
There's not a technical definition of what "a life" is. That's a philosophical point. From a scientific perspective, a foetus is certainly alive.
So too are plants...
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
1. What about expectant fathers, they get no say?
2. Why should everybody keep paying for careless people's mistakes? Abortions cost the NHS tens of millions of pounds a year.
Posted from TSR Mobile
2. Why should everybody keep paying for careless people's mistakes? Abortions cost the NHS tens of millions of pounds a year.
Posted from TSR Mobile
1. They get to express their opinion but at the end its up to the woman. Its her body.
2. Well I never said it should be free? I think people should pay for it, maybe not for the whole cost but at least some part. Its easy to be careless about protection if you can get rid of the problem free of charge.
Original post by Nottie
1. They get to express their opinion but at the end its up to the woman. Its her body.
2. Well I never said it should be free? I think people should pay for it, maybe not for the whole cost but at least some part. Its easy to be careless about protection if you can get rid of the problem free of charge.
2. Well I never said it should be free? I think people should pay for it, maybe not for the whole cost but at least some part. Its easy to be careless about protection if you can get rid of the problem free of charge.
Haha they get to 'express their opinion' - it's essentially pointless considering it can be completely ignored. Nobody was talking about woman's body, we're talking about a foetus.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Bornblue
So too are plants...
Unquestionably true. Anything else you want to add to this analysis?
Original post by Nottie
People may not like the idea of abortion but its not them who have to go through pregnancy, giving birth and parenthood. Let every woman decide for herself.
If you believe the foetus to be a life, along with the moral obligations that should prompt, then these things are hardly significant.
Original post by Nottie
1. They get to express their opinion but at the end its up to the woman. Its her body.
Actually in this country, it's up to the law - and in most cases, the judgement of doctors.
(edited 7 years ago)
People will always morally justify murder when they think it suits them, from the basic dehumanising language ["it's a foetus, a FOETUS, listen to how clinical and Latinate that sounds, how am I morally wrong here?"] to relying on vague notions of when life begins that has no scientific legitimacy.
People who also see themselves as progressive, liberal, in their eyes post-religious people try to shove the morality of the debate conveniently into a religious playing field so as to disqualify themsleves from the game. A religious world-view almost always is against abortion not because the moral content of the act is wholly contained in a religious morality seen as antiquidated by the modern atheist progressive and therefore free to be left behind, rather a religious world-view enshrines absolutely the sanctity of life doctrially: it demands its respect rather than placing it subject to scientific definition. In other words don't be put off by the religious defence, you young staunchly-atheistic, modern young reader.
People who also see themselves as progressive, liberal, in their eyes post-religious people try to shove the morality of the debate conveniently into a religious playing field so as to disqualify themsleves from the game. A religious world-view almost always is against abortion not because the moral content of the act is wholly contained in a religious morality seen as antiquidated by the modern atheist progressive and therefore free to be left behind, rather a religious world-view enshrines absolutely the sanctity of life doctrially: it demands its respect rather than placing it subject to scientific definition. In other words don't be put off by the religious defence, you young staunchly-atheistic, modern young reader.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Little Toy Gun
Not only were the images in the video misleading (it made the fetus at 12 weeks looked much bigger than it would be in reality), but fetuses couldn't feel pain until 23-24 weeks, so the "ripping it apart" thing was no different from cutting your hair or your nails.
70% of all fertilized eggs failed to be carried to full-term, and fetuses are not given any right to begin with, so it's ridiculous to claim that it's a human and cannot be killed. At the very least you will need to support counting age from conception, giving fetuses free money and housing, issuing passports to fetuses, and the possibility to try a fetus.
70% of all fertilized eggs failed to be carried to full-term, and fetuses are not given any right to begin with, so it's ridiculous to claim that it's a human and cannot be killed. At the very least you will need to support counting age from conception, giving fetuses free money and housing, issuing passports to fetuses, and the possibility to try a fetus.
Your arguments on this thread have been absolutely appauling.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
You need a passport to take an infant on to a flight and you should need one for your fetus if you think it should be legally recognized as human.
You have actually repeated this argument throughout this thread. With sincerity. Jesus Christ.
Original post by Giotto
Your arguments on this thread have been absolutely appauling.
It's OK.
Since you can't spell, I don't really expect you to comprehend texts let alone producing arguments on your own.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
