This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Why abortion should be illegal
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Good bloke
The OP is about abortion being illegal or legal. There is no territorial limit mentioned and we are discussing principles. In principle, no matter where she is in the world, carrying an unborn child is risky for the mother in terms of both death and of harmed health. The variation lies only in the degree of risk - but that risk is always there, and used to carry a very high chance of death, even in Europe. The person I was debating with tried to claim the risk is zero; it isn't.
Well without being told otherwise I think you can assume that the OP is referring to the UK. Me going to work carries risk so should there be a law that says I don't have to go but my employer still has to pay me? Why are you talking about the past? Also completely irrelevant. The fact is having a baby in the UK is incredibly safe.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
The fact is having a baby in the UK is incredibly safe.
But not risk-free, which was my point.
Original post by da_nolo
No I didn't.I just simply displayed disbelief that in all circunstances there will always be a risk to life. I.E. death.
I do believe situations are different for each woman in which a doctor may say as i have heard..."there is no risk" based on how low the risk is
Even in situations in which life or health are at risk we do not kill another person in order save 1.
For example. Two soldiers on a battlefield are wounded. I do not see a situation occuring that would deem it moral to shoot the least likely to survive to save the easiest person to help.
Thus, in cases of pregnancy .... we need to first attempt to save both mother and child. Second to act to not make direct attempt to kill the child or mother.
I do believe situations are different for each woman in which a doctor may say as i have heard..."there is no risk" based on how low the risk is
Even in situations in which life or health are at risk we do not kill another person in order save 1.
For example. Two soldiers on a battlefield are wounded. I do not see a situation occuring that would deem it moral to shoot the least likely to survive to save the easiest person to help.
Thus, in cases of pregnancy .... we need to first attempt to save both mother and child. Second to act to not make direct attempt to kill the child or mother.
A foetus is not equivalent to a soldier. It is not a person. The comparison is completely unequal.
Original post by Good bloke
But not risk-free, which was my point.
Nothing is risk free but we look at things as not being risky if the chance of serious harm is very low which is the case with giving birth
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
Nothing is risk free but we look at things as not being risky if the chance of serious harm is very low which is the case with giving birth
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Don't be silly. I'll try again:low risk is not no risk.
It's a pity you aren't female and will not have the chance to experience the heightened risks to your health involved in being pregnant. For instance, pregnancy increases the risks of a healthy woman becoming anaemic or suffering from depression. If you think these aren't serious then I suggest you do a bit more reading.
As for Britain being especially low risk, you are just plain wrong; Britain is outside the top twenty safe countries. Women in Britain are twice as likely as Polish women to die in pregnancy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11581302/Women-in-the-UK-more-than-twice-as-likely-to-die-in-pregnancy-and-childbirth-as-many-European-countries.html
Original post by Good bloke
Then you are unable to distinguish between NO risk and LOW risk. A pregnant woman ALWAYS carries a higher risk to her life and health than a non-pregnant woman, all other circumstances being equal.
Okay. so did you skip the part about language used by some doctors? I never said low risk = no risk. but low risk can mean there is not a risk to life. which does not equate to no risk at all.
.However . even there being a risk. as with many medical situations . we do not need to make human sacrafice to ensure another lives .
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by da_nolo
Okay. so did you skip the part about language used by some doctors? I never said low risk = no risk. but low risk can mean there is not a risk to life. which does not equate to no risk at all.
There is always a risk to life consequent specifically on the pregnancy, however low. It is completely reckless, and wrong, to dismiss this.
(edited 7 years ago)
If a lady wants to get rid of her potential child, so be it. I don't think there should be any reason to do it, either. If she doesn't want to deal with the responsibilities, so be it. She may have gotten in to that position, i.e. not using contraception, or being rape, but the end result is no different; if she's pregnant and doesn't want it, she can do the evening flush on her sewer pipe.
Not wanting to dedicate a lot of your life, go through the agony of childbirth, deal with the (presumably horrendous) experiences of carrying a baby from morning sickness or the stress of it, women should have the choice on that too, which is also a reason they should be allowed to ditch the extra luggage before the flight leaves the terminal.
Not wanting to dedicate a lot of your life, go through the agony of childbirth, deal with the (presumably horrendous) experiences of carrying a baby from morning sickness or the stress of it, women should have the choice on that too, which is also a reason they should be allowed to ditch the extra luggage before the flight leaves the terminal.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Good bloke
Don't be silly. I'll try again:low risk is not no risk.
It's a pity you aren't female and will not have the chance to experience the heightened risks to your health involved in being pregnant. For instance, pregnancy increases the risks of a healthy woman becoming anaemic or suffering from depression. If you think these aren't serious then I suggest you do a bit more reading.
It's a pity you aren't female and will not have the chance to experience the heightened risks to your health involved in being pregnant. For instance, pregnancy increases the risks of a healthy woman becoming anaemic or suffering from depression. If you think these aren't serious then I suggest you do a bit more reading.
Got on stats on the number of women who become an anaemic after childbirth? Depression is notoriously difficult to diagnose but I'd be interested to see if you have any stats on that as well.
Original post by Good bloke
As for Britain being especially low risk, you are just plain wrong; Britain is outside the top twenty safe countries. Women in Britain are twice as likely as Polish women to die in pregnancy.
You're more likely to die getting out of bed than you are on an airplane but that doesn't mean you're likely to die getting out of bed. Something being twice as much/as likely as something else doesn't mean it's common. You have about a 0.0001 chance of dying from pregnancy, hardly a risk worth worrying about.
Original post by Twinpeaks
A foetus is not equivalent to a soldier. It is not a person. The comparison is completely unequal.
What suggests a fetus is not a person?
Otherwise, the situation is an analogy - not exact description of sameness. how would "equivalence" determine this analogy to be incorrect?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Callicious
If a lady wants to get rid of her potential child, so be it. I don't think there should be any reason to do it, either. If she doesn't want to deal with the responsibilities, so be it. She may have gotten in to that position, i.e. not using contraception, or being rape, but the end result is no different; if she's pregnant and doesn't want it, she can do the evening flush on her sewer pipe.
Not wanting to dedicate a lot of your life, go through the agony of childbirth, deal with the (presumably horrendous) experiences of carrying a baby from morning sickness or the stress of it, women should have the choice on that too, which is also a reason they should be allowed to ditch the extra luggage before the flight leaves the terminal.
Not wanting to dedicate a lot of your life, go through the agony of childbirth, deal with the (presumably horrendous) experiences of carrying a baby from morning sickness or the stress of it, women should have the choice on that too, which is also a reason they should be allowed to ditch the extra luggage before the flight leaves the terminal.
by definition, the pre-born are children. Nothing potential about that. rather disrespectful in manner you present your case.
what is the difference between not wanting a 3 month old child vs. a pre-born child?
It's a pity you aren't female and will not have the chance to experience the heightened risks to your health involved in being pregnant. For instance, pregnancy increases the risks of a healthy woman becoming anaemic or suffering from depression. If you think these aren't serious then I suggest you do a bit more reading.
Despite the uncomfortable parts of pregnancy, there are benefits received from it. some circumstances are temporary. Plus, with the advances in medicine that we have seen and should continue to see, the discomforts and pains of pregnancy can be worked around.
http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/my-body/changing/benefits-of-pregnancy/
http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/signs/symptoms/annoying-pregnancy-symptoms-that-are-good-for-you/
"Though fighting off waves of nausea for weeks on end can be downright debilitating, morning sickness is considered part and parcel of a healthy pregnancy. No one knows the exact reason behind the queasiness, but experts believe a rapid rise in the human chorionic gonadotropin hormone (hCG) could be to blame -- and that increase in hCG is needed for a pregnancy to progress. "
Nausea is felt by different measures or intensity among women, and is a temporary incident that allows woman's body to maintain a pregnancy. I doubt this to be a moral or just reasoning for why another person must die.
Original post by Good bloke
There is always a risk to life consequent specifically on the pregnancy, however low. It is completely reckless, and wrong, to dismiss this.
.However . even there being a risk. as with many medical situations . we do not need to make human sacrifice to ensure another lives.
Building on this, current doctors are held to an oath to prolonging life as required. An indirect loss of life may be acceptable if this is not direct killing and an outcome that may be out of control.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by da_nolo
by definition, the pre-born are children. Nothing potential about that. rather disrespectful in manner you present your case.
what is the difference between not wanting a 3 month old child vs. a pre-born child?
Despite the uncomfortable parts of pregnancy, there are benefits received from it. some circumstances are temporary. Plus, with the advances in medicine that we have seen and should continue to see, the discomforts and pains of pregnancy can be worked around.
http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/my-body/changing/benefits-of-pregnancy/
http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/signs/symptoms/annoying-pregnancy-symptoms-that-are-good-for-you/
"Though fighting off waves of nausea for weeks on end can be downright debilitating, morning sickness is considered part and parcel of a healthy pregnancy. No one knows the exact reason behind the queasiness, but experts believe a rapid rise in the human chorionic gonadotropin hormone (hCG) could be to blame -- and that increase in hCG is needed for a pregnancy to progress. "
Nausea is felt by different measures or intensity among women, and is a temporary incident that allows woman's body to maintain a pregnancy. I doubt this to be a moral or just reasoning for why another person must die.
.However . even there being a risk. as with many medical situations . we do not need to make human sacrifice to ensure another lives.
Building on this, current doctors are held to an oath to prolonging life as required. An indirect loss of life may be acceptable if this is not direct killing and an outcome that may be out of control.
what is the difference between not wanting a 3 month old child vs. a pre-born child?
Despite the uncomfortable parts of pregnancy, there are benefits received from it. some circumstances are temporary. Plus, with the advances in medicine that we have seen and should continue to see, the discomforts and pains of pregnancy can be worked around.
http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/my-body/changing/benefits-of-pregnancy/
http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/signs/symptoms/annoying-pregnancy-symptoms-that-are-good-for-you/
"Though fighting off waves of nausea for weeks on end can be downright debilitating, morning sickness is considered part and parcel of a healthy pregnancy. No one knows the exact reason behind the queasiness, but experts believe a rapid rise in the human chorionic gonadotropin hormone (hCG) could be to blame -- and that increase in hCG is needed for a pregnancy to progress. "
Nausea is felt by different measures or intensity among women, and is a temporary incident that allows woman's body to maintain a pregnancy. I doubt this to be a moral or just reasoning for why another person must die.
.However . even there being a risk. as with many medical situations . we do not need to make human sacrifice to ensure another lives.
Building on this, current doctors are held to an oath to prolonging life as required. An indirect loss of life may be acceptable if this is not direct killing and an outcome that may be out of control.
As long as it isn't born, then the woman shouldn't have to go through with it. That's just how I'm putting it. If it is born and she still doesn't want to go through with it, she still has the option of putting it up for adoption (I assume, age ranges vary and some orphanages wont exactly take a 1-second-year-old xD) but yeah, that is detrimental to the life the child would have had so that isn't too nice to do if you had the option to not have the child.
I'm basically unpopular opinion city. You get my point though; the woman would still need to go through the task of raising the kid, having the kid, etc. I just don't see any difference.
Original post by da_nolo
What suggests a fetus is not a person?
Otherwise, the situation is an analogy - not exact description of sameness. how would "equivalence" determine this analogy to be incorrect?
Otherwise, the situation is an analogy - not exact description of sameness. how would "equivalence" determine this analogy to be incorrect?
By that reasoning you can use an analogy to compare the life of a soldier with an ovum.
I mean, it's just an analogy right? Yes they are not equivalent but that clearly has no effect on the premise of an argument by your reasoning. An ovum and a foetus is a potential for life, right? Same thing. You can't disagree with that given the logic you've just provided regarding analogies.
Original post by WBZ144
"Pro-life" people are actually just pro-birth, and they are pro-birth because they like to control women's bodies. They couldn't care less what happens to babies after they are born. They are not offering to adopt unwanted babies and many of them are opposed to systems designed to improve the quality of life of the poor (many women who have abortions cannot afford to raise a child). Many also support the death penalty, war and unlimited access to arms. It couldn't be clearer that their stance has nothing to do with valuing human life.
Lol what? This is the most tumblr-fed comment I have seen yet. I am yet to meet a person who is pro-life and doesn't care about children after they are born. And for the record, I am pro-life, pro-helping the poor, pro-WOMAN, anti-death penalty and anti-gun. Peace.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by kakerlake
The ability to have an abortion literally saves women's lives - whether because of the physical/emotional trauma pregnancy would cause, the potentional for abuse they could face at the hands of their parents or partner if they were against the pregnancy, or simply because of the dangers of backstreet abortions.
Physical and emotional trauma is common among women who have had an abortion. They are often pressured by family/parents and even if the choice is made completely on their own it is not likely to have been easy. And you can also be shunned/abused for BEING pregnant. My sister was. Her boyfriend became abusive after he realised he couldn't force her into an abortion. Also, my own parent threw my other sister out of the house when she became pregnant at 18.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Louise12307
Physical and emotional trauma is common among women who have had an abortion. They are often pressured by family/parents and even if the choice is made completely on their own it is not likely to have been easy. And you can also be shunned/abused for BEING pregnant. My sister was. Her boyfriend became abusive after he realised he couldn't force her into an abortion. Also, my own parent threw my other sister out of the house when she became pregnant at 18.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
This proves that the issue is not solved by abortion. abortion only hides things and gets others out of their responsibilities. Sorry that your family has been dealing with their difficult situation. perhaps your parents will remember their daughter and that bf stays away. Thanks for sharing.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by da_nolo
This proves that the issue is not solved by abortion. abortion only hides things and gets others out of their responsibilities. Sorry that your family has been dealing with their difficult situation. perhaps your parents will remember their daughter and that bf stays away. Thanks for sharing.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Not a problem! Also, all of my sisters (sadly) have either experienced rape or sexual assault - myself included. My other sister conceived out of it and no she did not have an abortion. All my sisters have had post-natal depression and they still don't regret their kids. Because they know that the blame does not lie with the baby!
And you're welcome, I only share this stuff because people assume that either abortion is this really easy thing and the mother runs out skipping happily after (????) or that the only ones who can experience pressure/shunning/abuse are those who are stopped from aborting - not true! At all! And now, one of my sisters has her child in respite care (she's autistic and my sis knows she can't bring her up alone - but she visits her loads), my other sister who was thrown out is now happily married with 3 kids and wants to adopt, and my other sister who was in the abusive relationship is now happily in a healthy relationship and couldn't be more happy to be a mother (and she became pregnant at 16 and still didn't abort, so!) lol my fam is wild
Main thing, everyone is good now and no babies had to be killed off in the process. Their futures have not been cut short, believe it or not - being a mother can be classed as a successful future. Also, they are badass mothers as well as one studying for a degree in Crimonology as well as being a carer and my other sister wants to go into medicine.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Louise12307
Not a problem! Also, all of my sisters (sadly) have either experienced rape or sexual assault - myself included. My other sister conceived out of it and no she did not have an abortion. All my sisters have had post-natal depression and they still don't regret their kids. Because they know that the blame does not lie with the baby!
And you're welcome, I only share this stuff because people assume that either abortion is this really easy thing and the mother runs out skipping happily after (????) or that the only ones who can experience pressure/shunning/abuse are those who are stopped from aborting - not true! At all! And now, one of my sisters has her child in respite care (she's autistic and my sis knows she can't bring her up alone - but she visits her loads), my other sister who was thrown out is now happily married with 3 kids and wants to adopt, and my other sister who was in the abusive relationship is now happily in a healthy relationship and couldn't be more happy to be a mother (and she became pregnant at 16 and still didn't abort, so!) lol my fam is wild
Main thing, everyone is good now and no babies had to be killed off in the process. Their futures have not been cut short, believe it or not - being a mother can be classed as a successful future. Also, they are badass mothers as well as one studying for a degree in Crimonology as well as being a carer and my other sister wants to go into medicine.
Posted from TSR Mobile
And you're welcome, I only share this stuff because people assume that either abortion is this really easy thing and the mother runs out skipping happily after (????) or that the only ones who can experience pressure/shunning/abuse are those who are stopped from aborting - not true! At all! And now, one of my sisters has her child in respite care (she's autistic and my sis knows she can't bring her up alone - but she visits her loads), my other sister who was thrown out is now happily married with 3 kids and wants to adopt, and my other sister who was in the abusive relationship is now happily in a healthy relationship and couldn't be more happy to be a mother (and she became pregnant at 16 and still didn't abort, so!) lol my fam is wild
Main thing, everyone is good now and no babies had to be killed off in the process. Their futures have not been cut short, believe it or not - being a mother can be classed as a successful future. Also, they are badass mothers as well as one studying for a degree in Crimonology as well as being a carer and my other sister wants to go into medicine.
Posted from TSR Mobile
How many sister do you have if you don't mind me asking?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
I have three! Haha
Posted from TSR Mobile
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 1 week 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 1 week 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 ?
