Why would someone think that abortion is not permissible?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Underscore__
Bacteria is also a living thing, I don't see any calls to ban killing bacteria
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Have you ever noticed that expectant mothers never lose a foetus?
No matter how early in the pregnancy, they will always say they have lost a baby.
I guess the difference is if it's wanted its a baby and if not its a foetus.
Because they were staunchly pro life. I remember trump in one of the presidential debates said it's not permissible to rip a baby from the womb one day before it was due to be born. But this is nonsense because late term partial birth abortions would only be considered in the most extreme of circumstances, and never would they be 'ripped' from the womb.
Original post by caravaggio2
Have you ever noticed that expectant mothers never lose a foetus?
No matter how early in the pregnancy, they will always say they have lost a baby.
I guess the difference is if it's wanted its a baby and if not its a foetus.
No matter how early in the pregnancy, they will always say they have lost a baby.
I guess the difference is if it's wanted its a baby and if not its a foetus.
I had never really thought about that but yeah that does seem to be true
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by _Fergo
Always the nazis when there's no argument to be had. Not unexpected.
An argument is not invalidated just because it makes reference to the Nazis.
The point is, this is far from the first time that mass killings have been legitimised with the general public being largely accepting of it, simply because they've been explicitly or implicitly excluded from the definition of 'person'.
We are talking about the law of England. If you feel it's inadequate, you're free to make a petition. The law is not debatable and definitely not subject to your childish remarks.
The question in the thread title is not simply "What is the law in England regarding abortion?", with an indisputable factual answer of "it's legal". Posters are invited to explain why they believe abortion is not permissible.
Original post by tazarooni89
An argument is not invalidated just because it makes reference to the Nazis.
Only that it is - because it directly compares the other person (i.e. me) to the Nazis. It's called an ad-hominem. If you think comparing people who disagree with you to the Nazis is an argument, well, you may need some help.
Original post by tazarooni89
The point is, this is far from the first time that mass killings have been legitimised with the general public being largely accepting of it, simply because they've been explicitly or implicitly excluded from the definition of 'person'.
Because a foetus is not a person. Especially in the forming stages. I understand you disagreeing with that, but other than there's nothing in it. A foetus is part of the mother - and it is the mother that is expected to go through all the pain and stuff to eventually give birth to it. If she does not want this, it is her choice.
Original post by tazarooni89
The question in the thread title is not simply "What is the law in England regarding abortion?", with an indisputable factual answer of "it's legal". Posters are invited to explain why they believe abortion is not permissible.
Yes, and the other person gave as his first answer a legal argument - in that if someone kills a foetus through an assault to its mother, it is murder (in law). That is clearly not correct in England, and since he took a point of law we cannot just generalise it to an international context.
You should have, in other words, said that to him before raising it with him.
Pro-choice = pro-murder.
Lefty liberals say that they stand for "equality" but are willing to kill unborn babies. Not really equality when some people don't even get a chance at life is it, lefty liberals? What do you have to say about that?
Lefty liberals say that they stand for "equality" but are willing to kill unborn babies. Not really equality when some people don't even get a chance at life is it, lefty liberals? What do you have to say about that?
Original post by #ChaosKass
Pro-choice = pro-murder.
Lefty liberals say that they stand for "equality" but are willing to kill unborn babies. Not really equality when some people don't even get a chance at life is it, lefty liberals? What do you have to say about that?
Lefty liberals say that they stand for "equality" but are willing to kill unborn babies. Not really equality when some people don't even get a chance at life is it, lefty liberals? What do you have to say about that?
Pro-choice does not equal pro-murder.
Pro-choice means a woman has a right to control what happens to her body. Where do you stand on the topic if a woman's life is in danger if she continues the pregnancy? Does the woman's life matter to you? Or is she simply disposable?
And pro-choice does not a lefty-liberal make...I'm a Conservative. But shock horror, I'm also pro-choice. Abortion isn't for me personally, but I fully support a woman's right to choose.
Original post by _Fergo
Only that it is - because it directly compares the other person (i.e. me) to the Nazis. It's called an ad-hominem. If you think comparing people who disagree with you to the Nazis is an argument, well, you may need some help.
No, it isn't. An ad-hominem criticises an individual personally, and not the argument or concept they are advocating.
As I said, it's happened many times before that people have chosen their definition of "person" specifically so that they can use it to justify mass killings or mistreatment of a particular group, for their own agenda. The previous poster simply gave an example of another group of people who have done this.
Similarly, in Australia at one point, the indigenous aboriginals were legally considered to be "flora and fauna" i.e. by official definition they were wildlife rather than "persons". Again, this definition was chosen so as to legitimise killing them too.
Because a foetus is not a person. Especially in the forming stages. I understand you disagreeing with that, but other than there's nothing in it. A foetus is part of the mother - and it is the mother that is expected to go through all the pain and stuff to eventually give birth to it. If she does not want this, it is her choice.
Only because you've chosen the definition word "person" specifically to exclude foetuses. So far you haven't developed this point beyond one of semantics.
Yes, and the other person gave as his first answer a legal argument - in that if someone kills a foetus through an assault to its mother, it is murder (in law). That is clearly not correct in England, and since he took a point of law we cannot just generalise it to an international context.
You should have, in other words, said that to him before raising it with him.
You should have, in other words, said that to him before raising it with him.
I've already mentioned that the crime of destroying a foetus is known as "child destruction" instead of murder in the UK.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by tazarooni89
No, it isn't. An ad-hominem criticises an individual personally, and not the argument or concept they are advocating.
When you're comparing someone to the Nazis, you're attacking them personally, no matter how you mask it. Please.
Original post by tazarooni89
As I said, it's happened many times before that people have chosen their definition of "person" specifically so that they can use it to justify mass killings or mistreatment of a particular group. The previous poster simply gave an example of another group of people who have done this.
Similarly, in Australia at one point, the indigenous aboriginals were legally considered to be "flora and fauna" i.e. by official definition they were wildlife rather than "persons". Again, this definition was chosen so as to legitimise killing them too.
Only because you've chosen the definition word "person" specifically to exclude foetuses. So far you haven't developed this point beyond one of semantics.
Similarly, in Australia at one point, the indigenous aboriginals were legally considered to be "flora and fauna" i.e. by official definition they were wildlife rather than "persons". Again, this definition was chosen so as to legitimise killing them too.
Only because you've chosen the definition word "person" specifically to exclude foetuses. So far you haven't developed this point beyond one of semantics.
This is getting tiresome. It's knee-jerk reactions because we both know you'll never concede.
A foetus is not a person because it depends ENTIRELY on the woman to survive. Not just that - it resides WITHIN her. There is no other way of putting it. It doesn't have a life of its own. In order to live, it must be supported by the woman carrying it directly.
A person is able to live independently (not in the sense that s/he cannot be cared exclusively) but in the sense that their body sustains them - even if not totally.
And let me take an example - if a women, who was vehement that she did not want to ever give birth, is raped and as a result of that gets pregnant. How exactly would you validate your position here? The woman will have to go through ALL that pain to satisfy some loonies who think foetuses are human beings and therefore must be preserved without exception?
You really think that makes you more moral or conscious?
Original post by tazarooni89
I've already mentioned that the crime of destroying a foetus is known as "child destruction" instead of murder in the UK.
Yes, and added that it's a silly way to avoid naming it murder. What you didn't do is criticise them for using law as a basis - which is what you did to me. If this is not hypocrisy, not sure what is.
As is always the case, it is clear that religion motivates your arguments. It's always religion. And while you criticise me for not explaining how a foetus is not a human being, you didn't bother to explain how it is, especially so since the whole 'debate' is premised on your assumption (and of others) that foetuses are human beings.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by _Fergo
When you're comparing someone to the Nazis, you're attacking them personally, no matter how you mask it. Please.
Not true, neither of us know you personally. What we do know is that this "not a real person" argument has been used before in a variety of situations against a variety of different groups.
This is getting tiresome. It's knee-jerk reactions because we both know you'll never concede.
A foetus is not a person because it depends ENTIRELY on the woman to survive. Not just that - it resides WITHIN her. There is no other way of putting it. It doesn't have a life of its own. In order to live, it must be supported by the woman carrying it directly.
A person is able to live independently (not in the sense that s/he cannot be cared exclusively) but in the sense that their body sustains them - even if not totally.
A foetus is not a person because it depends ENTIRELY on the woman to survive. Not just that - it resides WITHIN her. There is no other way of putting it. It doesn't have a life of its own. In order to live, it must be supported by the woman carrying it directly.
A person is able to live independently (not in the sense that s/he cannot be cared exclusively) but in the sense that their body sustains them - even if not totally.
Well, a foetus is biologically alive, there's no doubt about that.
You've selected these additional criteria of "must be able to survive independently" and "must not reside inside the mother" in order to qualify for personhood, in order to be able to justify killing foetuses. And previous societies have selected their own criteria for personhood in order to legitimise killing the targets that suit their agenda as well.
Nothing new.
As is always the case, it is clear that religion motivates your arguments. It's always religion.
I don't think any religion prohibits abortion specifically (certainly I don't belong to such a religion). All religions and all reasonable people consider it wrong to kill innocent people. Now the issue is merely one of deciding who falls into the category of "people", which isn't particularly touched upon by any religious scripture.
I could equally say that what motivates the arguments of those who are so staunchly pro-abortion is their personal vested interest in its legality. It doesn't benefit them at all if it's banned, but it might do if it's legal. People fear the day they might one day need to turn to an abortion clinic.
And let me take an example - if a women, who was vehement that she did not want to ever give birth, is raped and as a result of that gets pregnant. How exactly would you validate your position here? The woman will have to go through ALL that pain to satisfy some loonies who think foetuses are human beings and therefore must be preserved without exception?You really think that makes you more moral or conscious?
The key issue here, as I said above, is whether the foetus should be considered to be a "person" or not. If so, the foetus should not be killed. If not, it's acceptable to kill that foetus regardless of whether it's a result of rape or not. So introducing rape into the equation doesn't really affect it.
And while you criticise me for not explaining how a foetus is not a human being, you didn't bother to explain how it is, especially so since the whole 'debate' is premised on your assumption (and of others) that foetuses are human beings.
If you read my original post, you'll see that I don't actively claim that a foetus is a human being. My whole point is that, without an absolutely watertight argument (which we don't currently have), it's not for us to decide.
As... Filled with misinformation as this thread is, I hesitate to bring this up, but...
The OP asked if abortion was ever 'Permissible', not whether it was morally right.
And abortion sometimes is -not- permissible in the UK. Specifically, after 24 weeks.
Whether or not it is morally correct is different and I think it is rarely morally correct(Though understandable in the case of rape, incest or physical danger to the parent). But that is not the question - The question is whether or not abortion is permissible - Which it sometimes is not. As mentioned, it is specifically not permissible after 24 weeks.
The OP asked if abortion was ever 'Permissible', not whether it was morally right.
And abortion sometimes is -not- permissible in the UK. Specifically, after 24 weeks.
Whether or not it is morally correct is different and I think it is rarely morally correct(Though understandable in the case of rape, incest or physical danger to the parent). But that is not the question - The question is whether or not abortion is permissible - Which it sometimes is not. As mentioned, it is specifically not permissible after 24 weeks.
Original post by tazarooni89
Not true, neither of us know you personally. What we do know is that this "not a real person" argument has been used before in a variety of situations against a variety of different groups.
You're acting as if you know the other person personally though. His Nazi argument was clearly meant to compare me and all those who are pro-choice to Nazis. It's easy to not see that when you so slightly agree.
Original post by tazarooni89
Well, a foetus is biologically alive, there's no doubt about that.
You've selected these additional criteria of "must be able to survive independently" and "must not reside inside the mother" in order to qualify for personhood, in order to be able to justify killing foetuses. And previous societies have selected their own criteria for personhood in order to legitimise killing the targets that suit their agenda as well.
Nothing new.
You've selected these additional criteria of "must be able to survive independently" and "must not reside inside the mother" in order to qualify for personhood, in order to be able to justify killing foetuses. And previous societies have selected their own criteria for personhood in order to legitimise killing the targets that suit their agenda as well.
Nothing new.
You asked me to qualify what a 'person' is and I did. But I also said that you will never concede, even if I offered you the most coherent scientific paper. That's because you can't get past your personal bias.
The differentiation between a foetus and a person is tangible - as in, there are valid reasons not to regard a foetus as human (the most important of which I listed above). Someone saying that they don't like a homosexual guy is not a person don't actually have any valid reasons to say so - the only reason is that they are prejudiced against homosexual men.
Point is, there is always something legitimate and illegitimate in qualifying something - I may well say that a cat is not an animal. It doesn't mean I'm advancing an argument, because that is clearly wrong and silly.
And a foetus being alive doesn't make it a person - bacteria are alive too. Are they persons indefinite? Is the human sperm a person too, considering its active role in bringing about the foetus?
Original post by tazarooni89
I don't think any religion prohibits abortion specifically (certainly I don't belong to such a religion). All religions and all reasonable people consider it wrong to kill innocent people. Now the issue is merely one of deciding who falls into the category of "people", which isn't particularly touched upon by any religious scripture.
Both Christianity and Islam regard abortion as immoral and would prefer it illegal. I am sure many other religions do the same. It doesn't have to do with people, it's just what particular schools of faith teach.
Original post by tazarooni89
I could equally say that what motivates the arguments of those who are so staunchly pro-abortion is their personal vested interest in its legality. It doesn't benefit them at all if it's banned, but it might do if it's legal. People fear the day they might one day need to turn to an abortion clinic.
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here.
Original post by tazarooni89
Nothing justifies killing an innocent person, unless their existence poses a threat to your own life.
That is literally taken out of the Quran, is it not? I am sure I read this somewhere before.
The key issue here, as I said above, is whether the foetus should be considered to be a "person" or not. If so, the foetus should not be killed. If not, it's acceptable to kill that foetus regardless of whether it's a result of rape or not. So introducing rape into the equation doesn't really affect it.
That is literally taken out of the Quran, is it not? I am sure I read this somewhere before.
The key issue here, as I said above, is whether the foetus should be considered to be a "person" or not. If so, the foetus should not be killed. If not, it's acceptable to kill that foetus regardless of whether it's a result of rape or not. So introducing rape into the equation doesn't really affect it.
How do you qualify a 'threat' then? Sounds utterly subjective to me.
So, you're telling me the mother HAS to suffer through the entire birth, and be constantly reminded of the rape, even though she may have never wanted to give birth? I'm not sure exactly what guides your morality, but this is plain disgusting.
Original post by tazarooni89
If you read my original post, you'll see that I don't actively claim that a foetus is a human being. My whole point is that, without an absolutely watertight argument (which we don't currently have), it's not for us to decide.
There will never be a 'watertight' argument because you'd never accept it. The human mind is willing to refuse whatever it takes to maintain certain beliefs.
But please do tell, who decides then?
God? He has not been doing a good job lately with ISIS and the wars around, and I'm not willing to trust him. And aside from that, it is for us to decide (as a society), and in the UK the gov did.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by a.little.bird
Pro-choice does not equal pro-murder.
Pro-choice means a woman has a right to control what happens to her body. Where do you stand on the topic if a woman's life is in danger if she continues the pregnancy? Does the woman's life matter to you? Or is she simply disposable?
And pro-choice does not a lefty-liberal make...I'm a Conservative. But shock horror, I'm also pro-choice. Abortion isn't for me personally, but I fully support a woman's right to choose.
Pro-choice means a woman has a right to control what happens to her body. Where do you stand on the topic if a woman's life is in danger if she continues the pregnancy? Does the woman's life matter to you? Or is she simply disposable?
And pro-choice does not a lefty-liberal make...I'm a Conservative. But shock horror, I'm also pro-choice. Abortion isn't for me personally, but I fully support a woman's right to choose.
If a woman isn't prepared to face the possible consequences of being pregnant then she shouldn't become pregnant in the first place.
I dislike abortion because it is the murder of an unborn child. Since I believe that a new human is created at conception, killing this child would be murder. Over 700000 children are murdered in the US through abortion each year and that is absolutely shocking and disgusting. That's why I don't think it's permissible. I am honestly flabbergasted at how people can actually support something like this.
Original post by a.little.bird
Pro-choice does not equal pro-murder.
Pro-choice means a woman has a right to control what happens to her body. Where do you stand on the topic if a woman's life is in danger if she continues the pregnancy? Does the woman's life matter to you? Or is she simply disposable?
And pro-choice does not a lefty-liberal make...I'm a Conservative. But shock horror, I'm also pro-choice. Abortion isn't for me personally, but I fully support a woman's right to choose.
Pro-choice means a woman has a right to control what happens to her body. Where do you stand on the topic if a woman's life is in danger if she continues the pregnancy? Does the woman's life matter to you? Or is she simply disposable?
And pro-choice does not a lefty-liberal make...I'm a Conservative. But shock horror, I'm also pro-choice. Abortion isn't for me personally, but I fully support a woman's right to choose.
Pro-choice is more than deciding what happens to your body, it's destroying something that will likely become a human. Further to that a foetus isn't a part of women's body, it's choosing what happens to your body so far as giving birth and carrying the child but I think a lot of pro-choice individuals make out as though a foetus is a part of woman's body. Even as it pertains to deciding what happens to your own body, there are still several limitation, I'm not sure why it would be anymore unreasonable to restrict abortion.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Honestly, there should be more abortions so there are less annoying screaming children.
If you're pro-life you're not pro-life you're just pro-birth sometimes it is necessary for a fetus to be aborted because it could kill the mother, also some fetuses may have a condition that would severely decrease the baby's quality of life.
Although it may be "irresponsible" to abort a fetus if they were unplanned or if the mother no longer thinks they can provide suitable care, there is nothing wrong with it because contraceptives are not 100% effective and the baby would be worse off if the mother was to have a child at a different time.
If you're pro-life you're not pro-life you're just pro-birth sometimes it is necessary for a fetus to be aborted because it could kill the mother, also some fetuses may have a condition that would severely decrease the baby's quality of life.
Although it may be "irresponsible" to abort a fetus if they were unplanned or if the mother no longer thinks they can provide suitable care, there is nothing wrong with it because contraceptives are not 100% effective and the baby would be worse off if the mother was to have a child at a different time.
Original post by Dom2375
Honestly, there should be more abortions so there are less annoying screaming children.
I can actually say I sort of agree with this, although when I see screaming children I blame the parents more than the child.
Original post by Dom2375
If you're pro-life you're not pro-life you're just pro-birth sometimes it is necessary for a fetus to be aborted because it could kill the mother, also some fetuses may have a condition that would severely decrease the baby's quality of life.
Just because the baby may suffer some affliction giving it a lesser quality of life is that necessarily a reason to abort it? I'm sure if you asked most disabled people if they'd rather be alive or have been aborted they'd pick life.
Original post by Dom2375
Although it may be "irresponsible" to abort a fetus if they were unplanned or if the mother no longer thinks they can provide suitable care, there is nothing wrong with it because contraceptives are not 100% effective and the baby would be worse off if the mother was to have a child at a different time.
The fact is you can ALWAYS prevent pregnancy with contraception (in the developed world). If a condom fails you'd know because you'd see it break. If you use a condom, the pill and morning after pill the odds of conception would be astronomical.
The second half of that paragraph goes back to what I said above; if the baby were born later it may have had a better quality of life but that exact foetus will never have life if aborted; a lower quality of life is objectively better than no life.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by _Fergo
You're acting as if you know the other person personally though. His Nazi argument was clearly meant to compare me and all those who are pro-choice to Nazis. It's easy to not see that when you so slightly agree.
The point is to compare your argument (as opposed to you personally) to previous arguments that have have been used to slaughter other groups of people.
You asked me to qualify what a 'person' is and I did. But I also said that you will never concede, even if I offered you the most coherent scientific paper. That's because you can't get past your personal bias.
You can't offer a scientific paper on the definition of "person" though, because it's not a scientific issue. You may choose to exclude foetuses from the category of "person", but there is no reason why this is objectively correct.
Also don't try to pretend that you have no personal bias on the issue. You discussed bias due to religion earlier - but for a religious person who (probably) does not engage in a promiscuous lifestyle, it doesn't make any difference to their lives whether abortion is legal or not. It tends to be the non-religious, who are more likely to conceive an unplanned child outside of a stable family unit, who stand to benefit from abortion being legal, and who therefore have a personal bias on the matter.
Both Christianity and Islam regard abortion as immoral and would prefer it illegal. I am sure many other religions do the same. It doesn't have to do with people, it's just what particular schools of faith teach.
This is incorrect. Neither the New Testament nor the Qur'an say anything about abortion specifically. Both religions simply regard the killing of innocent human beings to be wrong.
Religious people are more likely to oppose abortion because it is (generally) the non-religious who need to try and rationalise abortion, lest they end up accidentally conceiving the child outside of a stable family.
How do you qualify a 'threat' then? Sounds utterly subjective to me.
It's not that difficult for a doctor to decide that a particular pregnancy poses a particularly significant risk to the life of the mother.
So, you're telling me the mother HAS to suffer through the entire birth, and be constantly reminded of the rape, even though she may have never wanted to give birth? I'm not sure exactly what guides your morality, but this is plain disgusting.
And you're telling me that child has to die even though it equally didn't want to be born as a result of rape, and masking it just by conveniently choosing the definition of "person" to suit you.
There will never be a 'watertight' argument because you'd never accept it.
A flimsy argument is not enough to justify killing someone though. At least by letting them live we can be sure we're not doing anything wrong.
The human mind is willing to refuse whatever it takes to maintain certain beliefs.
That's true, but don't assume that you're exempt from this yourself.
Or their morals. There are plenty of atheists that are "pro life"
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days 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 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days 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 ?
