[When you see it...]

...has been created.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/group.php?groupid=1768
Will probably edit this post later on.
Now back to revision...

[When you see it...]

Bump. No replies?

[When you see it...]

Someone negged without posting. At least I know that someone read this thread and thought about it enough to form an opinion.
BUMP, is this topic not stimulating enough?

[orcprocess]

Nobody cares. (about the soc not the issue)

[Bellissima]

why would you make a soc on this? what's the point other than to preach to others?

i mean who actually bonds over their feelings on abortion?

[JohnC2211]

Pro-life is a stupid name. Just because you're for abortion doesn't mean you're anti-life.

[Kabloomybuzz]

Why don't you, you know, actually start a conversation, explaining your views, how and why you came to them, why you think its important, what it means to you.

[orcprocess]

(Original post by JohnC2211)
Pro-life is a stupid name. Just because you're for abortion doesn't mean you're anti-life.

It's a simplification of life of foetus > right of mother to choose and vice versa.

[ScheduleII]

I am a card-carrying pro lifer, so am in.

[bluee]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
I am a card-carrying pro lifer, so am in.

So what exactly do you believe?

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by bluee)
So what exactly do you believe?

That every woman who is pregnant has an absolute duty to carry the baby to term; aborting is unjustifiable killing.

[bluee]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
That every woman who is pregnant has an absolute duty to carry the baby to term; aborting is unjustifiable killing.

What about the morning after pill?

[nosaer]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
That every woman who is pregnant has an absolute duty to carry the baby to term; aborting is unjustifiable killing.

Absolute? What if the mother's life is in danger?

[bluee]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
That every woman who is pregnant has an absolute duty to carry the baby to term; aborting is unjustifiable killing.

What if the foetus is going to die in the womb and could never be born, or is born and will die in pain within hours of life?
Surely it is better to allow the foetus to died in a way that is better for it and better for the parents.

[ScheduleII]

If abortion is necessary to save the woman's life or the foetus is verified completely unviable yes. Perinatal hospices exist to cater for babies with a life expectancy of hours to weeks (the ones usually aborted at 32+ weeks, which is a stillbirth induced by injecting poison into the foetus to stop its heart)

MAP is wrong in my view if it destroys a fertilised egg

[Skeletorfw]

It's like chopping off a leg, or cutting out a tumour. Sometimes it's objectionable, sometimes it's necessary, but it should always be a choice for the person involved.

If a person told you to do something that only you had any meaningful say in, like ordered you to like a band, or get a tattoo; would you say yes just because they thought it was the thing you should do?

Naturally you're entitled to your opinion, I just think life's more interesting if you challenge your own beliefs.

[When you see it...]

Whoa, at last some replies!

(Original post by Kabloomybuzz)
Why don't you, you know, actually start a conversation, explaining your views, how and why you came to them, why you think its important, what it means to you.

Okay then. I simply believe that foetuses are alive and are 'humans'. Therefore, it naturally follows that it is wrong to abort foetuses, even if the mother was raped or had a malfuntioning condom or whatever. I do however believe that if the foetus is unlikely to survive and the mother's life would be put in danger by going ahead with the birth (the doctor would have to scrutinise the probabilities very carefully to decide the best course of action) then abortion woud be acceptable (perhaps compulsory). I am against making abortion illegal as that would not stop it from happening (same with drugs, prostitution etc.), but believe in increasing public awareness about just how 'alive' foetuses are and more sex education at a much younger age than it is provided currently.
Abortion is a big issue for me because I just think it is a social atrocity on the same scale as the holocaust and the bombings of Hiroshima/Nagasaki and all wars.
I repect the opinions of people wo are 'pro-choice' and recognise that this is an issue where people rarely change their views and have strong viewpoints.
It also angers me that a 'pro-life' stance is always associated with being a right-wing kook who hates women.
Also:

(Original post by JohnC2211)
Pro-life is a stupid name. Just because you're for abortion doesn't mean you're anti-life.

It is just a bloody name, get over it.

(Original post by Skeletorfw)
It's like chopping off a leg, or cutting out a tumour. Sometimes it's objectionable, sometimes it's necessary, but it should always be a choice for the person involved.

If a person told you to do something that only you had any meaningful say in, like ordered you to like a band, or get a tattoo; would you say yes just because they thought it was the thing you should do?

Naturally you're entitled to your opinion, I just think life's more interesting if you challenge your own beliefs.

That is your opinion, so whatever. I don't believe that it is like chopping off a leg or whatever and that is the fundamental (and I would argue only) difference between our viewpoints. If you believed a foetus was a human being, then you would be pro-life would you not? (I am speaking hypothetically, so don't respond by saying '...but I don't')

[Skeletorfw]

(Original post by When you see it...)
That is your opinion, so whatever. I don't believe that it is like chopping off a leg or whatever and that is the fundamental (and I would argue only) difference between our viewpoints. If you believed a foetus was a human being, then you would be pro-life would you not? (I am speaking hypothetically, so don't respond by saying '...but I don't')

Indeed if I equated to killing a sapient being then I would be against it, so in that context logic would possibly take me to a similar conclusion. However the principle that argument is based on is non-existant (as I shall explain in a second) therefore this hypothesis cannot be reasonably applied to me.

Biologically a foetus isn't sapient (it is sentient towards the end but that's just me being pedantic). So my overriding point is that it cannot be equated to a human life, that devalues human life itself.

[When you see it...]

(Original post by Skeletorfw)
Indeed if I equated to killing a sapient being then I would be against it, so in that context logic would possibly take me to a similar conclusion. However the principle that argument is based on is non-existant (as I shall explain in a second) therefore this hypothesis cannot be reasonably applied to me.

Biologically a foetus isn't sapient (it is sentient towards the end but that's just me being pedantic). So my overriding point is that it cannot be equated to a human life, that devalues human life itself.

I didn't think sapience had anything to do with it. Babies aren't sapient, so are you saying that it is okay to kill them?
Also, the hypothesis still applies to you - you just do't consider foetuses humans, therefore are 'pro-choice'. That is a textbook application of this hypothesis and I understand your viewpoint, whilst obviously disagreeing with it.

[plimsolls]

I can't wait to see what the ratio of males to females is in that Soc.

Edit: Even better than I expected. Keep it up, guys.