[Kabloomybuzz]

(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.

Need a better argument than "just am" really, why is it any worse than any other contraception that prevents an embryo implanting

Wht is it acceptable that humans have more rights than animals... why is that right?

Only recently, and only if the parents allow it

Stopping women from having abortions would make that problem worse. Not saying people should have abortions, only if its right for their situations. Just stating the fact.

Now we could be getting into the right to a child debate, and, given your views on IVF, I was conceived by IVF, does that mean my life has less value? Isn't it better for infertile couples to have wanted children and look after them properly than for fertile people to have unwanted children they are not able to care for?

[Kabloomybuzz]

(Original post by tufc)
I have joined as a moderate pro-lifer. I'm not adverse to termination in the extremely early stages (morning after pill, other emergency contraception etc). My main objection to the current legal status of abortion is the time limit it is currently set at: 24 weeks seems far too late to me, and I would prefer to see this brought down to somewhere around the 12 week mark.

I agree with you here, though saying that, most women are only allowed to have an abortion until 14 weeks, preferably earlier... its is only in Very Exceptional curcumstances that abortion is permitted that late on, such as if the pregnancy is causing a lot of health problems of if the baby's quality of life would be severely limited (this is another debate in itself) or if the baby were not likely to live very long even at full term. But even that can't always be absolutely sure

This story for example is quite sickening http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ab...s-1346445.html
Though I think the issue here is about disability and quality of life.

I'm quite against late term abortion.

[Skeletorfw]

(Original post by orcprocess)
What is the moral difference between having to rely on a body compared to having to rely on a person?

As for the idea of pain it would seem we would have to include vast swathes of animals as people.



I don't really know enough about it. A cursory glance at Wikipedia didn't help either...

Honestly if you don't know about a subject, don't debate about it. You end up out of your depth and it kinda devalues any original point you might have had.

Also your argument "So the killing of an infant isn't murder. They aren't 'fully formed'." is a very good example of the logical fallacy referred to as "reductio ad absurdum". What you have done is to take what has been said and reduced it to something too basic, something that wasn't intended. You cherry-picked the words "fully-formed" and used a different interpretation of them as a way of proving a point when in fact all you did was weaken any point you may have been attempting to get across)

(Original post by When you see it...)
I don't get how a baby is more sapient than a foetus?

Until you understand the difference between sapience and sentience, and the times at which either word can be applied, then you really cannot hold a steady debate on a topic such as this (if you're using the sapience and sentience based arguments that is).

Wikipedia sums up sapience fairly well: "Sapience is often defined as wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment, a mental faculty which is a component of intelligence or alternatively may be considered an additional faculty, apart from intelligence, with its own properties."

A baby will over time start to make knowledge-based judgement. A foetus cannot.

[Tom26070]

(Original post by orcprocess)
Why?

She's the one holding the baby and going through with the pregnancy...

[Kabloomybuzz]

In response, i've created a pro choice society here http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/group.php?groupid=1779

[plimsolls]

[QUOTE=NDGAARONDI;35576297]I'm a guy and I used to be for it. I turned against because largely because of the perceived nature that abortion was being used as a form of "contraception", bodily sovereignty is only championed for women in the abortion context and nowhere else (for example, a woman cannot have a tattoo until 18 or consume cannabis at all), and the fact that men who do not wish to be parents are forced to pay for their upkeep. There is nothing wrong with men having an option of waiving their financial responsibility if they did not want the child and the mother does. As a rule, I do not bother getting involved with sexual relationships of the opposite sex so I avoid a potential moral dilemma if this is to occur. Besides, women don't work in the exact area where I'll be applying so it's good practice.

This entire post is just confusing to me.

[NDGAARONDI]

(Original post by plimsolls)
This entire post is just confusing to me.

In sum, "women should be able to do what they want with their own bodies" only applies to abortion for the most part, especially by members of the ruling elite and the writers in ivory towers. There are class issues in why bodily sovereignty is not given the full scope that it should. Have you come across the work of Gramsci?

[NDGAARONDI]

(Original post by Kabloomybuzz)
An infant has a fully developed central nervous system and can feel pain, among other complex sensations, they are fully developed enough to survive without having to rely soley on another persons body (note, the word body, not another person)

Are you implying that a fully developed CNS is a criterion for personhood?

[Kabloomybuzz]

(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
Are you implying that a fully developed CNS is a criterion for personhood?

A criterion, not the only criterion

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by Tom26070)
What if she was raped?

EDIT: Why the neg rep, it happens in reality..

Rape does not justify killing the baby because it is INNOCENT.

[NDGAARONDI]

(Original post by Kabloomybuzz)
A criterion, not the only criterion

So, if an "entity" that has exited the mother's body that does not have a fully developed CNS, or is impaired, are they a person? Conversely, if an "entity" that has not yet exited the mother's body that has a fully developed CNS, are they a person?

[Kabloomybuzz]

(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
So, if an "entity" that has exited the mother's body that does not have a fully developed CNS, or is impaired, are they a person? Conversely, if an "entity" that has not yet exited the mother's body that has a fully developed CNS, are they a person?

I will be honest and say that the issue is far too complex to give a definitive answer to this, because there is always a what if. Thats the thing with ethics, there is always a what if. It would probably be easier to define what doesn't constitute a person, but then, again, there is always a what if.

[Kabloomybuzz]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
Rape does not justify killing the baby because it is INNOCENT.

1 during the first few weeks, it isn't a baby, it barely resembles a baby, its a bundle of cells with a potential for life.

Does the "life" of a bundle of cells justify potentially destroying the mental, emotional and physical wellbeing of a person whos life is established?

I think what it boils down to for me is that I believe that the people already living a full life who are affected by the pregnancy have more value and rights than a bundle of cells (up to a point) and they should have the right to make choices about the futures of their lives they are already living.

[orcprocess]

(Original post by Skeletorfw)
Honestly if you don't know about a subject, don't debate about it. You end up out of your depth and it kinda devalues any original point you might have had.

Philosophy is my strong suit not science so I don't know whether a morning after pill can be classed as abortion but I can argue about morality

Also your argument "So the killing of an infant isn't murder. They aren't 'fully formed'." is a very good example of the logical fallacy referred to as "reductio ad absurdum". What you have done is to take what has been said and reduced it to something too basic, something that wasn't intended. You cherry-picked the words "fully-formed" and used a different interpretation of them as a way of proving a point when in fact all you did was weaken any point you may have been attempting to get across)

Reductio ad absurdium is not a logical fallacy. I have merely used what you have said as an argument and applied. You are the one guilty of not expanding on what you meant which I have tried to do here.

Now what is the moral difference between being dependent on a person and being dependent on a body?

Is the ability to feel pain a part of your definition of personhood? If so would you count (many) animals as people?

[PinkMobilePhone]

I'm pro-life, but that doesn't mean that I think a mother should carry on with a pregnancy if her life will be in danger if she doesn't get an abortion, because, as I say, I'm pro-life, which means I'm pro ALL life, not just the baby's life. In a situation where the mother's life would be at risk, then obviously it has to be either one life or the other that must end. Either the mother carries the baby and she dies, or she aborts the baby and it dies. Both are tragic, and I would never judge a woman for aborting her baby in this situation.

If the woman continues with the pregnancy though, I think it's probably about the most selfless thing she could do, but I'm not sure I could do it myself considering I have my mother children to think about who would be motherless if I did that.

Incidentally I read a story about that sort of thing a few days ago which made me cry :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...motherapy.html

So yeh, I'm pro-life, BUT I'm not going to join the society. "Why?" I hear you holler. Because, over the past 7 years, I've been involved in enough TSR abortion debates to last me a life-time. None of them get very far, none of the pro-lifers manage to convince the pro-choicers that the foetus is of any importance, and none of the pro-choicers manage to convince the pro-lifers that abortion is anything other than the murder of a baby. What generally tends to happen is a lot of bickering and arguing, which escalates into name calling and neg repping and fallings out, which is just ridiculous. It's predictable yet avoidable.

So, I wish you well OP with your society, but that's as far as it goes lol.

[doloroushazy]

(Original post by When you see it...)
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.

Did you actually just compare the abortion of a non-sentient foetus to the torture, abuse and starvation people in concentration camps suffered? jesus ****ing christ

[Skeletorfw]

(Original post by orcprocess)
Philosophy is my strong suit not science so I don't know whether a morning after pill can be classed as abortion but I can argue about morality

There was no mention of the morning after pill in our debate.

You cannot reasonably argue a point without having a comprehensive knowlege of the relevant facts.

(Original post by orcprocess)
Reductio ad absurdium is not a logical fallacy. I have merely used what you have said as an argument and applied. You are the one guilty of not expanding on what you meant which I have tried to do here.

Now what is the moral difference between being dependent on a person and being dependent on a body?

Is the ability to feel pain a part of your definition of personhood? If so would you count (many) animals as people?

Guilt implies a knowledge of a wrong done. I have done no wrong therefore there is no guilt here.
Reductio ad absurdum in general application is a logical fallacy. This is due to the fact that you push the point to the limit where it is no longer considered a point as it is in the absurd (as in beyond belief or logical reason).

The moral differences were not a point we were arguing and so in your style I will refuse to acknowledge it as a point.

The ability to feel pain is a PART of personhood, not the only part. However please explain how this point alone has any relevance to my belief that Abortion should be legal before sapience has begun its development and not after?

[When you see it...]

(Original post by Skeletorfw)
Honestly if you don't know about a subject, don't debate about it. You end up out of your depth and it kinda devalues any original point you might have had.

Also your argument "So the killing of an infant isn't murder. They aren't 'fully formed'." is a very good example of the logical fallacy referred to as "reductio ad absurdum". What you have done is to take what has been said and reduced it to something too basic, something that wasn't intended. You cherry-picked the words "fully-formed" and used a different interpretation of them as a way of proving a point when in fact all you did was weaken any point you may have been attempting to get across)



Until you understand the difference between sapience and sentience, and the times at which either word can be applied, then you really cannot hold a steady debate on a topic such as this (if you're using the sapience and sentience based arguments that is).

Wikipedia sums up sapience fairly well: "Sapience is often defined as wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment, a mental faculty which is a component of intelligence or alternatively may be considered an additional faculty, apart from intelligence, with its own properties."

A baby will over time start to make knowledge-based judgement. A foetus cannot.

I didn't notice a logical fallacy there...
Anyway, I know what sapience is and your argument that a baby is more sapient than a foetus just doesn't make sense to me. You are saying that it is more sapient because it can develop the ability to be sapient.
I'm sorry what?
So can a foetus - that is the point. Your argument just doesn't make sense to me...

(Original post by doloroushazy)
Did you actually just compare the abortion of a non-sentient foetus to the torture, abuse and starvation people in concentration camps suffered? jesus ****ing christ

Yes I did. 'Murder' and 'murder, torture and abuse' are no different - both result in death which is an infinite loss, the manner in which the death happened is insignificant, they are finite losses. Also, your post sounds to me like hyperbole to try and guilt trip me, but I will make no apologies for my views.

[When you see it...]

(Original post by Kabloomybuzz)
[COLOR="Red"]Need a better argument than "just am" really, why is it any worse than any other contraception that prevents an embryo implanting[/COLOR]

[COLOR="DarkOrange"]Wht is it acceptable that humans have more rights than animals... why is that right?[/COLOR]

[COLOR="DarkGreen"]Only recently, and only if the parents allow it[/COLOR]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Stopping women from having abortions would make that problem worse. Not saying people should have abortions, only if its right for their situations. Just stating the fact.[/COLOR]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]Now we could be getting into the right to a child debate, and, given your views on IVF, I was conceived by IVF, does that mean my life has less value? Isn't it better for infertile couples to have wanted children and look after them properly than for fertile people to have unwanted children they are not able to care for?[/COLOR]

Why do you think that murder is wrong? I guess you 'just do' as well...
Why does gravity exist? Can we explain it?
Can we explain anything without making some assumptions/axioms/conjectures? Consider this a moral axiom for me.

[When you see it...]

(Original post by 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.

I've been meaning to reply to this post but couldn't think of a witty enough comeback. How about this:
What is the ratio of male to female foetuses that are aborted?