Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Pro-life society...

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    I was browsing this debate and felt compelled to respond to a myth that is frequently voiced about the status of the embryo in the uternus – a myth that has been perpetuated on this thread with the claim that human life from the moment of conception is a potential human being.

    “A split second after conception, this one-celled forty-six-chromosomed human being possesses everything it needs to grow into an adult human being except time. It is not a blueprint of a human being, it is not a part of a human being. It is a human being.” (James Watkins – The Why Files)

    Because words are so important in this debate, we need to remember that it cannot be refuted – with any scientific credibility – that abortions do indeed kill human life.

    I am copying the following forward as a preamble (or setting the scene if you wish) to a report entitled “Ireland’s Gain – The Demographic Impact and Consequences for the Health of Women of the Abortion Laws in Ireland and Northern Ireland since 1968.” I should point out that one of the most startling conclusions of the Report is that 93,000 babies are alive in Northern Ireland who would not be here today if the Abortion Act in the UK had been extended to NI.


    The above precedes the report written by Patrick Carroll of the Pensions and Population Research Institute (PAPRI) based on statistical evidence which can be found here: http://papriresearch.org/ESW/Files/Irelands_Gain.pdf

    I have been extensively involved in the abortion debate on TSR for many years. I’ve seen all the opinions from both sides without witnessing anything new. I wanted those involved in this most recent debate to have the benefit of seeing the concerns of Obstetric and Gynaecological professionals of the failure of legislators and national/regional policies to examine the impact of abortion on women’s health, and to engage in the question raised in the above report.


    I bow out of this debate and leave it to your good selves to continue mindful of this new evidence.

    Edit: For the attention of SpangleMagnet; there is a need to dwell on the fact that this view reveals ignorance of human physiology: the life growing within the mother is not her body. It has very different chromosome structure with a separate circulatory system and often a different blood type. There's even a fifty-fifty chance it's a different gender! And to pre-empt the common claims of anti-pro life adherents that the growing human being in the uterus is parasitic, try telling the mother who is ecstatic that she will hold her child in her arms within a few months that her 'baby' is a parasite!




    Some people believe that the foetus is not sentient etc.
    As far as I am aware, there is no evidence either way for this, but I am against abortion because if we eventually found out that they were sentient, then we would regret all of those abortions that happened whereas if we found out if they weren't, there would be far less to regret, therefore it makes sense to favour 'keeping' even unwanted babies until there is new evidence.
    Also that 'except time' quote is fairly stupid because the foetus relies on the mother for sustainance (unless we can make an artificial growth medium for human foetuses? I guess that would be a good idea) so the arguments that the foetus is only a potential human being does have weight (not saying I agree with it).



    (Original post by yawn)
    Those who embrace this particular "pro-choice" position are guilty of ignoring their own conscience by allowing for the destruction of human life.

    "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
    (Martin Luther King.)

    "You many choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know." (William Wilberforce - 18thc anti-slavery campaigner)

    Now I really must bow out folks!
    I believe abortion should be legal in the same way that I think murder should be legal - why should the government decide what acts are acceptable and what aren't? I am against all forms of government intervention on social issues. Well, most...
    My point is that making it illegal wouldn't stop it from happening anyway, so it isn't 'allowing' it to happen, as it would happen anyway.
    I think the best way to stop abortion is more wide use of contraception, which would come from better (and earlier) sex education.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by When you see it...)
    ...
    As I've already said, I'm not engaging in any further debate as I've seen all the points raised in such debate over the last few years on TSR.

    I've included the statistical report because it's something new for debaters to look at and carry on debating in view of the substantial evidence that's produced in said report...rather than citing old debates which have been refuted time and again, such as you've highlighed, ergo 'sentience etc' which detract from the crux that abortion destroys human life.

    Thanks for your comments to me, regardless.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpangleMagnet)
    ... I really fail to see how that's the same thing, at all.

    But I guess that's the problem here; I don't classify a bunch of cells that couldn't possibly function outside the womb as a life. I think there is a case for the upper limit for abortion to be lowered, yes, but until the foetus can survive on its' own or with limited help, then I don't believe it is a life at all.
    If that's where you draw the line, that's where you draw the line, but we're all bundles of cells, you and me both. And if I was ever reliant on life support, I like to think I would be given the days, weeks (or nine months?) necessary for me to open my eyes again without being killed by someone who considered me unworthy of a future.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    How can you compare a baby to a tumour?
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    How can you compare a baby to a tumour?
    He was just wum-ing, I doubt that is actually his opinion.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    How can you compare a baby to a tumour?
    I'm not saying a baby is a tumour, however a foetus is a parasite. Maybe a desirable one, maybe not, but biologically it is as it exists in a symbiotic relationship beneficial to only one side.
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skeletorfw)
    I'm not saying a baby is a tumour, however a foetus is a parasite. Maybe a desirable one, maybe not, but biologically it is as it exists in a symbiotic relationship beneficial to only one side.
    Don't mean to be a dick, but that is not what symbiosis means. Symbiosis is the interaction between species, not individual organisms. Also symbiosis, by definition, is beneficial to both sides.
    Also, you shouldn't really base political/ethical beliefs on science, otherwise you will end up like this dickhead:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...s-at-home.html
    If you sign in, you can read the full article but just to sum it up he tries to justify his conervative agenda with the second law of thermodynamics. What a load of ****. I'm taking it tothe extreme, but I on't like people who use science to try t justify ethical stances.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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 when a woman has been raped? Or when having a child will severely threaten the health of the mother?
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by weetabixmonster)
    What about when a woman has been raped? Or when having a child will severely threaten the health of the mother?
    The unborn child is not any less valuable due to their father being a rapist.
    Severe threat to health: depends if likely to be fatal , if so then mother's life comes above foetus' life.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    The unborn child is not any less valuable due to their father being a rapist.
    Severe threat to health: depends if likely to be fatal , if so then mother's life comes above foetus' life.
    What if a 12 year old girl, with a disability and living in poverty was raped?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If you're pro life, like, really pro life, then go and adopt a child, foster a kid, help out at your local homeless shelter. Abortion shouldn't have to happen, no, but in some circumstances it is unfortunately, in the best interests for everyone.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invictus_88)
    If that's where you draw the line, that's where you draw the line, but we're all bundles of cells, you and me both. And if I was ever reliant on life support, I like to think I would be given the days, weeks (or nine months?) necessary for me to open my eyes again without being killed by someone who considered me unworthy of a future.
    Im sorry but what if you were brain-dead, to say, a vegetable with no hope of you ever opening your eyes again. Sure some basic motor functions would still be there but for most things, such as breathing, you would need mechanical help. Your still a 'bundle of cells', just not a self-reliant bundle. And I believe that Idea os 'self-reliance' can cme into play when thinking about a foetus, whilst I dangerously toe the line of eugenics with this, surely if a foetus is determined to, say, be born without motor function or any higher brain fuction, surely it is better for the mother to abort this child and try for another, one that can actually be self-reliant?
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by weetabixmonster)
    If you're pro life, like, really pro life, then go and adopt a child, foster a kid, help out at your local homeless shelter. Abortion shouldn't have to happen, no, but in some circumstances it is unfortunately, in the best interests for everyone.
    Except the child.
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adequate Idiot)
    Im sorry but what if you were brain-dead, to say, a vegetable with no hope of you ever opening your eyes again. Sure some basic motor functions would still be there but for most things, such as breathing, you would need mechanical help. Your still a 'bundle of cells', just not a self-reliant bundle. And I believe that Idea os 'self-reliance' can cme into play when thinking about a foetus, whilst I dangerously toe the line of eugenics with this, surely if a foetus is determined to, say, be born without motor function or any higher brain fuction, surely it is better for the mother to abort this child and try for another, one that can actually be self-reliant?
    That's an argumet I've not heard before. Where would you draw the line?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by When you see it...)
    That's an argumet I've not heard before. Where would you draw the line?
    Thank you, I suppose personally I would draw the line at someone is is, from birth, has no autonomous control over themseleves, no 'self' as it were. I wouldnt abort a child of mine if it had Down syndrome's or autism as these people can still have fulfiling lives (as I wouldnt chance it simply because the doctor says it might be 'severe'). To this end, any person who, say, will never develop, cognitivly wise. Again, im toeing the line of eugenics saying this but its just my peronal belief. Put yourself in the shoes of a 16 year old teenage mother, whose just had a baby, who is mentally 'handicapped' and will always have the mind of a 6 month old, is it fair for her to be straddled with a fully grown physical adult who will never be able to look after themselves?
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by When you see it...)
    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.
    So you believe it is right to force a woman who had been raped to relive the terror of her attack every time she looks at her child, and possibly end up hating them because of it?

    Just challenging your stance - I agree that this is a subject that no one every changes their mind about, and I like that you respect other opinions.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    One thing that I do not understand with the whole abortion issue is that there seems that there needs to be a morally justified / 'suitable' reason to have an abortion.
    eg. you cannot abort based on gender

    If people believe that a fertilised egg/fetus is just a bunch of cells that are of no significance then surely you should be able to have an abortion for any, whatever whimsical, reason you like.

    Imo the abortion limit being at 24 weeks is evidence that the government does not hold the life of a fetus that important, therefore I think it's contradictory when there was outrage that fetuses were being illegally aborted because of gender. My question is, if it's just a bunch of unimportant cells, why does it matter?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I am pro-abortion.

    I actually used to be pro-life. I was very strict on my views in that a baby should have the right to life. Then when I started having sex, I realised that if I was in the situation where I got pregnant, I would have an abortion as soon as possible. I've never had to make such a decision but I know that is what I would do. My friend is currently pregnant and due to being a Christian she is having her baby at just 17. She had dreams of being an architect and now her life is on hold for eighteen years because of one mistake. Her boyfriend used to hit her and now she feels she is stuck with him and no matter what I say she is staying with him and keeping the baby.

    I find it astonishing that men even hold such strong opinions about abortion. Unless you're the father involved, I personally believe you have no right to judge a woman either way, whether she keeps it or whether she aborts it. It's like we women judging men because of something they do with their penises. We will never, ever experience that so who are we to judge? It's plain stupid. You can quite easily say you're against abortion because it will never directly affect you. You will never get pregnant. I would much rather listen to a pro-life female.

    Finally, to the comments about the rape of a woman and how that isn't the baby's fault, again if you haven't been raped I think you have no right to underestimate the trauma they go through. That's all I'll say on that matter.

    Unless doctors can categorically prove foetuses can feel pain before 24 weeks, I believe that is where the limit should stay unless further medical issues develop.
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adequate Idiot)
    Thank you, I suppose personally I would draw the line at someone is is, from birth, has no autonomous control over themseleves, no 'self' as it were. I wouldnt abort a child of mine if it had Down syndrome's or autism as these people can still have fulfiling lives (as I wouldnt chance it simply because the doctor says it might be 'severe'). To this end, any person who, say, will never develop, cognitivly wise. Again, im toeing the line of eugenics saying this but its just my peronal belief. Put yourself in the shoes of a 16 year old teenage mother, whose just had a baby, who is mentally 'handicapped' and will always have the mind of a 6 month old, is it fair for her to be straddled with a fully grown physical adult who will never be able to look after themselves?
    It wouldn't necessarily be the mother's responsibility to look after the child though. I suppose if I was in that position I would look into adoption. I think it is a bit vague to say 'autonomous control from bith' because nobody really is born with that. It's not eugenics, because you have no designs on the population (from what I gather), you are simply putting forward your personal approach and any change in the alleles in the population is a consuquence rather than a motivation.

    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    So you believe it is right to force a woman who had been raped to relive the terror of her attack every time she looks at her child, and possibly end up hating them because of it?

    Just challenging your stance - I agree that this is a subject that no one every changes their mind about, and I like that you respect other opinions.
    If she doesn't want the child and it is traumatic for her to see it, I think she should put it up for adoption when it is born. The argument remains that for the duration of her pregnancy the reminder is still there. Again though, I think that the right of the mother to 9 months of 'comfort' (this is probably not appropriate but you get what I mean) is less important than the right of the baby to live.
    With regards to your second paragraph, I'm actually changing my views all the time (although not really from debating on tsr ). Granted, I have never radically changed my views overnight.
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pin)
    One thing that I do not understand with the whole abortion issue is that there seems that there needs to be a morally justified / 'suitable' reason to have an abortion.
    eg. you cannot abort based on gender

    If people believe that a fertilised egg/fetus is just a bunch of cells that are of no significance then surely you should be able to have an abortion for any, whatever whimsical, reason you like.

    Imo the abortion limit being at 24 weeks is evidence that the government does not hold the life of a fetus that important, therefore I think it's contradictory when there was outrage that fetuses were being illegally aborted because of gender. My question is, if it's just a bunch of unimportant cells, why does it matter?
    I agree. Anyone want to address this?

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 17, 2014
New on TSR

A-level results day

Is it about making your parents proud?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.