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

Apparently having an abortion because you don't want that sex is illegal?

Announcements Posted on
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H.C. Chinaski)
    The first point is obvious.
    The Second point cannot be determined, one way or the other.


    It only takes a long time if you are a complete and utter idiot.


    and your point is???

    Sara, Sarah, Aamina, Ni****, Pakpau, Charlotte, Heather, Kim, Karen ..... do you think it really matters ??
    Peter, Oscar,Norio, P'eng, Max, Jack, John, Huwey, Duey, Louis .... do you think it really matters ......
    No it doesn't matter, in the grand scheme of things. Your name will not shape the person you will become. But do you think choosing a name is just simple for all parents? They simply go on to google, type 'boys names' and just pick the one that's top. No.

    I'm saying it might take some people a while to decide on a name between themselves, that's all.

    Man, you like a good argument don't you. The only reason I said this in the first place was to try back up parents being told the sex of their child before it is born.

    People have different opinions on whether they like a name or not, when you have a kid, or maybe you have already, will you simply say to your missus, "we're calling him Fred". What if she doesn't like the name?

    Ok I'm bored now, it's pointless and gone on too long.
    • Thread Starter
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    So a 16 year old man that lacks any pain sensory and is highly disabled and can't think, experience or desire life can be killed and it wouldn't be murder?
    To be murdered you have to be living. How can you call that a life when all you are is a vegetable? You are as alive as a vegetable. There is no person there. If you call that murder, eating vegetables would be murder.

    So no.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    :facepalm: Murder is ending the life of a sentient being with the capability to suffer, experience, think and desire life, abortion is destroying a lump of mindless cells.

    How you can equate the two is simply idiotic to be honest... it's as "murderous" as picking and eating fruit off a tree.
    If its just a 'bunch of cells', how the hell can they tell the sex? Its because it is developed and therefore a very small small baby. Killing it is sick.
    • Thread Starter
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HollyB_C)
    Does adoption not exist anymore? You seem to think there are two options: bring the child up or have an abortion! It is absolutely disgusting to abort the baby due to the sex :nothing:
    Why is it "disgusting"? :lolwut: And why should we be legislating against what some people might find disgusting?

    The parents making the choice obviously don't think it's disgusting, so why should other people's opinions matter more? I fail to see why it would be "disgusting".

    The mother still has to go through a pregnancy, a possibly painful birth and has to go through a lengthy adoption process. For what logical reason would you force people to do that when they don't want to?

    There are plenty of children who actually need to be adopted without bringing unnecessary new ones who will need to be adopted into the world.

    Got any actual reasons for forcing a mother through childbirth and bringing an unwanted child into the world?
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pitt1988)
    I think telling parents what sex their baby is is pretty practical. You've got months to sort out the decoration of a room for a boy or a girl, choose names etc.

    I do agree with you though, aborting a baby because it is not the sex you wanted is pretty disgusting. I'm sure that before you have the scan to find out sex it would be pretty apparent to doctors whether you were actually ready and planning on having the child. Can just imagine the parent's faces drop when they say 'it's a ....' be a bit of a give away!
    They shouldnt be told until they are too far gone to have an abortion.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    To be murdered you have to be living. How can you call that a life when all you are is a vegetable? You are as alive as a vegetable. There is no person there. If you call that murder, eating vegetables would be murder.

    So no.
    Vegetables are living fyi. Anything that kills a living human is murder regardless of sentientness or pain sensory.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Why is it "disgusting"? :lolwut: And why should we be legislating against what some people might find disgusting?

    The parents making the choice obviously don't think it's disgusting, so why should other people's opinions matter more? I fail to see why it would be "disgusting".

    The mother still has to go through a pregnancy, a possibly painful birth and has to go through a lengthy adoption process. For what logical reason would you force people to do that when they don't want to?

    There are plenty of children who actually need to be adopted without bringing unnecessary new ones who will need to be adopted into the world.

    Got any actual reasons for forcing a mother through childbirth and bringing an unwanted child into the world?
    Because most normal women who are half capable of being a loving parent would adore their child anyway once its born no matter what sex it is.

    It wouldnt kill anyone for them to stop telling parents what sex their child is until they are past the stage they can abort it. Maybe save a few innocent babies lives...

    Disregarding that, I have no respect for anyone who does this, they are disgusting and an insult to the many people out there who struggle to have any child. Absoloutely vile.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Why is it "disgusting"? :lolwut: And why should we be legislating against what some people might find disgusting?

    The parents making the choice obviously don't think it's disgusting, so why should other people's opinions matter more? I fail to see why it would be "disgusting".

    The mother still has to go through a pregnancy, a possibly painful birth and has to go through a lengthy adoption process. For what logical reason would you force people to do that when they don't want to?

    There are plenty of children who actually need to be adopted without bringing unnecessary new ones who will need to be adopted into the world.

    Got any actual reasons for forcing a mother through childbirth and bringing an unwanted child into the world?
    Because it is not a life-threatening condition that would see you have to change your life to look after the child! Nothing changes!
    • Thread Starter
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    abortion isn't just "legal".. you can get an abortion in the UK to save the life of the mother, for mental or physical health reasons (of both mother and foetus/baby), for economic reasons or for social reasons.

    most abortions fall into those categories... but because you don't like the sex of the baby? doesn't apply to any of the above, therefore not allowed.
    Yeah, we know it's illegal... but WHY should it be illegal? No one has yet put forward a logical reason....
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tc92)
    Economic and social issues are not actually criteria for allowing abortions. They are things which supposedly constitute threats to someone's mental health through 'stress' etc., and that is why they are taken into account. Although as the Telegraph's investigation is showing, it is often the case of no questions asked.

    Not liking the sex of the baby is arguably equally as just as doing it because you don't want a baby at a certain stage in your life or it is inconvenient, things which might affect your 'mental health', which in my view, is not at all just.
    i was going to say physical and mental but then i did a google and BBC said economic&social reasons too... i thought they were covered in the mental health bit, but i trusted BBC knew more than me never again

    hmm the emotional side of me thinks that it is wrong... but the scientific side of me says it isn't. i guess you just have to leave it in the hands of the couple who are having a baby... it's their decision after all and if they feel it's ok then you have to accept it as their reason... although i think it's a bit weird and would never abort on those grounds myself.
    • 48 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I don't think this is an ethical issue. Gender bias can become a serious issue in society, we don't want to end up like China.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Yeah, we know it's illegal... but WHY should it be illegal? No one has yet put forward a logical reason....
    because scientifically, it shouldn't be illegal... but then again you don't want to disrupt the natural male:female ratio... however i don't think that would happen because i doubt many people would abort on those grounds... only a few.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ROYP)
    How long into a pregnancy can doctors tell what sex the baby is?
    As far as I'm aware pretty early on. A female would create different chemical reactions than a male I'm guessing so those could be read.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Why is it wrong to abort on the basis of sex, if it is just a "lump of cells" and not a real child yet?
    Or if you think it is a real child and not just a lump of cells, then surely it is wrong to abort for other reasons such as "I'm not ready for a child". You wouldn't condone killing a newborn baby for a reason like that?

    People seem to be really inconsistent here. It's either a human being with a right to life, or it isn't. If it has no right to life, parents may abort it for whatever reason they want - they're the only ones whose rights are at play. But if it has a right to life, then surely you can't just kill it because you're "not ready" or "don't want a child". You must treat it the same as any other person with a right to life, such as a newborn.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    1 )Yes we should accept everything people in positions of authority tells us without question. :rolleyes: P.S Argument from authority is a logical fallacy = worthless.

    2) Just because he's health secretary doesn't mean he has the right to decide what is moral, especially when there is no logical argument for his position. He should be concerned with issues of health, not morality.

    But please, bow down to Andrew Lansley and believe everything he says without question if you wish. :lol:



    3) Interesting how you have NOTHING useful to contribute but rather you'd just put together a pretty flawed and inaccurate ad hominem. My views are only what academics, scientists and philosophers have known for years. Nothing new.

    I've never ever claimed to know the answers to life, the universe and everything. :lol:

    4) Since you've never managed to post a more logical argument than "WT U SAY IS DESPICABLE!11 cuz IT IZ " then that's pretty weak...

    5) Do you never question why you believe the things you do? Or do you just accept anything you're told like a mindless drone without any evidence to back it?
    1) I wasn't saying that authority = necessarily correct. But let's face it, the guy is almost certainly a lot smarter than you ever will be.

    2) Do you not understand that with your philosophy, no one has any right to decide what is moral? Indeed, whatever is considered "moral" is whatever those in power happen to agree on. Andrew Lansley is in a position of power; you at your rubbish uni are not and probably never will be.

    "no logical argument for his position" - do you not understand that with your view there cannot be any logical argument for any position? If so then it's pretty harsh to demand one.

    3) Read point 5.

    4) Funny you describe my views as "inaccurate and flawed" and the head of Philosophy at my rather prestigous university writes down what I say during discussions and approves of my arguments. Granted it may be difficult to come across clearly via an internet forum, but even so, maybe you should consider the fact that you aren't anything like as intelligent as you think you are?

    5) I most certainly have thought through in massive detail what I believe and why I believe it. I'm not sure that you have/have done the same thoroughly enough.

    Also, it's kind of funny that you make this point at me just after writing "My views are only what academics, scientists and philosophers have known for years. Nothing new." It should be blatantly obvious that 1) your views are certainly not the same as ALL academics, scientists and philosophers and 2) interesting use of the word "know".


    I seriously hope you will one day look back at your posts on here and think "what a ****ing teenage douchebag I was", and cringe. Your views are flawed, I have tried on several occasions to explain why (albeit by the medium of these forums), and I feel it is a stubborness to change your mind combined with a false security in your intellectual capabilities that prevents you from understanding why I and many other people think your views are repulsive and if anything, worrying.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Your argument that it's the mother's choice is totally invalid. If the mother can not even stand their child's gender how will they be capable of being able to handle any little problem the child has, a few examples like; if the child is not attractive, if the mother wanted a sporty child but the child has problems preventing the child from being sporty or if the child is extremely clumsy and stupid.
    Basically what I'm trying to say is that if the mother is that shallow over the gender of their child then the mother will probably not be able to give the child the love and care it needs.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Are we going to the dark ages again?

    Is this not equivalent to the times where babies were buried alive for being a certain gender (mostly female back then)?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tc92)
    Then why are you "all for abortion"? Even setting aside the small minority of cases which endanger the mother's life or are a result of rape, what are you "all for"?
    all abortion supporters are not brain dead cruel *****... abortion is serious stuff, and just because i believe there are times when it is very much acceptable to have it (rape, danger to health, incompetant etc), that does not mean i think abortion should be treated like getting a haircut where you cut off your hair if you simply dont like it...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    There's not an adequate reason for keeping it either, forcing the dependence of a child onto parents who don't want it. Why would anyone be in favour of that?


    You'd rather have a child thrust onto parents who don't want it rather than eliminate the child before it comes into existence?

    Infringing the rights of one or two individuals in favour of a non-entity, can't see how this makes logical sense.
    I totally agree with you there; but surely the possibility of adoption should be considered? Also, plenty of people who were born to parents who didn't neccessarily want them have gone on to become great people, I'm not convinced that a foetus should be denied that (not saying the child should be forced onto the parents - just putting the idea out there.)

    Basically what makes me uncomfortable is the idea that a prospective parent would not only love/want their child on the condition of its sex. It just seems completely wrong to terminate a potential life due to whether it has a Y chromosone or not :s

    And then of course there's the whole "where does life begin" argument, but regardless of that the fact is that it WOULD be a life if it wasn't aborted, so some people might argue that it almost equates to killing a baby on account of its gender.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    TSR confuses me. I recall an overwhelming proportion of people in abortion threads/polls saying or agreeing with things along the line of, 'they are unborn, unthinking foetuses so there is nothing wrong with killing them', 'it's better to abort a child than force the mother to conceive a child that she doesn't want and may maltreat', and 'the mother should have full autonomy over her body and life, so if she doesn't want a child she should be granted that liberty'. Now people are arguing the opposite of these things. :erm: Perhaps it's the time of day.
    could be because abortion for the reasons you say have major impacts on ones life while this is just choosing abortion based on a trivial matter like sex...

    where having a specific sex does not impact you as much as having the baby in the first place...
Updated: February 24, 2012
New on TSR

Exclusive Nick Clegg interview

Your questions answered by the deputy prime minister

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.