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

The only reason abortion is considered okay....

Announcements Posted on
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by from rush hour with love)
    Will a plant, if left unhindered, become a human being? No.
    Will a foetus, if left unhindered, become a human being? Yes.
    Not necessarily, not by a long shot. Ever hear of a miscarriage?
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ohirome)
    How bizarre.
    I find it more bizarre that millions of otherwise rational people are prepared to condone the murder of an innocent human being.

    (Original post by AlmostChicGeek)
    Let me ask you this, what if having the child would kill the mum, and then most likely the eventual baby too?

    Or if a woman was raped?

    Do you think that women in these situations shouldn't be able to have an abortion?
    Events where the child would kill the mother are very, very rare.
    I am not opposed to abortion in the case of rape. With hindsight, I should have made this clear in my original post. Thank you for bringing this up.
    In both the above scenarios I would support freedom of choice.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Oh my god, again with the murder charge, would it be enough to tell you that a baby is legally not considered a human capable of being murdered before it is born? I fully agree with everything Care-Free said, just because a woman is genuinely able to take care if a baby, she should not be forced to.
    Additionally, on the question of whether there is a good reason to abort (and of course victims of rape and domestic violence should be able to abort their unwanted pregnancy), even when people don't have a 'good reason' i.e. it was a drunken mistake or they didn't have safe sex, you think the only option for them to deal with the repercussions of their stupidity is by either raising a child for 18 years or giving it up to the unstable world of adoption?? How is this proportionate or even fair to the child in question?
    The only answer is that abortion is an issue that is seen as primarily affecting women.’ Primarily, that would be correct, it is the woman who has to deal with their body changing and carrying an alien object. Maternity leave, as well as child care, is a major factor in the differences between women and men’s salary and employment position, and forcing women through this would only widen the divide.
    The left have allowed their support for women's issues to over-ride their belief that killing is wrong’ You think that the rights we have been campaigning for the past 60-odd years, of living, sentient women who would have to completely change their life against their will, are less important than a bunch of cells which have the potential, but not right, to become human?
    Don't even get me started on the possibilities of men being able to get pregnant, there'd be an abortion clinic on every corner!
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lollyage)
    :lolwut:

    Benefits don't get you that far you know, especially when you're spending the money on alcohol/other things (stereotyping I know, but some people are genuinely like this). Also I didn't mean the money exactly, I meant some people are not mature/stable enough to take the responsibility of a child. As a 17 year old college student I certainly am not, and even though I would probably never forgive myself I would definitely have an abortion if I were to get pregnant now.

    Adoption isn't so easy. There are already so many children yet to be adopted, and personally I would not be able to deal with knowing that my own child is out there somewhere being looked after by strangers.
    Maybe they should think about these things before they get themselves pregnant then. Encouraging condom use is a better option.
    You really think you would be able to deal with killing your own child better than giving it up for adoption? That's easy to say if you haven't had an abortion, but lots of women who do go on to regret it. If you give your child up for adoption, then regret it, you could always track them down.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by from rush hour with love)
    I find it more bizarre that millions of otherwise rational people are prepared to condone the murder of an innocent human being.



    Events where the child would kill the mother are very, very rare.
    I am not opposed to abortion in the case of rape. With hindsight, I should have made this clear in my original post. Thank you for bringing this up.
    In both the above scenarios I would support freedom of choice.
    They are rare, but happen - my mother almost died, and I almost died with her, but that was at the end of her pregnancy.

    And okay thanks for clearing that up then, you seem reasonably ration then. I can't understand people who think that abortion is still wrong in both of those situations.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by from rush hour with love)
    Is reprogramming skin cells to an embroynic state something that occurs naturally? No, it's the result of years of scientific research.

    Is a sperm fertilising an egg, eventualy leading to a woman giving birth, something that occurs naturally? Yes, it's been keeping our species going since god knows how long.
    (Pretend that we are a few years in the future, when skin cells can be reprogrammed to their embryonic state)

    What does that difference matter? Bundle of cells that could potentially become a human being, and if sent back in time 50 years could still become a human being.. and a bundle of cells that could potentially become a human being, and if sent back in time 50 year could not become a human being.

    The important thing is that in both cell bundles can become human, but are currently not human - no perception of pain, no consciousness. Just a bundle of cells.

    Another thing I don't see the difference of, is why does egg combined with sperm hold so much more important than an egg and sperm sitting side by side? Both could potentially become a human being. Both are unconscious, unfeeling cells. What's the big deal when they become merged? It's just one more step along the stairway of potentiality, but why is that step so incredibly important?

    (Original post by Cybele)
    I think it means that half of abortions are carried out because the foetus is female, the other half are carried out for other reasons.
    Ohh right, that would make more sense. But I would be surprised if this was the case in UK or USA - China maybe.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FrigidSymphony)
    Not necessarily, not by a long shot. Ever hear of a miscarriage?
    Miscarriage = natural/accidental
    Abortion = deliberate

    (Original post by CallmeNemo91)
    Oh my god, again with the murder charge, would it be enough to tell you that a baby is legally not considered a human capable of being murdered before it is born? I fully agree with everything Care-Free said, just because a woman is genuinely able to take care if a baby, she should not be forced to.
    Additionally, on the question of whether there is a good reason to abort (and of course victims of rape and domestic violence should be able to abort their unwanted pregnancy), even when people don't have a 'good reason' i.e. it was a drunken mistake or they didn't have safe sex, you think the only option for them to deal with the repercussions of their stupidity is by raising a child for 18 years?? How is this proportionate or even fair to the child in question?
    The only answer is that abortion is an issue that is seen as primarily affecting women.’ Primarily, that would be correct, it is the woman who has to deal with their body changing and carrying an alien object. Maternity leave, as well as child care, is a major factor in the differences between women and men’s salary and employment position, and forcing women through this would only widen the divide.
    The left have allowed their support for women's issues to over-ride their belief that killing is wrong’ You think that the rights we have been campaigning for the past 60-odd years, of living, sentient women who would have to completely change their life against their will, are less important than a bunch of cells which have the potential, but not right, to become human?
    Don't even get me started on the possibilities of men being able to get pregnant, there'd be an abortion clinic on every corner!
    Technically you are just a bunch of cells as well. I wouldn't condone killing you though.
    Once again you talk about the foetus "potentially" becoming human. If left unhindered, there is a huge chance it will develop and the woman will give birth. I don't understand how feminists can reconcile this with their belief that killing is wrong.

    Also, it was their will to become pregnant in the first place. Except in the case of rape, where I condone freedom of choice.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by from rush hour with love)
    ...is because it has become tied up with women's rights.

    Think about it, the left are generally anti-war, against the death penalty, against all forms of harm etc, yet for some reason they passionately support killing babies. How can they reconcile these beliefs? The only answer is that abortion is an issue that is seen as primarily affecting women. The left have allowed their support for women's issues to over-ride their belief that killing is wrong. I find this completely abhorrent.

    Imagine if men had all the advantages they have now, except it was them who gave birth. Do you think the left would be so supportive of abortion then? Hell no, they'd denounce any man who had an abortion as a murderer etc. Truth is that the left need to get their priorities in order and realise that killing is worse than allowing women to do whatever the hell they like.

    No. Classic liberals (broadly in the Kantian school of thought) believe in rights of individuals. Ergo, they will be in favour of the woman deciding. Many conceptions of human rights do not believe that an unborn child can have rights as it for not have sufficient conscious to 'deserve' them.

    There is also the small matter of the law. Foetuses are not protected by any meaningful criminal legislation (such as the CJA or Homicide Acts). In addition, the child is not considered to be truly living until 'wholly expelled from the mother'
    (R v Poulton); (Re A (children) (conjoined twins: surgical separation)).

    So there are actually numerous barriers that I can't see being overcome.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by from rush hour with love)
    Maybe they should think about these things before they get themselves pregnant then. Encouraging condom use is a better option.
    You really think you would be able to deal with killing your own child better than giving it up for adoption? That's easy to say if you haven't had an abortion, but lots of women who do go on to regret it. If you give your child up for adoption, then regret it, you could always track them down.
    ... Right, so let's say I were, luckily, sent to a loving and caring adoptive family, who have clothed me and fed me and loved me, doesn't really matter whether I know it is adoptive or not, and suddenly after however many years some woman comes along claiming to actually be my mother and wants to have a relationship with me? That would be unacceptable, fickle and selfish of the mother
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    (Pretend that we are a few years in the future, when skin cells can be reprogrammed to their embryonic state)

    What does that difference matter? Bundle of cells that could potentially become a human being, and if sent back in time 50 years could still become a human being.. and a bundle of cells that could potentially become a human being, and if sent back in time 50 year could not become a human being.

    The important thing is that in both cell bundles can become human, but are currently not human - no perception of pain, no consciousness. Just a bundle of cells.

    Another thing I don't see the difference of, is why does egg combined with sperm hold so much more important than an egg and sperm sitting side by side? Both could potentially become a human being. Both are unconscious, unfeeling cells. What's the big deal when they become merged? It's just one more step along the stairway of potentiality, but why is that step so incredibly important?
    The difference is that reprogramming cells requires advanced scientific techniques. A random ball of cells wouldn't develop into a child.
    Yet the ball of cells created by sperm + egg would, and there is the key difference. Plus, man and woman having sex has been going on for god knows how long. It's completely natural.

    As for your second point, sperm on its own serves no purpose.
    Egg on its own serves no purpose.
    Foetus will develop into a human being. That's the difference.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by from rush hour with love)
    Events where the child would kill the mother are very, very rare.
    I am not opposed to abortion in the case of rape. With hindsight, I should have made this clear in my original post. Thank you for bringing this up.
    In both the above scenarios I would support freedom of choice.
    Where would you stand then if carrying a child to term would leave a woman severely disabled, potentially unable to care for herself or the child?

    Say we develop a new technology that can detect placenta accreta before it actually develops. It happens in about 1/500 cases, so not super uncommon, and can result in very heavy and dangerous bleeding for the mother, and is many cases a hysterectomy. Say this diagnosis is made on the mothers first pregnancy, and she's told that she will require a hysterectomy (it's a very good new technology you see :P). Is the potential life she is carrying now really more important than the other lives she would carry in the future, did she not end up having a hysterectomy?

    What about tests that in themselves carry a risk of miscarriage? Amniocentesis has a 1/200 risk of miscarriage, and chorionic villus sampling a 1-2/200 risk. These tests are done because they're important for the mother and the fetus, but without the test, there is no risk of miscarriage (as a result of the test - obviously the usual miscarriage risk remains). If you have a miscarriage as a result of an amnio or CVS, could that be tantamount to abortion?
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    No. Classic liberals (broadly in the Kantian school of thought) believe in rights of individuals. Ergo, they will be in favour of the woman deciding. Many conceptions of human rights do not believe that an unborn child can have rights as it for not have sufficient conscious to 'deserve' them.

    There is also the small matter of the law. Foetuses are not protected by any meaningful criminal legislation (such as the CJA or Homicide Acts). In addition, the child is not considered to be truly living until 'wholly expelled from the mother'
    (R v Poulton); (Re A (children) (conjoined twins: surgical separation)).

    So there are actually numerous barriers that I can't see being overcome.
    Just because something is legal doesn't make it morally right. I'm sure there are many aspects of the law that you are opposed to. Just saying "the law says this therefore it can be justified" isn't really an argument. This is an informal debating forum, not a court of law.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by from rush hour with love)
    Miscarriage = natural/accidental
    Abortion = deliberate
    I am not sure what that has to do with you wrote originally. You said that "a foetus, if left unhindered, become a human being? Yes". That is wrong because a miscarriage can occur.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CallmeNemo91)
    ... Right, so let's say I were, luckily, sent to a loving and caring adoptive family, who have clothed me and fed me and loved me, doesn't really matter whether I know it is adoptive or not, and suddenly after however many years some woman comes along claiming to actually be my mother and wants to have a relationship with me? That would be unacceptable, fickle and selfish of the mother
    So that's unacceptable, but killing the child isn't? You have some ****ed up morals.

    (Original post by Persephone9)
    Where would you stand then if carrying a child to term would leave a woman severely disabled, potentially unable to care for herself or the child?

    Say we develop a new technology that can detect placenta accreta before it actually develops. It happens in about 1/500 cases, so not super uncommon, and can result in very heavy and dangerous bleeding for the mother, and is many cases a hysterectomy. Say this diagnosis is made on the mothers first pregnancy, and she's told that she will require a hysterectomy (it's a very good new technology you see :P). Is the potential life she is carrying now really more important than the other lives she would carry in the future, did she not end up having a hysterectomy?

    What about tests that in themselves carry a risk of miscarriage? Amniocentesis has a 1/200 risk of miscarriage, and chorionic villus sampling a 1-2/200 risk. These tests are done because they're important for the mother and the fetus, but without the test, there is no risk of miscarriage (as a result of the test - obviously the usual miscarriage risk remains). If you have a miscarriage as a result of an amnio or CVS, could that be tantamount to abortion?
    Your first point makes no sense. If the only cure for the condition is having a hysterectomy, she wouldn't be able to have more kids :s

    As for the tests, the intent of them is not to kill the child. The intent of abortion is.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    I am not sure what that has to do with you wrote originally. You said that "a foetus, if left unhindered, become a human being? Yes". That is wrong because a miscarriage can occur.
    That point was in response to some absolute clown who compared abortion to killing a plant, because both a foetus and a plant are balls of cells. I made the point that a plant will never become a living human being, but chances are that the foetus will.

    Are you seriously trying to justify abortion because miscarriage occurs? That's a bizarre, ridiculous argument.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lj10g08)
    I think it is not just the left that need to redefine and evaluate its stance on abortion. Feminism too needs to reflect on forty plus years on its push for legalization. Abortion only seems to advance the needs of men, 86% of abortions are performed by men (in the USA), half of abortions carried out are on females babies, the industry is a capitalist machine that chews women up and spits them out as soon as possible and what say do men have? surely it takes two to tango - doesn't contemporary feminism want to work closer with men to stamp out inequality?
    Yes, and the other half are carried out on male babies. Statistically, this is what we'd expect anyway, I don't see the point in including this bit.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by from rush hour with love)
    The difference is that reprogramming cells requires advanced scientific techniques. A random ball of cells wouldn't develop into a child.
    Yet the ball of cells created by sperm + egg would, and there is the key difference. Plus, man and woman having sex has been going on for god knows how long. It's completely natural.

    As for your second point, sperm on its own serves no purpose.
    Egg on its own serves no purpose.
    Foetus will develop into a human being. That's the difference.
    The question is though why does it matter? Why does a bundle of cells that can become a human being without medical intervention matter more than a bundle of cells that cannot become a human being without medical intervention? Why does what happens by the natural way of things matter more than what happens via technological advancements?

    Sperm serves a purpose, and so does an egg.
    Interact with a person of the opposite sex -> Egg and sperm must be present (both fertile) -> Intercourse -> Egg and sperm merged -> Cluster of cells -> Conscious foetus -> Nearly developed baby -> Gives birth to baby -> Grows into a mature human being.

    If you disrupt any stage of the process, you are destroying a potential human being. Refuse intercourse? Bye bye potential human. If you are arguing for what's natural, I'm assuming you are against contraception, and therefore hold the important point in the chain as being 'intercourse'.

    I put 'conscious foetus' as the important point, where the foetus has rights. Many others see 'intercourse' or 'egg and sperm merged' as the important factors. Yes, I know that means that if you leave it, nature will take its course (whereas you are required to actively do something for intercourse). But I don't understand why this matters. It is not a human being of the same worth as a grown adult, any more than a seed is a flower, or unrefined uranium is a nuclear bomb.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I don't think abortion is acceptable at all - unless it saves the mothers life. Everyone says the foetus ain't a baby, but it will be. If we were aborted when we were foetuses, we would not be here. I don't see how abortion isn't murder. Some women - NOT ALL - Just casually have abortions because the cannot be bothered. If you don't wanna raise a child, then at least have it and then give it away, that way it actually has a life.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Seriously, that's your reply? And I thought this was a civil debate, but instead you're twisting my words and then condemning me for it! Where did you read that I believe killing a child is acceptable? I'm under the impression that an unborn fetus is not a human being, the abortion would be end the development of the fetus before it got to that stage
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by from rush hour with love)
    Your first point makes no sense. If the only cure for the condition is having a hysterectomy, she wouldn't be able to have more kids :s

    As for the tests, the intent of them is not to kill the child. The intent of abortion is.
    Exactly, at some point in the future chances are there will be a way to detect placenta accreta before it becomes a massive problem. Say we discover a genetic marker produced in blood or urine that is present at 5 weeks, and because the placenta is still comparitively undeveloped, she probably won't require a hysterectomy, where as if the current pregnancy went to term she probably would.

    Some people do object to tests like amnios and CVS on the grounds that people use to information as grounds for termination, so it's not a huge jump to say that they may also consider miscarriage as a result of that manslaughter, at the very least.

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: March 15, 2012
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

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.