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
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    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.
    I put "cluster of cells" as the important point actually. I'm not opposed to contraception or women taking the morning after pill. IMO once a woman knows she is pregnant, then any attempt to stop that pregnancy leading to birth becomes wrong.

    My argument is based around the fact that once a woman is pregnant, she doesn't have to do anything she wouldn't otherwise do to keep the baby alive.
    On the other hand, turning random cells into a foetus via technology requires an enormous amount of conscious effort.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Persephone9)
    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.
    In the first case I would support freedom of choice.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    You know full well that these equate to like 1% of abortions. People bring up these factors all the time but it really does represent a very small part of the story.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No. No human should be forced to give birth against his/her will, irrespective of gender.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Let's face it, abortions are usually for slags.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by from rush hour with love)
    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.
    MY first point is moral/philosophical; and my second is legal (as it broadly reflects where society stands now).

    I didn't say either was correct or justified.
    • 12 followers
    Online

    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.
    Thats because a ball of cells isn't an innocent human being. Its a ball of cells. You've been told multiple times that the brain doesn't develop until the 27th week, 3 weeks after the last chance for abortion. Without the brain, its not a baby, its just a foetus.
    • 0 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.
    1) This argument would be great, if it didn't work off of the assumption that abortion=killing babies.

    a zygote is not a baby.

    2) With that erroneous assumption removed, explain to me how abortion is not a woman's rights issue
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BusheSCFC)
    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.
    How is this fair on the child and both parents?
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by from rush hour with love)
    How many women in the Western world genuinely cannot look after a child?
    Also, don't forget about adoption.
    There are endless children on thé child protection register because their parents cant look after them properly- and adoption takes years of being in care first.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Appeal to reason)
    Thats because a ball of cells isn't an innocent human being. Its a ball of cells. You've been told multiple times that the brain doesn't develop until the 27th week, 3 weeks after the last chance for abortion. Without the brain, its not a baby, its just a foetus.
    (Original post by drobinson)
    1) This argument would be great, if it didn't work off of the assumption that abortion=killing babies.

    a zygote is not a baby.

    2) With that erroneous assumption removed, explain to me how abortion is not a woman's rights issue
    Yes, but it will develop into one. Why is this so hard for people on here to understand?
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tnetennba)
    No. No human should be forced to give birth against his/her will, irrespective of gender.
    What about the will of the unborn child? Plus it was their will to get pregnant in the first place.

    (Original post by Elissabeth)
    There are endless children on thé child protection register because their parents cant look after them properly- and adoption takes years of being in care first.
    This is only because social services are completely inadequate, if they got their house in order we wouldn't have this problem.
    • 27 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by from rush hour with love)
    Yes, but it will develop into one. Why is this so hard for people on here to understand?
    It's not difficult to understand, they're just making a point. Your argument is 'women are killing babies', but they're not. It isn't a human being, it isn't conscious, it doesn't even have a brain.
    Abortion is not in any way comparable to killing a living, conscious child after it is born...
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by from rush hour with love)
    In the first case I would support freedom of choice.
    But then surely that prioritizes the life of the potential fetuses that the woman might have over the current fetus which exits, although not autonomously. (Given that whilst placenta accreta is a serious problem, you can live after a hysterectomy and there isn't huge disablement other than not being able to carry a child).

    Surely then, we should prioritize the needs and 'right' to a happy life of more than one existing children above the right to life of one fetus. You could then justify abortion for women who couldn't afford to feed another child without compromising the health and life of her other children. If we accept that social services is overloaded with unhomed children, then adding to that deprives the children in the system further; to give them a better chance at a happy life with a loving family, it make sense not to add more children who require a loving home - by aborting unwanted fetuses.
    • 27 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by from rush hour with love)
    What about the will of the unborn child? Plus it was their will to get pregnant in the first place.
    No, it was their will to have sex. Babies are not necessarily planned.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by from rush hour with love)
    Yes, but it will develop into one. Why is this so hard for people on here to understand?
    the potential to become a human is not the same as being a human. every time people have sex there is the potential to produce a baby, does using contraceptives count as murder then, since it is destroying that potential?
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    No, it was their will to have sex. Babies are not necessarily planned.
    You would have to be ****ing retarded not to realise what unprotected sex could lead to.

    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    It's not difficult to understand, they're just making a point. Your argument is 'women are killing babies', but they're not. It isn't a human being, it isn't conscious, it doesn't even have a brain.
    Abortion is not in any way comparable to killing a living, conscious child after it is born...
    It is. If the woman continued living her life as normal that foetus would develop and she would give birth.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappygoLucky8)
    Abortion is understandable in cases such as rape ect ; but some people abort babies for silly reasons such as there not ready ? well you should of though of that before. Also some women abort babies when they are already a few months old in the womb. The pain babies feel at that stage is unbelievable dont want to sound to graphic because its quiet upsetting the amount of pain it goes through. For severe circumstances though such as ; rape ; teenage pregnancy i get it but it should be done early as possible as the longer someone leaves it the more pain the baby feels.
    I agree in some ways but in my opinion i dont agree with abortion even if its early on theres something growing inside of you that will turn into a baby id personally never ever even think about having an abortion in any situation.
    • 27 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by from rush hour with love)
    You would have to be ****ing retarded not to realise what unprotected sex could lead to.
    My friend was having protected sex (pill and condoms) and got pregnant by accident, she's due at the end of March. Let's not make assumptions

    It is. If the woman continued living her life as normal that foetus would develop and she would give birth.
    It isn't a baby until it can survive on its own/has been given birth to and is alive. At 24 weeks (top cut off), the foetus doesn't have a full brain, it wouldn't survive on its own (or for very long anyway). It is a foetus! Why do you find that so hard to understand?
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucaf)
    the potential to become a human is not the same as being a human. every time people have sex there is the potential to produce a baby, does using contraceptives count as murder then, since it is destroying that potential?
    No, because before sex the foetus does not exist yet.
    Once a woman knows she is pregnant, this is when any attempt to stop the baby being born is wrong. The only way she can stop it being born is by killing it.

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

GCSE mocks revision

Talk study tips this weekend

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.