[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by roodootoo)
The fact is that most don't because it takes 18 months to reapply. Most people just give up instead. Adoption UK, the adoption and fostering version of TSR is full of people saying they are giving up on adoption because they have been waiting 5 years for a baby to come along in their Local Authority. When you are talking about matching up children with parents for them to spend the rest of their life with, it isn't basic maths.

I didn't say matching them up was - the basic maths is, more options > lower probability of one option being chosen. You put more and more children into the system, and the chances of one being matched up to a suitable family decrease.

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
What would you want as evidence for it, how would you like it demonstrating?

In convention, we don't consider foetuses as being people - they aren't included in the census, they aren't discussed as as being offspring until they're born. Seems pretty clear society doesn't view foetuses as people.

Argument on the basis of evidence isn't the only means by which to demonstrate something - one can also argue from accepted principles.

And no, foetuses aren't viewed as people. But you're equating 'person' with 'human' there. Humans are differentiated by virtue of belonging to a particular species; the basis is genetic. A human foetus is still a human, whether or not it's a person or a child. Do you think that human rights derive from being people, or being human?

[roodootoo]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
I didn't say matching them up was - the basic maths is, more options > lower probability of one option being chosen. You put more and more children into the system, and the chances of one being matched up to a suitable family decrease.

And I answered that with the rest of my reply

[Elipsis]

(Original post by Sam Walters)
If i was imparted with your logic i would never leave the house.

Shes still not "in that situation" she could still take the morning after pill or have a abortion couldnt she?

Arguably using a condom is the same as having an abortion.

No it isn't the same at all. The life is in existence when you abort. People should be prepared to have a child if they are going to have sex. I don't think I know anyone who hasn't had at least a pregnancy scare, who has been engaged in sexual activity. The 99% figure is for perfect application, but no one does it perfectly. Everyone loves doing it without a condom on too, it's just the way it is.

[Chris Evans]

(Original post by Inverse)
I agree. Let me place you in a situation. Assume that you are female (I don't know which gender you are) and you had consensually engaged in sexual intercourse, without intending to become pregnant. You become aware that you are pregnant (let's exclude the stage of pregnancy in this instance) are now confined to two choices; having an abortion, or keeping the child. Also exclude the relationship you would have had with the person who would be the father of the child, and any other social pressures.

Well this is exactly the scenario I argue is simply not a good enough reason to have an abortion (I simply cannot justify abortion in this instance). The girl would presumably be aware that having sex may lead to pregnancy (there may be exceptions in instances such as if the girl were 13yrs old and sexually groomed, which I would label as 'rape'). By taking the 'risk' and partaking in the sex act, even with contraception, a pregnancy may be the result. If the pregnancy arises, for me that's when the 'potential' argument truly kicks in, you've taken the risk, it's backfired, it would be wrong to deny the child life at this stage. Does that make sense?

[Chris Evans]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Why do you view abortion in other circumstances as being wrong? What is your rationale?

I'm surprised this has been asked given that my explanations were written directly beneath the paragraph quoted, I would copy and paste, yet for some reason it won't let me! If you flick back to my initial post, hopefully all should become clear.

[Inverse]

(Original post by Chris Evans)
Well this is exactly the scenario I argue is simply not a good enough reason to have an abortion (I simply cannot justify abortion in this instance). The girl would presumably be aware that having sex may lead to pregnancy (there may be exceptions in instances such as if the girl were 13yrs old and sexually groomed, which I would label as 'rape'). By taking the 'risk' and partaking in the sex act, even with contraception, a pregnancy may be the result. If the pregnancy arises, for me that's when the 'potential' argument truly kicks in, you've taken the risk, it's backfired, it would be wrong to deny the child life at this stage. Does that make sense?

I don't think you've understood my question. I've asked YOU what YOU would do in that situation.

[Jayne]

Pro-choice

I would say I am pro-chocie due to many reasons such as the "rape" case ect...

I would like to put my opionion on some of the points made in this thread. When people are saying women could be aborting a "child" that is destined to find a cure for cancer ect what if the women whom is pregnant was destined to be the one to cure cancer but will be unable to now due to having the child as much of her time will have to be given to caring for that "child" for the rest of it life. When a "child" is brought into the world it should become president to any other person or thing you should place the "child" above your self so I think that if a women feels like she cant put the child first then it should be there chocie to abort it because in my opionion a "child" should only be brought into the world if the parent know themselves that the can care for the child and give it the best possible life.

[wannabemed]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
So abortion right up until 9 months, and on demand if the baby is the wrong gender, or skin colour?



So if somebody is standing on the edge of a building, it would be wrong to try and physically stop the person from jumping, or place a trampoline at the site where they would likely land?

Is it wrong for society to create restrictions on how parents discipline their children?



Killing the unborn child vs giving up the unborn child? Do you think both have issues relating to closure and opportunity to move on?

You can, IMHO, only be for or against abortion. Things are rarely as complex as a baby being the wrong gender or colour. I doubt those mothers do such a thing and then forget it and go back to normal.
What I am saying is that to be pro choice, you need to grant everyone the choice, regardless of the reason they make that choice. Granted, some of those reasons may be less than desirable, but the alternative is to be prolife, and take away any choice from any woman.
As a mother I feel the opportunity to closure may be greater after having had an abortion than having a baby adopted, but since I have never experienced either I can not be truly informed.
Apart from mental health issues, if a person wants to jump off a building then that is yes their choice but nothing to do with abortion.

[Alexandra's Box]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
But if it's the "woman's body", and "her choice", then surely that choice extends to the phenotype of the future child. Yes it is not legal in the country, but if you are pro-choice in your attitudes, should it be. And if not, why not?



So you therefore agree that the independence argument is irrelevant.

It should not be legal, abortions should only be used with a just and thorough cause. Therefore I voted 'moderately pro-choice'.

Re independence, I can use it as a rough idea of when abortions are acceptable - at 7 weeks is very different to 22 weeks. If it can live outside the body, it should not be aborted.

[Fatfis]

Pro - Choice.

An important factor In establishing a stable poverty-free society is the empowerment of women giving them control over their reproductive cycle, and you find with many religious Pro-life advocates that not only do they reject abortion but also contraception so they tie both hands behind ones back and those who accept contraception while rejecting abortion I would ask whats the difference surely sperm and eggs have a destinies too. If women really want abortions they will have them one way or another And pro-life policy forces them to resort to back alley abortions. There is a pragmatic angle, idealists should evaluate their position when applied in full, I mean who in their right mind would advocate this kind of position on a large scale in African nations or countries like India - and this applies less to those who except contraception but it is still an issue to forbid abortion condemning families to "exponential" growth without enough funds or food for support of their own, it's pointless suffering.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
But at the end of the day, you think it should be allowed and such decisions supported and paid for by the state?



But they should be allowed to do so?

No, I'm saying it would be impossible to distinguish between those who abort for reasons such as stress or inability to care for it and mothers who abort due to race, sex etc.

I'm saying they shouldn't be able to, but I realise that it is a potential misuse of goving the mother more rights to choose

[bammzie]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
So poor people have less rights to children, and indeed poor people's lives have less value?

No. If the woman consents to an abortion and gives her reason as not being financially stable enough to raise the child, she should be allowed to have the abortion.

[morganalex]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
So basically killing a life because it's existence is inconvenient to you, is okay, and should be legal?

If you want to put it that way yeah. That sounds really bad putting it straight like that but hopefully it wouldn't happen in the first place unless I had planned to get pregnant. Personally, like I said, I wouldn't keep it if it was an accident and I believe others should have the same choice.

[Sam Walters]

(Original post by Elipsis)
No it isn't the same at all. The life is in existence when you abort. People should be prepared to have a child if they are going to have sex. I don't think I know anyone who hasn't had at least a pregnancy scare, who has been engaged in sexual activity. The 99% figure is for perfect application, but no one does it perfectly. Everyone loves doing it without a condom on too, it's just the way it is.

Bet youre a wow at dinner parties.

[Chris Evans]

(Original post by Inverse)
I don't think you've understood my question. I've asked YOU what YOU would do in that situation.

And I just gave you my answer! This is an ethical debate, which asks are YOU pro-life or pro-choice. I've made it clear that I'm pro-life - need I say any more to answer what I would do in that situation?

[Libertarian_Walrus]

This is the most sensible answer I've heard for abortions

[Inverse]

(Original post by Chris Evans)
And I just gave you my answer! This is an ethical debate, which asks are YOU pro-life or pro-choice. I've made it clear that I'm pro-life - need I say any more to answer what I would do in that situation?

For some reason I doubt you'd keep the child.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my HTC One X

[Chris Evans]

(Original post by Inverse)
For some reason I doubt you'd keep the child.

For somebody who knows neither me nor my conscience, that's rather a large claim to make! Perhaps that's a reflection on your own personal feelings - yet my feelings are clear, to kill that foetus would be akin (for me and not for everyone) to murdering an innocent civilian, it would be unthinkable. In fact, many women/couples choose not to abort as they feel the same way - there is no reason to doubt I would choose the same course of action!

[Jeester]

I used to be pro-choice till birth but my arguments didn't stack up:

.It is part of the mother so she has choice till birth, it's just like choppinga finger off.
.The father should have a 50% say in it - But if I believe it is part of the mother so hers to do fit with then...
.I am completely against the death penalty and think life is sacred, no one has the right to take that away, but is it a life? or is it just part of the mother...