[Surfing_the_shine]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
I know they can survive from around 21 weeks... That's my point.

ok, on a separate note how have you managed to become a TSR team moderator ?

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by Surfing_the_shine)
ok, on a separate note how have you managed to become a TSR team moderator ?

Let's not take the conversation off topic from the thread. If you have any discussion seperate to the threads meaning you would like to have with me, feel free to PM.

[mwells1996]

There is no black and white answer to this. You can say you're pro life/pro choice all you like while it's not happening to you but until you actually get unexpectedly pregnant you won't know what you'll want to do. It's like when people say 'If I ever end up on life support indefinitely I would want the machine to be turned off'. No you wouldn't. You have no idea what you would want until you're in that situation.

[rac1]

[QUOTE=Loucornall;38610218]

(Original post by rac1)
Sorry about your partner.
I've liked Surfing the shine's post.



thanks, its been a hard 2 years but getting there, uni in sept is a fresh start for me

i still think surfing the shine is a narrow minded idiot though even if you liked his post lol

I hope uni goes well for you.
nothing is more narrow minded than being 'rational' lol.

(Original post by Loucornall)
well the NHS don't class a miscarriage before 12 weeks as being a baby, in fact they call it an inviable pregnancy, i will go by there guidlines

next you'll be saying that women having an abortion when its an eptopic pregnancy have murdered their child as well

viable comes form French through Medieval Latin vitabilis which means capable of life so that's fine with me.

Ectopic pregnancy is different.

[rac1]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
It is things like the bit in bold, and "life is sacred" that is your opinion, and what I was referring to.
I know that life begins at conception, and I know what prolifers think... That really has no baring on our discussion. But as I've said, I really don't want to continue with it any more, because my head might explode.

perhaps a better way of putting it would have been "abortion makes you un-pregnant and the mother of a formerly alive thing."

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by rac1)
perhaps a better way of putting it would have been "abortion makes you un-pregnant and the mother of a formerly alive thing."

I don't really see what your point is, or how it relates to my posts.

[laureng492]

(Original post by mwells1996)
There is no black and white answer to this. You can say you're pro life/pro choice all you like while it's not happening to you but until you actually get unexpectedly pregnant you won't know what you'll want to do. It's like when people say 'If I ever end up on life support indefinitely I would want the machine to be turned off'. No you wouldn't. You have no idea what you would want until you're in that situation.

I agree with your argument, but I presume if you're ever in a situation where you're on a life support machine, you probably wouldn't know...

[rac1]

(Original post by rac1)
has anyone ever read this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso...bortion_debate

goodnight all

evidently not, it is interesting nonetheless

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
I said until it can survive outside of the womb. Babies can do this.

They can't feed themselves, they pretty much rely on their reflexes which can't help them all the time, they need a caregiver. correct? there are different degrees of independance just like there are different stages of development.

Well you should be able to accept them, even if you don't agree with them.

apologies, accept and agree are synonyms to me.


I agreed that life starts at conception. But life =/= a person.
It is the bit in bold that is annoying. It is not a truth, it it your opinion.

Its sort of like the 'diagram' you see saying this (outline of a fetus) is not (outline of a person) which is funny because a baby doesn't look like a fully grown person either. Except your basing your opinion on when personhood begins and not on appearances.

[rac1]

(Original post by Loucornall)
Agree completely, it is a choice but should not be used instead of making a conscious effort to prevent pregnancy in the first place and to be honest repeat offenders should have to pay themselves not the nhs. But no one else has the right to force a girl into being a mother when she doesn't want to be one


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

interesting choice of word, but that's all of course.

[Loucornall]

(Original post by rac1)
interesting choice of word, but that's all of course.

i stand by what i say, i think girls who are immature enough to just think "oh it won't happen to me", take no precautions and then use a termination to solve their situation repeatedly are out of order and after so many "strikes" should have to fund the procedure themselves.

They give the women having terminations for valid reasons to them a bad name.

another way of looking at it is do we really want all these young girls not mature enough to bother using contreception being responsiable for bringing up another child when they aren't grown up enough to look after themselves?

[mwells1996]

(Original post by laureng492)
I agree with your argument, but I presume if you're ever in a situation where you're on a life support machine, you probably wouldn't know...

Yeah, but that's not the point. Put it this way, you might say if a loved on was on life support you would turn off the machine but you have no idea what you'd actually do until you were in that position. It doesn't really matter what example I use, the principle is the same.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by rac1)
evidently not, it is interesting nonetheless



Its sort of like the 'diagram' you see saying this (outline of a fetus) is not (outline of a person) which is funny because a baby doesn't look like a fully grown person either. Except your basing your opinion on when personhood begins and not on appearances.

Accept and agree are not synonyms; people need to learn to respect opinions that they disagree with.

I still don't really know what your point is. I know babies need to be cared for outside of the womb, but that isn't the same as not being able to live at all without it. When a baby's organs are developed enough for them to work themselves (aside from sexual organs, which clearly have no use for a long time yet), and therefore they can survive outside of the womb, they are not a person in my opinion.

[Helmi]

It disappoints me to see people who are pro life saying that when you get accidentally pregnant you need to deal with the consequences and keep the baby. You don't think that abortion is a way of dealing with the consequences? It is not easy, not at all and I bet that anyone who has gone through it would say that they never ever want to go through it again.

I would love to see a pro-life person get accidentally pregnant and see what they would actually do. It is easy to preach about 'right and wrong' when you yourself are not in the situation.

Someday when I'm ready to have kids I would love to adopt. There are so many unwanted children in this world that we need to take care of first, before bringing anymore in.

[Zorgotron]

(Original post by Helmi)
It disappoints me to see people who are pro life saying that when you get accidentally pregnant you need to deal with the consequences and keep the baby. You don't think that abortion is a way of dealing with the consequences? It is not easy, not at all and I bet that anyone who has gone through it would say that they never ever want to go through it again.

Death solves all problems, doesn't it - no man, no problem.

Our modern society is a joke - nobody wants to take personal responsibility for anything.

Aborting is not dealing with the consequences - it's about avoiding the consequences of your actions for the purpose of preserving your current lifestyle.

Giving your child away is also a way of running from your responsiblities just like how a father bailing out on her pregnant girlfriend runs from his obligations. Giving your child away can at least have good justifications and doesn't involve the killing of an innocent human being.

Face it, most people abort because they wish to preserve their lifestyle - they do it for the sake of their own convenience. Abortion is the easiest, quickest and the cheapest way to neutralize the burden of your child.

[Plushie]

Even if that's the case, it's legal, so why is it any of your business? You don't know the reason why women have abortions so you are just make assumptions based on nothing, too.

[Zorgotron]

(Original post by Plushie)
Even if that's the case, it's legal, so why is it any of your business? You don't know the reason why women have abortions so you are just make assumptions based on nothing, too.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean that it's morally acceptable or permissible. The mass killings of jews in Nazi Germany was legal - imagine if a german diplomat of the time would have the following international statement: ''It's legal, why is it any of your business?''

How about slavery in the USA - since it was legal at the time, then I guess by your reasoning it was fine and morally acceptable. The same goes for eugenics, forced sterilization, racism, sexism etc. If you judge the morality of an action by its legal status then anything can be allowed and anything can be seen as moral.

I don't make assumptions based on nothing - why women have abortions is not some abstract philosophical issue that doesn't have a singular truth. There are so many sociological studies and questionnaires out there and mostly it does come down to the ''I'm not ready'' or ''Having a child puts breaks on my life'' or ''Having a child will have a negative impact on my life.''

[Harolinho]

[QUOTE=Zorgotron;38713152]

Our modern society is a joke - nobody wants to take personal responsibility for anything.

True, but that doesn't mean that everyone should take responsibility for everything.

Aborting is not dealing with the consequences - it's about avoiding the consequences of your actions for the purpose of preserving your current lifestyle.

Rape?

Giving your child away is also a way of running from your responsiblities just like how a father bailing out on her pregnant girlfriend runs from his obligations. Giving your child away can at least have good justifications and doesn't involve the killing of an innocent human being.

This is pretty biased. Have you not considered that perhaps precautions do not always work, that perhaps fourteen year-old Hilda will not only suffer hugely physically from having a baby, she will also be unable to raise it in any real way as she is barely a child herself? And you're also throwing the words 'innocent human being' around quit callously. There's a plethora of arguments that disparage at which point a multi-celled, barely functional, completely un-humanoid blob becomes a 'human'.

And children that grow up in foster care tend not to live the greatest lives (not always true, but often), the foster care system is extremely poor.

Face it, most people abort because they wish to preserve their lifestyle - they do it for the sake of their own convenience. Abortion is the easiest, quickest and the cheapest way to neutralize the burden of your child.

This is almost horrible. You're not all wrong, but you don't seem to understand the profound effect that abortion has on people psyche. It ****s with people, they definitely face consequences and often change lifestyles.

It's all very well to rave about the consequences that actions have, but it's not so grand to assume that everybody should suffer the maximum amount because mistakes are made. That's a horribly sadistic attitude to take.

[Zorgotron]

(Original post by Harolinho)
True, but that doesn't mean that everyone should take responsibility for everything.

Everyone should at the very least take responsibility for their actions.

(Original post by Harolinho)
Rape?

While rape is a tragedy and a moral atrocity - I do not see how rape devalues the life of the conceived child. In the case of rape, there are two victims - the raped woman and the child who she decides to abort. In this situation one shouldn't ask herself ''What are my rights?''. She should ask herself ''What would a compassionate, caring and generous person do?'' Instead of abortion, she could just give the child away to another family.

The state should give ample support for mothers who decide to go through the ordeal.

(Original post by Harolinho)
This is pretty biased. Have you not considered that perhaps precautions do not always work, that perhaps fourteen year-old Hilda will not only suffer hugely physically from having a baby, she will also be unable to raise it in any real way as she is barely a child herself? And you're also throwing the words 'innocent human being' around quit callously. There's a plethora of arguments that disparage at which point a multi-celled, barely functional, completely un-humanoid blob becomes a 'human'.

I agree, precautions are no guarantee - and a responsible adult should be able to account for such possibilites and take responsibility if the need arises.

14 year old Hilda may suffer, but you have to ask yourself - does one person's temporary suffering/inconvenience outweigh the entire life of another human being? These are fringe situations anyway and any compromise will only apply to these extreme examples.

And regarding whether the humanoid ''blob'' becomes human - well, from a biological standpoint there is no debate at all. Open a modern embryology textbook and see for yourself - every unique human being begins their life as a fertilized egg. If you wish to circumvent this through personhood/other philosophical arguments, then please present some.

(Original post by Harolinho)
And children that grow up in foster care tend not to live the greatest lives (not always true, but often), the foster care system is extremely poor.

And as long as we have abortion the foster care system won't get better at all. Why would it? Why spend a large amount of time, energy and money on a niche system when you have a cheaper alternative already available i.e abortion.

Secondly, if I went to a fosterhome and told the children there that I have come to kill them and end their suffering - Do you know why they don't want to die? It's because people, as a general rule, want to live no matter how hard and difficult it is. You want to impose your personal standards on another person and decide for them whether their life will be worth it or not.

(Original post by Harolinho)
This is almost horrible. You're not all wrong, but you don't seem to understand the profound effect that abortion has on people psyche. It ****s with people, they definitely face consequences and often change lifestyles.

It's all very well to rave about the consequences that actions have, but it's not so grand to assume that everybody should suffer the maximum amount because mistakes are made. That's a horribly sadistic attitude to take.

Abortion has a very severe effect on the psyche of the woman and in a lot of cases, the effect is even more detrimental than it would have been had the woman given birth.

And you accuse me of a sadistic attitude? I just want to know how it makes sense that A can kill B simply because B's continued existence is inconvenient to A? It's the greatest injustice in the western civilization. Basically I am sadistic because I hold the right to life to be more valuable than temporary inconvenience.
---------

Do you know what the slave law in America said about the unborn?

Virginia 1662 - That all children born in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of their mother.

Basically it means that if the mother is a slave, then her child will be a slave and if the mother is free, then the child will be free.

Look at what the law says - a separate institution, law or an individual could decide what your worth would be even before you were born and that's exactly what abortion is - the mother can decide the worth of her unborn child arbitrarily. The conception of abortion is literally derived from the old slavery codes.

Have you ever thanked your parents for not aborting you? Sounds absurd, but we are all in debt to our parents in this regard.

This is why I cannot support abortion - it does not affirm to my vision of what an ethical society should be like.

[Plushie]

Despite what you might think or do personally, on a practical level abortion is the lesser of two evils.

If a woman is so desperate she is seeking abortion, if it wasn't legal she would likely seek illegal abortion in which most cases the mother and 'child' would be harmed. And abortion is almost ALWAYS a desperate situation. If you remove your feelings personally and look at it objectively, that is what it comes down to.

You personally don't have to support abortion. Don't have one. But you also don't have the right to control the lives of others and others decisions, because you are not in their shoes and because you aren't in that specific situation you can't lecture people on what to do for the better. I would never try and convince you to have an abortion if it is against your convictions, I'd expect the same respect in return.

[Harolinho]

(Original post by Zorgotron)
Everyone should at the very least take responsibility for their actions.

Yes, but the extent to which is the issue at hand.

While rape is a tragedy and a moral atrocity - I do not see how rape devalues the life of the conceived child. In the case of rape, there are two victims - the raped woman and the child who she decides to abort. In this situation one shouldn't ask herself ''What are my rights?''. She should ask herself ''What would a compassionate, caring and generous person do?'' Instead of abortion, she could just give the child away to another family.

So not only does she have to be subject to the violation of her own body, go through mental and physical torture, she also has to look after and 'love' a child that belongs to a vile rapist, a constant reminder of the torment she suffered. To top it off, she has to push the 8-pound ball of flesh out of her vagina, arguably one of the most painful things anyone can go through - especially without love as an anesthetic.

Do you not see that childbirth is not so simple as - get pregnant - plop out baby? I think you're lacking some empathy and compassion here. The woman is not being held responsible for her actions, but the actions of another - and to top it off it's only morally right for her to subject herself to an unquantifiable further amount of torment? Pure sadism. It's not like there's a lack of fertility in this world.

The state should give ample support for mothers who decide to go through the ordeal.

Yes it should. There is only, however, so much that can be done. It should also give support to the women that decide not to allow the experience to rule their life.

I agree, precautions are no guarantee - and a responsible adult should be able to account for such possibilites and take responsibility if the need arises.

14 year old Hilda may suffer, but you have to ask yourself - does one person's temporary suffering/inconvenience outweigh the entire life of another human being? These are fringe situations anyway and any compromise will only apply to these extreme examples.

And regarding whether the humanoid ''blob'' becomes human - well, from a biological standpoint there is no debate at all. Open a modern embryology textbook and see for yourself - every unique human being begins their life as a fertilized egg. If you wish to circumvent this through personhood/other philosophical arguments, then please present some.

But at the point of being a fertilized egg it is not a human, with ideals and thoughts, it has no brain or heart or bodily functions, it cannot observe nor sense. It is merely a possibility, barely further down the road than a sperm sample. You might as well argue that ****ing is killing babies.

And as long as we have abortion the foster care system won't get better at all. Why would it? Why spend a large amount of time, energy and money on a niche system when you have a cheaper alternative already available i.e abortion.

Because not all people want to go through abortion. You can't argue that abortion should be illegal so foster care can be better - it's not always children who are unwanted immediately that are fostered, it's children in families where the parents can't cope, or are abusive. The fact is that foster-homes already have more people than they can cope with, and that is why they should get better. If there was no abortion in fact, the abundance of new children in care would most likely only make foster care even worse, and a greater strain on resources.

Secondly, if I went to a fosterhome and told the children there that I have come to kill them and end their suffering - Do you know why they don't want to die? It's because people, as a general rule, want to live no matter how hard and difficult it is. You want to impose your personal standards on another person and decide for them whether their life will be worth it or not.

Once again you are assuming that a cellular blob is an informed human even before there is any kind of synaptic development going on. You need to ask yourself what a human is.

Abortion has a very severe effect on the psyche of the woman and in a lot of cases, the effect is even more detrimental than it would have been had the woman given birth.

Now that is an assertion fallacy.

And you accuse me of a sadistic attitude? I just want to know how it makes sense that A can kill B simply because B's continued existence is inconvenient to A? It's the greatest injustice in the western civilization. Basically I am sadistic because I hold the right to life to be more valuable than temporary inconvenience.

The attitude you hold is sadistic in part because it denotes that suffering should be carried out to the fullest, and you seem to be bashfully ignorant on what 'temporary inconvenience' is. In fact you are wholly belittling childbirth, the pain women go through in childbirth and the pain the child suffers as a result of being born without love.


---------

Do you know what the slave law in America said about the unborn?

Virginia 1662 - That all children born in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of their mother.

Basically it means that if the mother is a slave, then her child will be a slave and if the mother is free, then the child will be free.

Look at what the law says - a separate institution, law or an individual could decide what your worth would be even before you were born and that's exactly what abortion is - the mother can decide the worth of her unborn child arbitrarily. The conception of abortion is literally derived from the old slavery codes.

Have you ever thanked your parents for not aborting you? Sounds absurd, but we are all in debt to our parents in this regard.

This is why I cannot support abortion - it does not affirm to my vision of what an ethical society should be like.

Of course it does not affirm to your vision, or else we would not be debating this. A world in which all women who are impregnated are forced to go through childbirth, pregnancy and motherhood against there will does not affirm to mine.