Why abortion is wrong.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by dartanoir
I'm sure my mother would have her reasons for having an abortion. I do not consider my life to be more valuable than the life of my mother. 
That's a shocking thing to say.
I didn't say if your mother absolutely had to have an abortion to ensure that she would survive.
Just if your mother was thinking of having an abortion. If your mother, like many people even on this site, simply didn't want to be burdened by you, how can you possibly agree with that.
It's purely selfish.
At the age of 34, Marcus got cancer. Life is a natural cycle, and it was his turn to die.
Instead, he broke that cycle, by going to the doctor. He defeated the cancer, and lived to 92 years of age.
...
Natural cycles are not a valid argument.
Instead, he broke that cycle, by going to the doctor. He defeated the cancer, and lived to 92 years of age.
...
Natural cycles are not a valid argument.
Original post by dartanoir
Actually that is wrong. It's been proven that foetuses that are less than 24 weeks old do not have the brain connections to feel pain, so something is making me doubt the 'research' that has gone into formulating and backing up the rest of your argument.
what is pain?
there is debate whether or not a brain means you feel while no brain means you don't. many creatures don't have 'brains' but some sensory development that allows them to react
all living beings have the characteristic of responding to stimuli. the pre-born are no different. the concept that 'no brain' means no stimuli is 100% incorrect. however, it may be debatable the manner in which the child may respond to stimuli.
regardless to how you or I or the pre-born child may react to stimuli or feel pain, the main fact is that a life - a human being - is killed. is this right or wrong? the easy answer, is that it is wrong. sadly, this answer is most difficult to stand behind.
Original post by jcarz
That's a shocking thing to say.
I didn't say if your mother absolutely had to have an abortion to ensure that she would survive.
Just if your mother was thinking of having an abortion. If your mother, like many people even on this site, simply didn't want to be burdened by you, how can you possibly agree with that.
It's purely selfish.
I didn't say if your mother absolutely had to have an abortion to ensure that she would survive.
Just if your mother was thinking of having an abortion. If your mother, like many people even on this site, simply didn't want to be burdened by you, how can you possibly agree with that.
It's purely selfish.
It's only immoral if we decide that an embryo/foetus has a right to life. I think that right, for humans, comes alongside personhood - something I don't believe is obtained by the early developing human.
Original post by Donald Duck
At the age of 34, Marcus got cancer. Life is a natural cycle, and it was his turn to die.
Instead, he broke that cycle, by going to the doctor. He defeated the cancer, and lived to 92 years of age.
...
Natural cycles are not a valid argument.
Instead, he broke that cycle, by going to the doctor. He defeated the cancer, and lived to 92 years of age.
...
Natural cycles are not a valid argument.
Our bodies fight cancer naturally. to try and help that effort is natural as well. that has been part of human history for... extremely long period of time.
Original post by jcarz
That's a shocking thing to say.
I didn't say if your mother absolutely had to have an abortion to ensure that she would survive.
Just if your mother was thinking of having an abortion. If your mother, like many people even on this site, simply didn't want to be burdened by you, how can you possibly agree with that.
It's purely selfish.
I didn't say if your mother absolutely had to have an abortion to ensure that she would survive.
Just if your mother was thinking of having an abortion. If your mother, like many people even on this site, simply didn't want to be burdened by you, how can you possibly agree with that.
It's purely selfish.
I wasn't just talking about her survival - I also meant her career, future, marriage, etc. Things could have turned out very differently if she hadn't had me. In fact she had no intention of having children and I was an accident.
Whilst its great that I am here and actually able to argue with you about this - I also wouldn't resent my mother for having an abortion, waiting a few years until she is more stable and then trying again for a child.
I don't see anything wrong with wanting my parents to have the best possible life. I think you're placing too much worth upon your existence. We're not all that special you know.
Original post by da_nolo
Our bodies fight cancer naturally. to try and help that effort is natural as well.
What the ****? Immune response to (not all) cancer cells exists, therefore, chemotherapy and radiotherapy are natural?
Original post by aoxa
For me, the "cut off" point is birth, because before birth the baby does not breathe and is still dependant on the mother. Once it is born, it is independent - in the sense that it breathes, moves on its own accord, and as long as it is fed, and is cared for, it can survive outside the mother's body. In fact, once it is born, the child no longer needs a mother. It can be cared for by anybody.
You are sick! A baby inside the womb moves on its own accord too, so what point are you trying to make there? I'm confused.
Again, using your logic, a premature baby can be put to death since it's not capable of breathing on its own.
Original post by aoxa
For me, the "cut off" point is birth, because before birth the baby does not breathe and is still dependant on the mother. Once it is born, it is independent - in the sense that it breathes, moves on its own accord, and as long as it is fed, and is cared for, it can survive outside the mother's body. In fact, once it is born, the child no longer needs a mother. It can be cared for by anybody.
I find it strange to judge whether something is a person, based on whether it can survive in the absence of something else.
Something breathing, is another strange cut of point.
What's more, children can survive without the mother pre-birth, premature pregnancies are proof of that.
A pre-birth child is still an independent entity. It is aware of it's surroundings and can interact with them to the best of it's ability. The only difference is whether it breaths on it's own, and that it is physically attached to the mother.
Frankly, the idea that birth is the cut off point, is just as ridiculous as the idea that conception is.
Original post by dartanoir
Actually that is wrong. It's been proven that foetuses that are less than 24 weeks old do not have the brain connections to feel pain, so something is making me doubt the 'research' that has gone into formulating and backing up the rest of your argument.
http://www.mccl.org/unborn-babies-can-feel-pain.html
1. That's not a cycle - a cycle goes round and round - dropping a ball is not a cycle.
2. A ball is an inadequate analogy to say the least.
3. The ball does not undergo any kind of development, growth, change; other than losing potential energy
This is just so lame.
2. A ball is an inadequate analogy to say the least.
3. The ball does not undergo any kind of development, growth, change; other than losing potential energy
This is just so lame.
Original post by Hype en Ecosse
It's only immoral if we decide that an embryo/foetus has a right to life. I think that right, for humans, comes alongside personhood - something I don't believe is obtained by the early developing human.
personally, that word is fake.so much I am unsure how to use it in a sentence.
however, all human beings are persons - ergo have personhood
lets look at all the definitions
def. of personhood
The quality or condition of being an individual person.
def. of individual
Adjective
Single; separate
Noun
A single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family
Single; separate
Noun
A single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family
All human beings have this discription and follow this discription from conception to death.
def. of person
noun
1. a (singular) human being, whether man, woman, or child.
1. a (singular) human being, whether man, woman, or child.
this definition fits and does describe the pre-born.
def. of being
1.Existence 2.Living; being alive.
life is arguably continuous. conception is the start of new existence. the pre-born is alive & living 100% since conception.
def. of condition
a particular mode of being of a person or thing; existing state......
no person can determine another person's quality or what lack there may be. this is why I am against the word in use. it can be applied to all humans as being of ill quality simply because you do not agree with them. e.i. an athiest may not have quality in life is not met, since he does not recognize God. OR a religious person may be not quality of life because he/she does not recognize absence of a god and therefore is trapped. OR a person living in povery does not have the same quality of life as a rich person. for what ever reason, these people should die.
the above concept of 'quality' is unjust and illogical. it can not be applied as such.
if it is applied as such, since there is no absolute description, nothing should happen. no abortion should occur.
the only real sense of quality in life is living.
however, there is another definition of personhood.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood?s=t
the state or fact of being a person.
following above definitions: all humans, from conception to death, has personhood or is in a state of personhood.
on webster-marriam web site. there is no definition given.
so, whether a person tries to use 'personhood' or not. there is only one outcome.
all humans are living beings from conception to death, and should not be disrespected nor killed outside of self defense.
Original post by Hype en Ecosse
What the ****? Immune response to (not all) cancer cells exists, therefore, chemotherapy and radiotherapy are natural?
the substance of chemotherapy and radiotherapy is a natural occurant aswell, though unstable and dangerious.
Original post by da_nolo
personally, that word is fake.so much I am unsure how to use it in a sentence.
however, all human beings are persons - ergo have personhood
lets look at all the definitions
All human beings have this discription and follow this discription from conception to death.
this definition fits and does describe the pre-born.
life is arguably continuous. conception is the start of new existence. the pre-born is alive & living 100% since conception.
all humans in a particular mode of being of a person; existing state. including single cell human being
no person can determine another person's quality or what lack there may be. this is why I am against the word in use. it can be applied to all humans as being of ill quality simply because you do not agree with them. e.i. an athiest may not have quality in life is not met, since he does not recognize God. OR a religious person may be not quality of life because he/she does not recognize absence of a god and therefore is trapped. OR a person living in povery does not have the same quality of life as a rich person. for what ever reason, these people should die.
the above concept of 'quality' is unjust and illogical. it can not be applied as such.
if it is applied as such, since there is no absolute description, nothing should happen. no abortion should occur.
the only real sense of quality in life is living.
however, there is another definition of personhood.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood?s=t
following above definitions: all humans, from conception to death, has personhood or is in a state of personhood.
on webster-marriam web site. there is no definition given.
so, whether a person tries to use 'personhood' or not. there is only one outcome.
all humans are living beings from conception to death, and should not be disrespected nor killed outside of self defense.
however, all human beings are persons - ergo have personhood
lets look at all the definitions
All human beings have this discription and follow this discription from conception to death.
this definition fits and does describe the pre-born.
life is arguably continuous. conception is the start of new existence. the pre-born is alive & living 100% since conception.
all humans in a particular mode of being of a person; existing state. including single cell human being
no person can determine another person's quality or what lack there may be. this is why I am against the word in use. it can be applied to all humans as being of ill quality simply because you do not agree with them. e.i. an athiest may not have quality in life is not met, since he does not recognize God. OR a religious person may be not quality of life because he/she does not recognize absence of a god and therefore is trapped. OR a person living in povery does not have the same quality of life as a rich person. for what ever reason, these people should die.
the above concept of 'quality' is unjust and illogical. it can not be applied as such.
if it is applied as such, since there is no absolute description, nothing should happen. no abortion should occur.
the only real sense of quality in life is living.
however, there is another definition of personhood.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood?s=t
following above definitions: all humans, from conception to death, has personhood or is in a state of personhood.
on webster-marriam web site. there is no definition given.
so, whether a person tries to use 'personhood' or not. there is only one outcome.
all humans are living beings from conception to death, and should not be disrespected nor killed outside of self defense.
Agreed.
Original post by da_nolo
Our bodies fight cancer naturally. to try and help that effort is natural as well. that has been part of human history for... extremely long period of time.
We have killed people since the beginning of our time, but haven't been doing operations, nor been able to fight cancer, nor live past the age of ~40 for most of the time humans lived on earth.
In fact the baby is alive from conception as it can fulfil the characteristics of life!
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Well so what? They're still potential babies.
Original post by alexandraa
In fact the baby is alive from conception as it can fulfil the characteristics of life!
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
A viral infection, oranges and cows also can fulfil the characteristics of life, don't get me wrong I'm not saying abortions are good because they aren't but it should be an option on the table.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Xiomara
That's like saying if you don't want to get hit by another driver and die, don't buy a car.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I don't as such disagree with your point but your analogy is poor. The aim of buying a car is to drive, not get hit by another car (which you have no control over), the sole biological reason for sex is the creation of children (which you do).
Original post by da_nolo
x
I completely agree with all of these definitions, but not with many of your extrapolations from them, for example: how does "man, woman and child" include a 'pre-born'?
In addition, your entire argument is built upon the premise that a foetus, an embryo and a zygote are all human beings (I use this as a synonym for 'person'). This is what you need to justify and it's what I disputed in my original post - simply saying "the zygote is alive and has life" isn't justification: that's the claim that you need to justify.
no person can determine another person's quality or what lack there may be. this is why I am against the word in use. it can be applied to all humans as being of ill quality simply because you do not agree with them. e.i. an athiest may not have quality in life is not met, since he does not recognize God. OR a religious person may be not quality of life because he/she does not recognize absence of a god and therefore is trapped. OR a person living in povery does not have the same quality of life as a rich person. for what ever reason, these people should die.
the above concept of 'quality' is unjust and illogical. it can not be applied as such.
the above concept of 'quality' is unjust and illogical. it can not be applied as such.
I'm having difficulty understanding your point with the above paragraph (are you a native English speaker?).
You should look up the definition of the word "quality" and apply it to the context of the definition that you cited: it has nothing to do with value or perceived value - it refers to the
countable type of quality.
Original post by da_nolo
the act of helping your body defeat an illness (cancer) is natural.the substance of chemotherapy
Can you give me an example of any animal (including humans) trying to 'defeat' cancer in the wild?
I don't know a single natural substance that we use in chemotherapy. Many of them are derived from naturally occurring chemicals, yes, but they are all either synthetic or semisynthetic.
and radiotherapy is a natural occurant aswell, though unstable and dangerious.
Radiation, for the most part, is completely harmless: the exceptions are the stuff at the high-energy end of the spectrum.
What about the IVs, the synthetic drugs, and the linear particle accelerators that we need to treat cancer? Are they natural, too?
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Turner and Townsend Degree Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 1 minute ago
Worried about the acceptance of my A level Qualifications. Need an answerLast reply 2 minutes ago
Google level 4 software development apprenticeshipLast reply 4 minutes ago
Manchester computer science foundation year academic assessmentLast reply 5 minutes ago
Accommodation for University of Birmingham - medical school applicant :)Last reply 6 minutes ago
MPhil Advanced Computer Science Cambridge - 2024 EntryLast reply 14 minutes ago
Official Veterinary Medicine Applicants thread 2024 entryLast reply 16 minutes ago
went from 3s to 9s with (literally) night before revision - ask me anythingGCSEs
57
Last reply 17 minutes ago
The Official King's College London Applicants for 2024 Entry ThreadLast reply 20 minutes ago
LSE anthropology and law 2024Last reply 22 minutes ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 23 minutes ago
Official University of the Arts London Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 19 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 22 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 19 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 22 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
