Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I personally believe abortion is an issue regarding the potential mother (and partner, should he desire).

    I think the option should be made available to everyone, as there is always the risk of loosing two lives instead of one potential 'life' should the woman go through a 'back-alley' procedure.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It ain't murder until it's a person, and it ain't a person until it's developed enough. I see nothing wrong at all with destroying an unconscious ball of tissue. And if that's "denying someone the right to life", then wearing a condom or choosing not to have sex that night is too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    It ain't murder until it's a person, and it ain't a person until it's developed enough. I see nothing wrong at all with destroying an unconscious ball of tissue. And if that's "denying someone the right to life", then wearing a condom or choosing not to have sex that night is too.
    An unborn baby at 20 weeks is capable of feeling pain. Have you not seen the videos of abortion, whereby the baby does everything to get away from the item that abortionists use to crush the babies skull?

    In fact, babies at 20 weeks feel pain more intensely than adults. This is a “uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop,” according to Dr. Ranalli.

    Fetal development is already quite advanced at 20 weeks gestation:


    • The skeleton is complete and reflexes are present at 42 days
    • Electrical brain wave patterns can be recorded at 43 days. This is usually ample evidence that “thinking” is taking place in the brain.
    • The fetus has the appearance of a miniature baby, with complete fingers, toes and ears at 49 days.
    • All organs are functioning—stomach, liver, kidney, brain—and all systems are intact at 56 days.
    • By 20 weeks, the unborn child has hair and working vocal cords, sucks her thumb, grasps with her hands and kicks. She measures 12 inches.


    Three main methods are used to kill the unborn baby. They are as follows:


    • Partial-birth abortion (D&X): The unborn baby is delivered feet first, except for the head, which is punctured at the base of the skull with a sharp object. The brain is then suctioned out, killing the child. (This method was outlawed in the United States in 2007.)
    • Dilation and Evacuation (D&E): Sharp-edged instruments are used to grasp, twist and tear the baby’s body into pieces, which are then removed from the womb.
    • Saline abortion: Salt water is injected into the womb through the mother’s abdomen. The unborn baby swallows this fluid, is poisoned and dies in a process that sometimes takes 24 hours. The toxic saline solution causes severe burns over the unborn child’s entire body.


    And you want to tell me this is not immoral and the baby doesn't suffer? And in regards to your ability to suffer, what about those who can't feel pain? Are they less of a human being, and therefore should be killed?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    *To EVERYBODY on this forum*

    Watch this video on Youtube.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

    I guarantee it will change the pro-choicers.

    I seriously seriously recommend it for all those on all sides of the debate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just wanted to add my thoughts:
    abortion isn't right and it isn't wrong as there is no ultimate morality that everyone agrees on, although I appreciate that people want to discuss the issue to get closer to the truth (if there is one, but that's a whole new kettle of fish).
    Although, I think most of us agree that killing an innocent person is wrong, so it is a question of when something becomes a person, rather than if it is right to kill a person.
    I, personally, couldn't abort a foetus because I think (think, not know) life begins at conception. HOWEVER I wouldn't think of forcing this view upon anybody, as everybody has different views upon when life starts.
    For that reason I am pro-choice, despite what I would do if I were in that situation myself.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Are you like a crazy person?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes never heared of a ""hit and run type of man??", ofcourse this could be a pretty man, but also u have aswholes hey whou make a girl pregnant first and the say to a girl ( mean ) "i had good sex, u were a good whore", well and then if i was a woman, pregnant, i would also run to a abortion clinic,,,,,
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jcarz)
    *To EVERYBODY on this forum*

    Watch this video on Youtube.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

    I guarantee it will change the pro-choicers.

    I seriously seriously recommend it for all those on all sides of the debate.
    I watched it and I'm still pro-choice, sorry. But very interesting nonetheless


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jcarz)
    *To EVERYBODY on this forum*

    Watch this video on Youtube.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

    I guarantee it will change the pro-choicers.

    I seriously seriously recommend it for all those on all sides of the debate.
    Doesn't do anything for me. How can you not see that killing 6 million Jews is different from terminating a growth of cells which had no feelings?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    It is interesting that while there is a clear scientific consensus on the question, when a human individual begins his/her life - people tend to dismiss the embryological facts and opt for a more philosophical approach, preferring socially constructed criterions rather that pure empirical facts.

    The current scientific consensus is that human life (and all mammalian life for that matter) begins at conception. Since such an answer is inconvenient to the pro-choice crowd, the science behind it is subverted and distorted. The most prominent and well known pro-choice advocates don't even dispute the fact that the unborn person is a human being - they fully admit it, however they argue that abortion is permissible anyway and simply being a human being is not enough. Peter Singer is the most prominent person to go to, if you want full disclosure.

    If the unborn entity is a human being, then they must be treated equally before the law like every other human being. That is the very principle - That everyone is equal before the law. Otherwise we would be discriminating a whole group of people by the stage of their biological development, which they have no control over. It would be like discriminating me over my skin color - I don't have control over that either.

    Human rights are attributed to us by the sheer virtue of being human beings. It's in the very preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Abortion, taking into account all the scientific data we've accumulated, is the grossest violation of the right to life and the marginalization of a whole group of people based on their biological development.

    Essentially we've set the principle that a woman's right to control the body in whatever way she pleases for 9 months outweighs the entire life of another human being. A woman's right to wear skin tight pants is more important that an entire life. What a pity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xiomara)
    I don't get this? You pay 'child support' whether you have sex or not.
    Lolwut?
    I'm assuming, by that comment, you're attempting to divert the subject from abortion to 'I HATE DEM HYPOKRITKAL FEMINAZIS YEAH' so I'll cut you off.
    Already you're on the defensive. I was just applying your logic and analogy to another situation which mostly affects men. Surprisingly your analogy and logic isn't the same for this stance.

    Consenting to have sex is nothing more than consent to have sex.
    Exactly but the law doesn't see it this way and applied different standards to both men and women.

    However, once a child is born, it's either the biological father and mother pay for it, or the rest of society does (i.e, it's given up for adoption and funded by the taxpayer).
    Correct, but seeing as how the father doesn't have a choice to whether or have the child in the first place, then do you also agree that it should also be his choice to support it?

    If you're OK with contributing more tax money in order to remove financial responsibility from parents, then that's fine. Yey, end of convo.
    Great! But you've still not answered my question.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zorgotron)
    The current scientific consensus is that human life (and all mammalian life for that matter) begins at conception. Since such an answer is inconvenient to the pro-choice crowd, the science behind it is subverted and distorted. The most prominent and well known pro-choice advocates don't even dispute the fact that the unborn person is a human being - they fully admit it, however they argue that abortion is permissible anyway and simply being a human being is not enough. Peter Singer is the most prominent person to go to, if you want full disclosure.
    Source? Pretty sure you just made that up to back up your argument. Since before 23 weeks a foetus cannot survive without the mother, it is part of the mother and essentially nothing more than a parasite. It cannot live independently. Are you perhaps confusing life with a heartbeat?


    (Original post by Zorgotron)
    If the unborn entity is a human being, then they must be treated equally before the law like every other human being. That is the very principle - That everyone is equal before the law. Otherwise we would be discriminating a whole group of people by the stage of their biological development, which they have no control over. It would be like discriminating me over my skin color - I don't have control over that either.
    It's not a human being. It's a potential human being. It does not have the same rights as an adult human, for good reason. The rights of an adult woman come before those of a jelly blob of fertilized cells.

    (Original post by Zorgotron)
    Human rights are attributed to us by the sheer virtue of being human beings. It's in the very preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Abortion, taking into account all the scientific data we've accumulated, is the grossest violation of the right to life and the marginalization of a whole group of people based on their biological development.
    Lack of access to abortion is the grossest violation to human rights. They're not people, so your argument that they are marginalised is hogwash.

    (Original post by Zorgotron)
    Essentially we've set the principle that a woman's right to control the body in whatever way she pleases for 9 months outweighs the entire life of another human being. A woman's right to wear skin tight pants is more important that an entire life. What a pity.
    If you really think women have abortions to fit into tight trousers, you're a nasty piece of work. How about you put yourself in the same situation and see how you turn out. Acting like women who have abortions do it for sh*ts and giggles is deeply offensive. You have no idea what it's like.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zorgotron)
    It is interesting that while there is a clear scientific consensus on the question, when a human individual begins his/her life - people tend to dismiss the embryological facts and opt for a more philosophical approach, preferring socially constructed criterions rather that pure empirical facts.

    The current scientific consensus is that human life (and all mammalian life for that matter) begins at conception. Since such an answer is inconvenient to the pro-choice crowd, the science behind it is subverted and distorted. The most prominent and well known pro-choice advocates don't even dispute the fact that the unborn person is a human being - they fully admit it, however they argue that abortion is permissible anyway and simply being a human being is not enough. Peter Singer is the most prominent person to go to, if you want full disclosure.

    If the unborn entity is a human being, then they must be treated equally before the law like every other human being. That is the very principle - That everyone is equal before the law. Otherwise we would be discriminating a whole group of people by the stage of their biological development, which they have no control over. It would be like discriminating me over my skin color - I don't have control over that either.

    Human rights are attributed to us by the sheer virtue of being human beings. It's in the very preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Abortion, taking into account all the scientific data we've accumulated, is the grossest violation of the right to life and the marginalization of a whole group of people based on their biological development.

    Essentially we've set the principle that a woman's right to control the body in whatever way she pleases for 9 months outweighs the entire life of another human being. A woman's right to wear skin tight pants is more important that an entire life. What a pity.
    Stop lying. There is no scientific consensus on when human life starts, because there is no scientific definition of human life. Even biological life is difficult to define and there is no consensus on whether viruses are alive or dead. In short, unless you provide a definition of human life, science won't have a view on when it begins.

    What science does have is data; and that includes that over half of conceptuses are naturally aborted by the body. This effectively quashes the Christian argument that the soul is made present at conception by God; if that is true, then God has murdered over half of the soul-containing humans he created.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Source? Pretty sure you just made that up to back up your argument. Since before 23 weeks a foetus cannot survive without the mother, it is part of the mother and essentially nothing more than a parasite. It cannot live independently. Are you perhaps confusing life with a heartbeat?
    Source? How about you walk to a library and pick up a textbook on biology and embryology. I'm not going to waste my time citing textbooks on biology and embryology to prove basic biological concepts to some guy on the internet whose only credentials are his opinions. In the same way I don't waste my time trying cite sources to some creationists who deny evolution.

    The fact that fetus can't survive outside the mother's womb has no bearing on the the status of the fetus itself. It's obvious that if you take an organism and put it into an environment that is hostile to its life - that it'll die. The fetus, at the stage of its life, has adapted to live and survive in its given environment - the womb.

    It is also not a part of the mother - implying this shows your illiteracy on the subject. Already at conception does the embryo have a unique genetic code that differs from the mother's and the father's. Meaning that the DNA is unique. That genetic information has already determined the sex, eye color, body type, hair color etc of the human being.

    To say that the fetus is a part of the mother is to say that:

    1. The mother, during the stage of pregnancy, has two separate DNA's.
    2. The mother has two heads, two arms, two legs, two separate sexuals organs etc.
    3. The mother now has a total of 92 chromosomes (she has 46 and so does the fetus).

    You also contradict yourself when you call the fetus a parasite - if it really is a parasite, then clearly it is not, in any way, part of the mother's body.

    (Original post by edithwashere)
    It's not a human being. It's a potential human being. It does not have the same rights as an adult human, for good reason. The rights of an adult woman come before those of a jelly blob of fertilized cells.
    Well, biologically it is a human being. It has 46 chromosomes, a unique genetic code and the developmental mechanics are exactly the same - an embryo developing into a baby is mechanically no different from that same baby developing into a fully grown adult.

    Conception is important, because that is truly the starting point of such development.

    Sure, it may not look like a human being (your euphemism about calling it a blob of cells) - but we do not ascribe rights based on aesthetic characteristics.

    Also, we too are walking blobs of cells - just bigger ones.

    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Lack of access to abortion is the grossest violation to human rights. They're not people, so your argument that they are marginalised is hogwash.
    This already assumes that abortion is moral and that it doesn't kill human beings.

    If abortion truly kills human beings, then your slogan can be re-worded as -Not being able to kill inconvenient human beings is the grossest violation of human rights.

    (Original post by edithwashere)
    If you really think women have abortions to fit into tight trousers, you're a nasty piece of work. How about you put yourself in the same situation and see how you turn out. Acting like women who have abortions do it for sh*ts and giggles is deeply offensive. You have no idea what it's like.
    ****s and giggles? The fact is that the grand majority of abortions are not done because of medical neccessity or rape - it's done because of socioeconomic reasons. Mostly because the pregnancy gets in the way of the mother's wants, desires and ambitions. Or are you really going to argue that most abortions are done, in fact, because of medical neccessity and rape - and not because women want to go to school, pursue a career etc.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zorgotron)
    Source? How about you walk to a library and pick up a textbook on biology and embryology. I'm not going to waste my time citing textbooks on biology and embryology to prove basic biological concepts to some guy on the internet whose only credentials are his opinions. In the same way I don't waste my time trying cite sources to some creationists who deny evolution.

    The fact that fetus can't survive outside the mother's womb has no bearing on the the status of the fetus itself. It's obvious that if you take an organism and put it into an environment that is hostile to its life - that it'll die. The fetus, at the stage of its life, has adapted to live and survive in its given environment - the womb.

    It is also not a part of the mother - implying this shows your illiteracy on the subject. Already at conception does the embryo have a unique genetic code that differs from the mother's and the father's. Meaning that the DNA is unique. That genetic information has already determined the sex, eye color, body type, hair color etc of the human being.

    To say that the fetus is a part of the mother is to say that:

    1. The mother, during the stage of pregnancy, has two separate DNA's.
    2. The mother has two heads, two arms, two legs, two separate sexuals organs etc.
    3. The mother now has a total of 92 chromosomes (she has 46 and so does the fetus).

    You also contradict yourself when you call the fetus a parasite - if it really is a parasite, then clearly it is not, in any way, part of the mother's body.



    Well, biologically it is a human being. It has 46 chromosomes, a unique genetic code and the developmental mechanics are exactly the same - an embryo developing into a baby is mechanically no different from that same baby developing into a fully grown adult.

    Conception is important, because that is truly the starting point of such development.

    Sure, it may not look like a human being (your euphemism about calling it a blob of cells) - but we do not ascribe rights based on aesthetic characteristics.

    Also, we too are walking blobs of cells - just bigger ones.



    This already assumes that abortion is moral and that it doesn't kill human beings.

    If abortion truly kills human beings, then your slogan can be re-worded as -Not being able to kill inconvenient human beings is the grossest violation of human rights.



    ****s and giggles? The fact is that the grand majority of abortions are not done because of medical neccessity or rape - it's done because of socioeconomic reasons. Mostly because the pregnancy gets in the way of the mother's wants, desires and ambitions. Or are you really going to argue that most abortions are done, in fact, because of medical neccessity and rape - and not because women want to go to school, pursue a career etc.
    I suggest you provide your source because I study embryology and human reproduction and there is no scientific consensus on the beginning of human life.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Doesn't do anything for me. How can you not see that killing 6 million Jews is different from terminating a growth of cells which had no feelings?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Really? Don't you know that Hitler justified his killing by saying the Jews are not people? That's exactly what you do with the unborn child. If you can convince yourself you're not murdering, then what's going to stop you?

    Abortion is murder, and all will be held accountable in the sight of God.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cartman)
    Really? Don't you know that Hitler justified his killing by saying the Jews are not people? That's exactly what you do with the unborn child. If you can convince yourself you're not murdering, then what's going to stop you?

    Abortion is murder, and all will be held accountable in the sight of God.
    God doesn't exist, abortion is not murder, and developing foetuses are not people. Hitler was lying about Jews not being people to gain control of a nation. I am telling the truth about embryos not being people to allow women to gain control of their own bodies.

    Also, your last sentence is circular reasoning, you state that abortion is murder and then use that to assert that abortion is murder. No, first you have to prove abortion is murder and for that you need to define murder and that will involve defining human life, which I'm still waiting for you to do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    God doesn't exist, abortion is not murder, and developing foetuses are not people. Hitler was lying about Jews not being people to gain control of a nation. I am telling the truth about embryos not being people to allow women to gain control of their own bodies.

    Also, your last sentence is circular reasoning, you state that abortion is murder and then use that to assert that abortion is murder. No, first you have to prove abortion is murder and for that you need to define murder and that will involve defining human life, which I'm still waiting for you to do.
    Read post #186. If that's not a unique human being then I don't know what is.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)

    Already you're on the defensive. I was just applying your logic and analogy to another situation which mostly affects men. Surprisingly your analogy and logic isn't the same for this stance.
    Of course I am. Your motivations are painfully obvious.

    Exactly but the law doesn't see it this way and applied different standards to both men and women.
    Are you using this to say that therefore abortion is wrong? How does this relate to the premise of the thread/what am I meant to understand by this statement? You asked my opinion. I gave it. I didn't mention the law.


    Correct, but seeing as how the father doesn't have a choice to whether or have the child in the first place, then do you also agree that it should also be his choice to support it?
    I'm quite confused here. Assuming he's a taxpayer (which he must be to even be discussing child support in the first place) then he'll be supporting the child whether the court orders him to or not. It's just that if there's no 'child support' then all the taxpayers will be supporting the kid, not just him. None of us have a choice in this. So, it's either higher taxes, or individuals shouldering the financial burden of caring for their biological offspring. I answered your question, but just to make it explicitly clear, I don't believe consenting to have sex is anything more than consenting to have sex.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cartman)
    Read post #186. If that's not a unique human being then I don't know what is.
    That's all well and good, about half of the post is accurate at a glance. The rest is biologically misleading. But either way, it's not relevant. You need to define what human life is before any of this is relevant to the argument. I'm waiting!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.