Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by puppy)
    I'm gona advise you really strongly to drop it now, people are going to lose all respect for you if you continue to push that point.
    :ditto:

    ('cept it already happened)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CamRob)
    That's ridiculous, I don't want a kid but I'll be ****ed (or not) if I'm gonna stay celibate until I do.
    It's genuinely the only sure fire way not to have a baby though, it's not that ridiculous. To my mind you shouldnt be having sex until you're old enough to deal with the consequences of getting pregnant. If I'd been having sex when I was much younger I would have been constantly terrified of what I'd do if I was pregnant, and now it doesn't bother me because I know if I got pregnant I'd be able to have the baby and look after it. If people choose abortion then they should at least be old enough to book it themselves and deal with it emotionally. That's the price you pay for having sex.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musicbloke)
    I am NOT some dirty utilitarianist.


    Hang on. Dodgy ground here. If someone gets upset by me walking down a street should they be allowed to stop me?


    What exactly does responsibility to a foetus consist of???


    No, because responsibility to a child actually, like, exists...

    MB
    Responsibility number one would be not terminating it.

    We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest. You can only get so far in this debate, once you get to the 'where does life begin' question you can't really debate anymore. I believe that life begins at conception and you obviously think it starts at birth. Both views make our beliefs easily justifiable, it's just a matter of opinion after that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tom)
    -----------
    ((OK, this is where I give up arguing and start just insulting you [hyprocrite, I know]))
    -----------

    What the ****?! You want legislation to ban abortion because you wouldn't want to take responsibility for it - get "involved" - yourself?! That's beyond pathetic, and frankly removes your right to hold or espouse any kind of opinion at all.
    I don't think you understood my point so please think before you call me pathetic. I was merely saying that I don't have the authority to force people to carry a baby, so I'd rather the law did that for me. In the same way as I'd rather the law put murderers in jail and I didn't have to start hunting them down myself. I don't think my position is unreasonable. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Having a kid is not the ONLY outcome of putting your **** inside someone. In fact it's a fairly minute probability the majority of the time and pretty ****ing far from your mind when it's happening.

    It's like only ever getting in a car if you accept that it could leave you paralysed or dead, it could happen, but who actually thinks like that?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by puppy)
    It's not though, it's not comparable to anything. You get a child at the end of it that you'll love unconditionally. I don't really see it as an imposition.
    We might be arguing at cross-purposes here? -- I'm saying that it IS an imposition if a continued pregnancy, and then obviously motherhood, is forced upon someone (which it effectively is if we tell everyone they cannot have abortions). You're also making an interesting assumption about unconditional love, which I have to contest (but I'm not going to get into a lengthy debate about it; just registering my different opinion). I'm not saying that pregnancy *is* comparable to anything else, but if the physical, emotional, financial and other implications involved were transferred to another situation, it would be considered wrong to force it on someone. To insist that someone goes through with it, then, seems wrong (according to this argument). Neither of us believe that anyone should be forced into something, though, so we agree on the underlying issue.

    (And I do agree that people should be strongly encouraged to take responsibility for their actions and decisions. Not to the point of legislation or enforced 'guilt', though).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I just find it sad that everyone keeps talking about the inconveniences of the mother and father and all sorts but no one ever talks about the baby itself whose entire life is in the balance. Should we kill it, should we not, should we kill it, should we not.

    Moving onto a related question then, to all those pro-lifers who think abortion is permissible, should it be permissible even at 6, 7, 8 months? Are you actually factoring in the welfare of the baby at all? The pain it'll go through?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CamRob)
    Having a kid is not the ONLY outcome of putting your **** inside someone. In fact it's a fairly minute probability the majority of the time and pretty ****ing far from your mind when it's happening.

    It's like only ever getting in a car if you accept that it could leave you paralysed or dead, it could happen, but who actually thinks like that?
    Yeah I understand sex, thanks anyway.

    I'm not saying it's a conscious choice, but at some point you accept that these things may be outcomes of what you're doing. I didn't start having sex until I'd accepted and dealt with the reality that I might get pregnant or catch an STD- it's just a matter of caculated risk. I'm flying to Boston next week and I accept that Virgin might lose my luggage and that I might crash in to the sea in a flaming fireball. That's why God invented benzodiazepines, so I can be largely unaware if either of those things come to pass.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    God, this is priceless: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle3649197.ece
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by puppy)
    To my mind you shouldnt be having sex until you're old enough to deal with the consequences of getting pregnant.
    Funnily enough, to an extent this is actually what I think. That is to say, in my own life the time chosen to sleep with someone is the time I have come to terms with what that potentially means. (That statement is deliberately tense-less, so don't try to read anything into it! :p:)
    (Original post by CamRob)
    It's like only ever getting in a car if you accept that it could leave you paralysed or dead, it could happen, but who actually thinks like that?
    I do, actually!
    I never get into a car without it crossing my mind; and I never get into the drivers' seat without thinking to myself that I might kill someone. And that is perfectly honest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    I just find it sad that everyone keeps talking about the inconveniences of the mother and father and all sorts but no one ever talks about the baby itself whose entire life is in the balance. Should we kill it, should we not, should we kill it, should we not.

    That's because it isn't a baby.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    :rolleyes: That's such an open question. How about this: the foetus is a baby that has a right to life as well.
    Do you know if anyone's done any work on a line that says the foetus does have a right to life, but that's not enough to rule out abortion (as in you don't have the same kind of obligation to allow someone to be parasitic on your body for nine months and cause you a certain amount of risk to your own life as you do not to murder someone)? I'm not taking that line - I don't recognise the right to life of a foetus - but it's just occurred to me and I'm interested. A rough parallel would be the fact that we don't force people to, say, donate a kidney if it would preserve someone's life.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by puppy)
    God, this is priceless: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle3649197.ece
    Not to mention ridiculous. I'm sure he can keep his sex life separate from his work life. It's not like he did it at Dachau whilst a tour group watched.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by puppy)
    I'm not saying it's a conscious choice, but at some point you accept that these things may be outcomes of what you're doing. I didn't start having sex until I'd accepted and dealt with the reality that I might get pregnant or catch an STD- it's just a matter of caculated risk. I'm flying to Boston next week and I accept that Virgin might lose my luggage and that I might crash in to the sea in a flaming fireball. That's why God invented benzodiazepines, so I can be largely unaware if either of those things come to pass.

    Yeah it's a potential outcome, and it's something you accept as a remote possibility. But that doesn't mean that you won't do everything you can to stop it becoming a reality, or that you should not do it simply because you don't want that outcome to ever happen.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rushda)
    I just find it sad that everyone keeps talking about the inconveniences of the mother and father and all sorts but no one ever talks about the baby itself whose entire life is in the balance. Should we kill it, should we not, should we kill it, should we not.

    Moving onto a related question then, to all those pro-lifers who think abortion is permissible, should it be permissible even at 6, 7, 8 months? Are you actually factoring in the welfare of the baby at all? The pain it'll go through?
    I'm not going to answer that, because you keep making the same mistake again and again: you assume that all the pro-lifers (do you mean pro-choice? I think we're ALL pro-life in one way or another...; otherwise, if you do actually mean pro-life, you're only talking to puppy) think a collection of cells, or a foetus, is a "baby".

    And there's a mistake in assuming everyone believes a collection of cells/foetus/baby has equal rights to the mother. I'm not telling you what people do belivee, just flagging up he assumptions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    I want the legislation - because then I'm not involved.
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    I don't think my position is unreasonable. :rolleyes:
    "Because then I'm not involved" - you're involved in calling for the legislation, you're involved in voting for the politicians who draft it, and you're involved (passively) in acquiescing to the enforcement outcome.

    To think otherwise - and to, in fact, want it to be otherwise - is unreasonable.

    What you're saying essentially amounts to "I wash my hands of it - let the legislators handle the consequences" after we've pointed out to you at length what the negative consequences would be. Hence, I would stand by calling it not only unreasonable, but pathetic.





    edit: dammit. I start out, pages ago, by saying "angry angry people" and end by becoming one myself. Bah. I hate getting to the point in arguing where I've lost both the sense of perspective and good humour.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Furthermore, what rights do we give it? If someone accidently hits a pregnant woman in a car should they be up for two charges of manslaughter? Can we let foetuses open bank accounts? And so on and so forth.

    MB
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by puppy)
    God, this is priceless: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle3649197.ece
    Oh for goodness' sake. Role play is role play: let the man get on with it. So long as he's not doing things without permission from the poeple he's doing them with, I don't see the problem in terms of his career.

    The implications concerning the S&M industry, porn industry, voyeurism industry...different matter, and depends on personal stance. (Probably another argument we shouldn't have in the chat thread).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    Not to mention ridiculous. I'm sure he can keep his sex life separate from his work life. It's not like he did it at Dachau whilst a tour group watched.
    hahahahahahah oh that cracked me up.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wanderer)
    Do you know if anyone's done any work on a line that says the foetus does have a right to life, but that's not enough to rule out abortion (as in you don't have the same kind of obligation to allow someone to be parasitic on your body for nine months and cause you a certain amount of risk to your own life as you do not to murder someone)? I'm not taking that line - I don't recognise the right to life of a foetus - but it's just occurred to me and I'm interested. A rough parallel would be the fact that we don't force people to, say, donate a kidney if it would preserve someone's life.
    I think the person you are thinking of is Judith Jarvis Thomson (article "A Defence of Abortion"). I prefer her stance to most pro-choicers because she at least admits that the foetus could have a right to life.
 
 
 
Poll
Should Banksy be put in prison?

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

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