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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    I have a ball in my hand. I drop the ball, now with interfering without the ball it will most definitely fall to the floor. This is its natural cycle. I let go, ball falls, ball hits the ground. The fact that the ball will fall is a fact. Now let me ask you, what is the difference between me releasing the ball, catching it before it even leaves my hand and burning it and me dropping the ball and catching it half-way and burning it. The answer is; there is none! You end a natural cycle before its definite end, you kill of the emotions, the experiences it was definitely going to have; you have killed a person.

    Now let me give you some statistics:

    196,082 abortions in the UK in 2011
    44,000,000 abortions (that is 44 million) in the world
    Let me put this in to perspective, in 10 years you have killed more than the population of the united States.

    7% of abortions are for either a consequence of rape or health problems to the mother. The rest is because of social reasons. This just infuriates me, if you don't kill your fellow man to steal his money why kill your own child?

    Millions are killed every year because people are unable to make an emotional connection with them just because they are bound in a sack of skin. The same people that say "How could the Nazis kill millions of people" well they did it the same way you do!

    (the You refers to everyone supporting abortion)

    Thank you for reading,

    Gray Wolf
    your first paragraph is incorrect. I support your possition and despise all forms of abortion. however, an item in motion that stops being in motion is natural. that is natural law. an object in motion will continue to be in motion untill something stops it (how ever it may stop), while an object that is motionless will continuet to be motionless until something makes it move.

    the overall ideal, however, is worth your time and is correct. pregnancy is normal and may be agrued as such agsainst pro-abortionists that are corrupt in this thought.

    the statistics are scarry and sad.

    because people are unable to make an emotional connection with them just because they are bound in a sack of skin
    this statement is illogical as not ALL people are not emotionally connected.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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. :confused:
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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 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.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (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?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (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. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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 :lol:

    This is just so lame.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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


    (Original post by def. of personhood)
    The quality or condition of being an individual person.
    (Original post by def. of individual)
    Adjective
    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.

    (Original post by def. of person)
    noun
    1. a (singular) human being, whether man, woman, or child.
    this definition fits and does describe the pre-born.

    (Original post by 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.

    (Original post by def. of condition)
    a particular mode of being of a person or thing; existing state......
    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. :rolleyes:
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
    What the ****? Immune response to (not all) cancer cells exists, therefore, chemotherapy and radiotherapy are natural?
    the act of helping your body defeat an illness (cancer) is natural.
    the substance of chemotherapy and radiotherapy is a natural occurant aswell, though unstable and dangerious.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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. :rolleyes:
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:

    Well so what? They're still potential babies.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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).
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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

    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.