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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ghostly.)
    What about rape?
    In cases of rape, there are ways to prevent conception which is viewed as moral and is accepted practice in many hospitals which have a Christian moral.

    otherwise, it is more promising to keep the child alive then to have the woman talked into having an abortion which is only another act of violence against her body.

    Are you a woman or a man?
    this does not matter . you don't have to be a crack addict to know it is bad, and you don't need to be a woman to know rape is bad.


    Plus it's completely unacceptable for you to think you have control over somebody elses body
    exactly! the child, whether an infant or fetus or single cell - is somebody else. they may not have the same body form as you, but they are 100% human and an individual. a child is not a part or portion from or of the mother, but a new developing person. somebody else. you have no merit to kill another human, especially one that is the most innocent among us.

    If I were holding a new born baby in one hand and a fetus in a petri dish in the other, and threatened to drop both but you could only save one, and you genuinely can't decide which live is more sacred? Bullcrap, you'd save the baby. Therefore you can't really believe they are equal.
    they are equal and deserve equal respect.
    in regards to 'saving', it does not change whether or not they are equal.

    similar to saving 1 person or 5 people in a dire situation. whom would you chose? lets change the situation. 5 handicap males or 1 little girl. who would you save? do the lives of the males decrease in comparison to the girl? NO. they are all equal. they are all sacred.

    every single person is equal in their own right, just different.

    in terms to the petri dish, in all likelihood that child is already not living. only reason he/she would not be still in the womb. so I would go for the baby, of whom may still be alive. . .dur :rolleyes:

    here's one for you.
    a woman holding a baby, or a woman who is pregnant...a gun man is ramped in the streets and shoots the woman that is pregnant
    and only her. how many did he kill?

    let's check with the law...
    2!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skumgummi)
    Then we've also got a large part of the driving population who drive for pleasure. And an even larger part of the population who have sex for pleasure.
    Yes, you are correct. a large population act in what they want to do to increase their pleasure. they also do drugs, drink until they pass out, etc.
    for the people driving w/ cars - some tend to speed over the limit, street race, or even steal cars. this is outside the common practice.

    though cars is nothing like a human and do not suffer from mental issues,
    sex w/ sole purpose to lust is an abuse. a misuse. simply because people abuse sex, does not change the purpose of sex and our responsibility in understanding & accepting that purpose.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    Yes, you are correct. a large population act in what they want to do to increase their pleasure. they also do drugs, drink until they pass out, etc.
    for the people driving w/ cars - some tend to speed over the limit, street race, or even steal cars. this is outside the common practice.

    though cars is nothing like a human and do not suffer from mental issues,
    sex w/ sole purpose to lust is an abuse. a misuse. simply because people abuse sex, does not change the purpose of sex and our responsibility in understanding & accepting that purpose.
    Are you being serious? Abuse and misuse. You have got to be joking! You trying to tell me that sex in the missionary position intended for procreation is the only acceptable sex?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    You have lost track of the discussion. A summary:

    1) You argued that abortion is wrong because it disrupts the natural order.
    2) Another member pointed out that so does chemotherapy
    3) Through warped logic you claimed that chemotherapy is natural
    4) As a counterargument I demonstrated that population control evolves naturally in animals and that abortion is therefore natural.

    In short, "abortion is not natural" is not a good argument.
    uh...lets go through that again.

    1.I posted in response to O.P. in which I stated it did not apply and does not work in arguing against abortion.
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    your first paragraph is incorrect. I support your position and despise all forms of abortion. however, an item in motion that stops being in motion is natural (cycle).
    I continue in mentioning laws of motion.

    2. Another member stated that the act of curing/preventing death by cancer was an interruption of a natural cycle. they did not state that chemotherapy was natural.
    (Original post by D)
    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.

    3. in response, I stated that a person's attempt to cure themselves or in other words act in effort to help themselves heal - is natural.
    Last I checked, that was correct. it is natural for us humans to try and heal ourselves. I also mention (through a summary of other posts) that the natural life cycle was not actually broken.

    4. somebody else thought i was talking out of the hole at my bottom end because - as I do believe - they misread/misunderstood my post. so they tried to say abortion was natural by evolution towards population control.

    5. now you try to support that claim - though the normal/natural cycle of pregnancy is to go full term. you use evidence that suggests animals may change their actions in procreation to lower birth rates.

    I have have not read it all yet, I'm busy typing a paper for class and studying accounting. however, my statement was as follows,
    "though I still don't see how a change in reproductive rates equates to killing a human is okay. "

    notice my statement? how does a change in how we or any animal may reduce birth rates (which may be due to less sex, in simplistic terms, or higher pregnancy complications such as miscarriage) during times of over population (which we humans are not in) could determine that surgical abortion (in which we kill a human child) is okay and normal/natural based on evolution to control the population.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skumgummi)
    Are you being serious? Abuse and misuse. You have got to be joking! You trying to tell me that sex in the missionary position intended for procreation is the only acceptable sex?
    the only acceptable sex is between two individuals that accept their responsibility for what to occur there after and accept that sex is to procreate a child (though that may not need to be the end goal). otherwise, if you do not accept this and take an immature stance in which sex is purely for your amusement - then yes. that is abusive and a misuse.

    to keep this on tract.
    the "larger part of the population who have sex for pleasure" does not make abortion okay/moral.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    uh...lets go through that again.

    1.I posted in response to O.P. in which I stated it did not apply and does not work in arguing against abortion.

    I continue in mentioning laws of motion.

    2. Another member stated that the act of curing/preventing death by cancer was an interruption of a natural cycle. they did not state that chemotherapy was natural.



    3. in response, I stated that a person's attempt to cure themselves or in other words act in effort to help themselves heal - is natural.
    Last I checked, that was correct. it is natural for us humans to try and heal ourselves. I also mention (through a summary of other posts) that the natural life cycle was not actually broken.

    4. somebody else thought i was talking out of the hole at my bottom end because - as I do believe - they misread/misunderstood my post. so they tried to say abortion was natural by evolution towards population control.

    5. now you try to support that claim - though the normal/natural cycle of pregnancy is to go full term. you use evidence that suggests animals may change their actions in procreation to lower birth rates.
    And yet, you ignore the reasons put forth that chemotherapy is not natural. And you ignore that your argument that it "has been part of human history for... extremely long period of time" is both illogical and also true of abortion. In fact abortion has been present for much longer than chemotherapy. And you ignore that if "the act of helping your body fight cancer" can be considered natural, the act of terminating pregnancy can be considered natural in exactly the same way.

    Then, you contradict yourself, saying "A patient defeating cancer is an example of breaking a natural cycle" when previously, you said that chemotherapy is natural.

    I have have not read it all yet, I'm busy typing a paper for class and studying accounting. however, my statement was as follows,
    "though I still don't see how a change in reproductive rates equates to killing a human is okay. "

    notice my statement? how does a change in how we or any animal may reduce birth rates (which may be due to less sex, in simplistic terms, or higher pregnancy complications such as miscarriage) during times of over population (which we humans are not in) could determine that surgical abortion (in which we kill a human child) is okay and normal/natural based on evolution to control the population.
    And to top it off, you don't even read my post saying that this is not an argument saying that abortion is moral, but an argument demonstrating "abortion is not natural" is not a good argument.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Me, personally: im against abortion for all the reasons OP has mentioned and i wouldnt have an abortion myself. But, I completely understand why others would have an abortion or would need an abortion. I think that the OP is wrong to force their opinion on down other people's throat because it is their decision!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Having an abortion is much better than, having a baby that
    you can't look after
    can't afford to feed
    can't afford all the bits and bobs eg.nappies, clothing ect.
    and don't want to let the mother get the baby blues (depressen)
    then the growing generation not being educated cos they can't to to collage
    unless you are prepared to adopted 100's of kids every year, accept abortion
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    This is almost certainly the best argument I have read on TSR that I haven't come across outside TSR debate. Serious, serious props.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think that this is also the best argument tooooooo
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Nice metaphoric anecdote there, very nice. However, what is better?

    A mother clearly incapable of looking after a child realising that she would be unable to look after it so she stops all the suffering for this child before it is even aware.

    Alternatively, this same mother could have the child, possibly abuse the child like you see in the news occasionally.

    For me, it really depends on each and every single scenario, it's completely different for each one. It's one of those things that well NEVER be banned either and even if it is, there are alternatives to the medical abortion procedure.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand how one can be against Abortion, at least early abortion.

    If you terminate the pregnancy when the baby is still a ball of cells, then surely there's no harm done? Cells inside your body die every day, it wouldn't be any different.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Just a couple of things to clear up...
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    in terms to the petri dish, in all likelihood that child is already not living. only reason he/she would not be still in the womb.
    You've obviously not heard of IVF then, fertilisation takes place outside the womb and then the fetus is implanted in the womb during a short surgical procedure. Thus, you can have a fetus in a petri dish that still has the potential to develop into a human being.

    here's one for you.
    a woman holding a baby, or a woman who is pregnant...a gun man is ramped in the streets and shoots the woman that is pregnant
    and only her. how many did he kill?

    let's check with the law...
    2!
    Fraid not. Murder only counts against an unborn child if they die after birth from injuries sustained in the womb. If you kill a pregnant woman, even if the child is a day away from being born, unless it's born before it dies, it's not murder.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    In cases of rape, there are ways to prevent conception which is viewed as moral and is accepted practice in many hospitals which have a Christian moral.
    Oh really? What are these "ways to prevent conception"? I call bullcrap. There's the morning after pill, then there's dangerous and unhealthy actions which can also cause instant miscarriage. I think you're just making up rubbish like the Republicans have done to back up your ill thought argument.

    (Original post by da_nolo)
    otherwise, it is more promising to keep the child alive then to have the woman talked into having an abortion which is only another act of violence against her body.
    Most women who have abortions have made an informed choice and it is what they want. Speaking for them is frankly offensive. You are undermining the choices of these women by suggesting they've been "talked into it". You just don't want to admit that hundreds of thousands of women terminate their pregnancies because they don't want to be pregnant and don't want a baby, not because they're being forced into it by somebody with violent intentions.

    I'm not replying to the rest of your argument because frankly it's infantile. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. But don't try and act like you know better than all the women out there who have made informed decisions about their own bodies which have NOTHING to do with you.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Theflyingbarney)
    You've obviously not heard of IVF then, fertilisation takes place outside the womb and then the fetus is implanted in the womb during a short surgical procedure. Thus, you can have a fetus in a petri dish that still has the potential to develop into a human being.
    please recheck your biology notes. a human fetus is a human being. there is no way for the child to being anything other than a human being.

    ivf??? you mean In vitro fertilisation, do you not?
    this is done with either an egg and sperm, or a fertilized egg also known as an embryo. not a fetus. or so I have not heard of nor seen a fetus being used in such procedure.

    Fraid not. Murder only counts against an unborn child if they die after birth from injuries sustained in the womb. If you kill a pregnant woman, even if the child is a day away from being born, unless it's born before it dies, it's not murder.
    Did I say murder or kill?
    Kill. right.
    If I'm not mistaken, a suspect found guilty in such cases can be charged with manslaughter in the U.K. this is only probable if the child is considered a human which in turn means that human is a person.

    agree/disagree?
    have I read the law wrong?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ghostly.)
    Thanks I'd like to see an argument against that haha
    That's like saying if someone forced me to save one of two identical people who would I pick? Well, I would pick the one that was closest to me or the decision would be a chance outcome.

    You see, your argument doesn't really work if you see them as the same, the baby in the petridish will become that baby in a few months time anyway so what does it matter which you save, one of them die anyway.

    You see my point of view is born out of an ability to appreciate the future and the long term, something impulsive and literalistic society is devoid of.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chappers-94)
    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
    I'm not pro or anti abortion as I believe it is up to the individual but I'm more interested in when the baby is considered to be alive or not alive

    (The virus isn't alive because they can't reproduce on their own as they need a host cell and they are incapable of metabolism throughout their entire lives! Interesting topic actually and still an ongoing debate into their biology but as for now they aren't considered to be alive as they don't fulfil the characteristics of life )


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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    There needs to be more education to stop people getting into the situation in the first place.. sex education in the UK is completely out of touch for what our generation actually know about sex. You learn what a 'vagina' looks like when most boys watch porn of some description and assume that if you get a girlfriend that that is what is expected from a relationship.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    That's like saying if someone forced me to save one of two identical people who would I pick? Well, I would pick the one that was closest to me or the decision would be a chance outcome.

    You see, your argument doesn't really work if you see them as the same, the baby in the petridish will become that baby in a few months time anyway so what does it matter which you save, one of them die anyway.

    You see my point of view is born out of an ability to appreciate the future and the long term, something impulsive and literalistic society is devoid of.
    Look at it like this. The baby can survive outside the woman. The fetus can't. A fetus is not viable until about 22 weeks. By your logic of it 'becoming' a baby, every time you pull out/have a ****/jizz yourself you're preventing the sperm from possibly becoming a baby.

    Abortions are not something pleasant but they should be available
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Oh really? What are these "ways to prevent conception"? I call bullcrap. There's the morning after pill, then there's dangerous and unhealthy actions which can also cause instant miscarriage. I think you're just making up rubbish like the Republicans have done to back up your ill thought argument.
    I do not remember the exact name, but if you ask a hospital on information, I am sure they may help you. I will try to give a more definite answer.

    Most women who have abortions have made an informed choice and it is what they want. Speaking for them is frankly offensive. You are undermining the choices of these women by suggesting they've been "talked into it". You just don't want to admit that hundreds of thousands of women terminate their pregnancies because they don't want to be pregnant and don't want a baby, not because they're being forced into it by somebody with violent intentions.

    I'm not replying to the rest of your argument because frankly it's infantile. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. But don't try and act like you know better than all the women out there who have made informed decisions about their own bodies which have NOTHING to do with you.
    you should reread my statement.
    it is more promising to keep the child alive then to have the woman talked into having an abortion
    I did not state nor does my statement suggest that every single woman who ever had an abortion was forced to do so.

    I was talking about a single moment in which a woman is raped, and discovers she is pregnant.
    what is better to say to her?
    I said that it is better to discuss the better option of allowing pregnancy, instead of telling her to terminating that pregnancy. the only way for you to say or tell her to terminate the pregnancy is to talk her into it.

    if you are confronted with a decision, and someone suggests option a rather option b, then that person is talking to you, and talking you into doing the action. they may give what ever info they have or simply say, "what about A".

    this is my understanding of these words. perhaps our perspectives are different in which you think that in order to be "talked into", the one doing the talking must be deceitful in some manner...or that the one being talked to will making an ill decision w/o proper consideration.

    I admit I did not take the normal amount of effort to over look my words to be within an absolute context of how another may see it versus how I meant it to be read.

    perhaps you may consider the question?

    would you tell the woman to get an abortion, or consider pregnancy?
    or would you op out all together?

    I know what I would want to do:
    present all information so she may understand what she is considering and what will happen after all possible outcomes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ghostly.)
    Thanks I'd like to see an argument against that haha
    There is of course another argument I can use. I see undeveloped babies as definite potential, life that will definitely come to being. However baby is in itself life, so one could argue it has more value as definite potential has come to being. So you may choose to save the baby.

    However, it is like being offered 19 pounds and 20 pounds and only being able to pick one. One would pick 20 pounds but you would not burn the 19 pounds if offered at another time.

    This argument assumes there is a slight difference in achieved potential and to be definite potential.

    You may use either depending on belief.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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.