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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheWorldEndsWithMe;4853394 8)
    Except I am convinced (and the caption under the picture proves it) that that is what the child looked like after months in hospital care. That child looks like a full-term baby, not a premature one, and certainly not one that's as premature as 22 weeks.

    So no, that's not 'what people are aborting at 22 weeks'. That's what people would be aborting at 35+ weeks. Which, as well all know, is illegal.
    Indeed, that picture was of a much older baby.

    This one was born at 22-24 weeks (the linked article explains the confusion):


    Physically, medically, visually, but only half legally, this is a human being.

    There are some more stills of babies born around the same time as aborted babies in this rather 'slushy' video, too:
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    ye I think if you're in a marriage, the man should have some say.
    Most children in the UK are born outside of marriage and unwed fathers have almost no rights but a full set of legal responsibilities. Would you not extend any rights to these men, and have only the woman decided whether to
    a) Terminate his child's life; or
    b) Commit him to paying child maintenance for 18 years.
    Should he have no say in the matter just because — like the mother — he is not married?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darien)
    Most children in the UK are born outside of marriage and unwed fathers have almost no rights but a full set of legal responsibilities. Would you not extend any rights to these men, and have only the woman decided whether to
    a) Terminate his child's life; or
    b) Commit him to paying child maintenance for 18 years.
    Should he have no say in the matter just because — like the mother — he is not married?
    I don't agree with a lot of the laws surrounding children and parents. tbh.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Except those sorts of abortion only usually occur when the mothers life would be endangered by carrying it to term, at which point you're arguing for a potential child possibly surviving (I've not got the stats to hand, but as I recall survival rates for children where the mother dies in childbirth are quite low) over a woman's life - most abortions happen in the first trimester.
    The medical determination whether to terminate the child's life to save the mother (or the mother's life to save the child) has been an issue which doctors/midwives have had to make for millennia. As such, it is not an abortion issue and can only divert attention from the genuine discussions about abortion.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darien)
    The medical determination whether to terminate the child's life to save the mother (or the mother's life to save the child) has been an issue which doctors/midwives have had to make for millennia. As such, it is not an abortion issue and can only divert attention from the genuine discussions about abortion.
    You've completely ignored what I said there - abortions that occur later on in pregnancy are generally due to life-threatening complications. Most abortions occur in the first trimester where the foetus is pretty much nothing.

    If you want to go onto the "that's not an abortion issue" then you need to ditch this "look at this 22 week old foetus" stuff, because by your own standards that is not an abortion issue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, abortion should not be illegal.

    I believe that the rules on abortion should be a lot stricter, no selfish excuses, no lies, just valid reasons.

    Take this scenario, a young woman, 25 to be exact has fallen pregnant after a one night stand. She doesn't want the child due to her devotion to her career. Would you let her abort? No. She should be made to have this child, her reasons for abortion are selfish. If she feels like she still doesn't want the baby, then there is always adoption.

    However, making someone have a child they clearly don't want can lead to other issues. Abortion is a very fragile subject and one that should be approached with caution and respect. After all, we live in a society where we are free to make choices ourselves. Taking this away is almost revoking our human rights.

    Abortion is an extremely tricky subject. It ultimately comes down the the individuals choice.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jessiereadsbooks)
    No, abortion should not be illegal.

    I believe that the rules on abortion should be a lot stricter, no selfish excuses, no lies, just valid reasons.

    Take this scenario, a young woman, 25 to be exact has fallen pregnant after a one night stand. She doesn't want the child due to her devotion to her career. Would you let her abort? No. She should be made to have this child, her reasons for abortion are selfish. If she feels like she still doesn't want the baby, then there is always adoption.

    However, making someone have a child they clearly don't want can lead to other issues. Abortion is a very fragile subject and one that should be approached with caution and respect. After all, we live in a society where we are free to make choices ourselves. Taking this away is almost revoking our human rights.

    Abortion is an extremely tricky subject. It ultimately comes down the the individuals choice.
    Why should we punish women for having a healthy sex life? If someone doesn't want to carry a foetus to term they shouldn't have to. End of.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jessiereadsbooks)
    No, abortion should not be illegal.

    I believe that the rules on abortion should be a lot stricter, no selfish excuses, no lies, just valid reasons.

    Take this scenario, a young woman, 25 to be exact has fallen pregnant after a one night stand. She doesn't want the child due to her devotion to her career. Would you let her abort? No. She should be made to have this child, her reasons for abortion are selfish. If she feels like she still doesn't want the baby, then there is always adoption.

    However, making someone have a child they clearly don't want can lead to other issues. Abortion is a very fragile subject and one that should be approached with caution and respect. After all, we live in a society where we are free to make choices ourselves. Taking this away is almost revoking our human rights.

    Abortion is an extremely tricky subject. It ultimately comes down the the individuals choice.
    So she should have 9 months of discomfort, pain, possibly die, possibly lose her job because although it's illegal her boss might still find a reason to sack her so no maternity leave is needed, go through the trauma of relinquishing her child for adoption so that the child can grow up either in care or knowing it was given up for adoption. All for what reason? Because she was a woman who liked sex and you think she's selfish?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jessiereadsbooks)
    No, abortion should not be illegal.

    I believe that the rules on abortion should be a lot stricter, no selfish excuses, no lies, just valid reasons.

    Take this scenario, a young woman, 25 to be exact has fallen pregnant after a one night stand. She doesn't want the child due to her devotion to her career. Would you let her abort? No. She should be made to have this child, her reasons for abortion are selfish. If she feels like she still doesn't want the baby, then there is always adoption.

    However, making someone have a child they clearly don't want can lead to other issues. Abortion is a very fragile subject and one that should be approached with caution and respect. After all, we live in a society where we are free to make choices ourselves. Taking this away is almost revoking our human rights.

    Abortion is an extremely tricky subject. It ultimately comes down the the individuals choice.

    How do you decide what is selfish and what is not a selfish reason to have an abortion? I find the reason you listed a perfectly rational, not selfish in any way reason to abort. You don't. So, considering how subjective 'selfish' reasons are, how do you decide what is and isn't selfish?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darien)
    A person's organs don't fully develop until they are in their late teens.

    Many people alive in the western world today would not be alive without medical intervention, whether that is for influenza, diabetes, or any number of problems that modern medical practice solves. I don't think these things can be used as a measure for whether someone is a person who has the human right to life, or is a sub-human without the right to life.
    Well I think they can. life/respiratory support is a very different thing to insulin treatment, vaccines etc. In my opinion, someone on life support is not alive.

    As other people have stated, abortion after 18-ish weeks is 9/10 times due to medical problems, as in the mother or baby wouldn't survive, or the baby would have seriously severe lifelong illness. This sometimes has to be at this late stage as some of these problems can only be detected then. Most 'I dont want to be pregnant' abortions take place before 12 weeks so in very few incidences does the pregnancy reach this grey area of 20-24 weeks where it's still legal.

    edit: Put in some stats. In 2011 91% of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation. 78% were at under 10 weeks
    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ommentary1.pdf
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jessiereadsbooks)
    No, abortion should not be illegal.

    I believe that the rules on abortion should be a lot stricter, no selfish excuses, no lies, just valid reasons.

    Take this scenario, a young woman, 25 to be exact has fallen pregnant after a one night stand. She doesn't want the child due to her devotion to her career. Would you let her abort? No. She should be made to have this child, her reasons for abortion are selfish. If she feels like she still doesn't want the baby, then there is always adoption.

    However, making someone have a child they clearly don't want can lead to other issues. Abortion is a very fragile subject and one that should be approached with caution and respect. After all, we live in a society where we are free to make choices ourselves. Taking this away is almost revoking our human rights.

    Abortion is an extremely tricky subject. It ultimately comes down the the individuals choice.
    I would have an abortion for that reason. And I do not care if you think it is selfish. I simply refuse to be forced to carry a child I do not want for 9 months, and if it became illegal in the UK I would travel somewhere else to have it done. I do not want a child at this time, I use birth control and I enjoy sex (and there is nothing wrong with that) now for you to decide that if I accidentally get pregnant and don't want the child is selfish is just plain ridiculous. I think it's selfish to force a child into this world whose mother doesn't want it, I think it's selfish to force a child into the system because it was put up for adoption. And you can argue all day long about how there is demand for babies from people who want to adopt (and yes there is) however if you were to make abortion illegal for "selfish reason" then two things WILL happen, the amount of babies being put up for adoption would sky rockets causing the balance to shift so that there are more babies than there are people wanting to adopt them and there WILL be more back ally procedures being done to terminate pregnancies.

    It's a good job you're not in charge of legislation isn't it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Abortion should remain legal.

    The state has no right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.

    The adoption argument is a pointless one. Some women choose that option, and that's great if it's right for them, but it isn't right for every woman. I wouldn't want to live in a country, where women were forced by law, to carry their unwanted babies for nine months. While I have no experience of it, I can't imagine pregnancy is always a walk in the park, so it would be morally wrong to make women continue with pregnancies.

    As for "valid reasons" suggestion someone made previously. Who are you to say what is a valid reason? What about situation where birth control fails (which can and does happen)? Surely you couldn't "punish" someone for failed birth control?

    And think about the legal implications of such a system. Imagine a situation where a young woman has fallen pregnant, she isn't ready for a baby right now, she wants to focus on her career. The state says that isn't a "valid" reason, and as she cannot afford to travel abroad to have the abortion, she has to continue with the pregnancy with a view of adoption. During the birth, the young woman develops complications and dies, as does the baby. Can you imagine the public outcry? And what about the woman's family, they'd almost certainly sue the state, and likely win. Yes it might sound a bit far-fetched, but women do die during childbirth, although thankfully it isn't common here.

    And adoption isn't without its critics either.

    I know someone (a relative of a friend) who decided to continue with her pregnancy, and put the baby up for adoption, but she was cut-off by some family and friends for that (who were disgusted she could "give up" her baby).

    I know it's a cliché, but as they say, if you're against abortion, don't have one. Leave the law alone for everyone else though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    At the end of the day, no-one's opinions are wrong or right.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DropkickSmurfy)
    Abortion should remain legal.

    The state has no right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.
    I feel that this approach is a smokescreen and only misdirects from the true issue at hand - the issue of whether the fetus is a human being with a right to life. While body autonomy is an aspect of the abortion debate, it's not the only one.

    The state already tells women, and really everyone, what they can and what they can't do with their bodies. The right to body autonomy is not absolute. I cannot use my body in a manner that causes harm to other people - this is a clear limitation to the freedom of the use of my body.

    So, to say that the state cannot tell woman what to do with her body - this already assumes, that the fetus is not a separate being, but a part of the female body. But biologically speaking, this is absurd. The fetus is distinct from the mother by the sheer virtue of having separate DNA, it's own body, organs etc - for all practical intents and purposes, it's a completely separate organism. You do not say that during pregnancy, the mother has two heads, four arms, four legs, two sets of reproductive organs simply because a developed fetus has these features.

    There is an intuitive response of disgust in most people, when seeing a pregnant woman smoke or drink alcohol. That's because we see the fetus not as a part of the woman, such as her hand or her foot, but we see it a separate being, a future member of society. If the state truly has no right to tell women what they do with their bodies, then on that principle, would you say that you have no problem having pregnant women smoke, do drugs and drink alcohol EVEN IF they wish to carry their pregnancy to term? After all, if the fetus has no right to life, it clearly doesn't have the right to not be harmed.

    (Original post by DropkickSmurfy)
    Abortion should remain legal.
    The adoption argument is a pointless one. Some women choose that option, and that's great if it's right for them, but it isn't right for every woman. I wouldn't want to live in a country, where women were forced by law, to carry their unwanted babies for nine months. While I have no experience of it, I can't imagine pregnancy is always a walk in the park, so it would be morally wrong to make women continue with pregnancies.
    Pregnancy is not a disease that renders woman in constant suffering and misery. Sure, it is inconvenient, but in no way debilitating. For the most part, pregnant women remain fully functional for the majority of pregnancy and continue working.

    Consequently, I do not want to live in a country, where an entire lifetime full of experiences hinges on the arbitrary whims of the mother. That's how the pro-lifers see fetuses - as human beings. If you dismiss this and argue solely from bodily freedom, then you're not really addressing the opposition, so you won't really be convincing them.

    There is a clear conflict between the fetal right to life and the mothers freedom for body autonomy. Pro-lifers believe that the right to life outweighs the mothers right to use her body however she wishes for 9 months.

    (Original post by DropkickSmurfy)
    As for "valid reasons" suggestion someone made previously. Who are you to say what is a valid reason? What about situation where birth control fails (which can and does happen)? Surely you couldn't "punish" someone for failed birth control?
    This, again, is a loaded argument. It assumes that the fetus is not a human being with rights. You cannot kill already born, but illegitimate children, simply because birth control failed. So, the right to life clearly does not hinge on whether someone was born due to failure of birth control. A ''surprise'' baby is in no way morally less valuable than an expected baby.

    (Original post by DropkickSmurfy)
    And think about the legal implications of such a system. Imagine a situation where a young woman has fallen pregnant, she isn't ready for a baby right now, she wants to focus on her career. The state says that isn't a "valid" reason, and as she cannot afford to travel abroad to have the abortion, she has to continue with the pregnancy with a view of adoption. During the birth, the young woman develops complications and dies, as does the baby. Can you imagine the public outcry? And what about the woman's family, they'd almost certainly sue the state, and likely win. Yes it might sound a bit far-fetched, but women do die during childbirth, although thankfully it isn't common here.
    It's a tragedy, I agree. A compromise would be that in life threatening situations, abortion is permissible. While ethically debatable, one can at the very least argue, that in this situation abortion is conducted not for the purpose of killing a fetus, but for the purpose of saving a human being in a situation, where no action taken would result in the death of two. This compromise does not dehumanize the fetus.

    (Original post by DropkickSmurfy)
    And adoption isn't without its critics either.

    I know someone (a relative of a friend) who decided to continue with her pregnancy, and put the baby up for adoption, but she was cut-off by some family and friends for that (who were disgusted she could "give up" her baby).
    How else should we feel about mothers, who abandon their children? With cheers, endorsement and encouragement?


    (Original post by DropkickSmurfy)
    I know it's a cliché, but as they say, if you're against abortion, don't have one. Leave the law alone for everyone else though.
    Again, this statement show that you do not understand pro-life on a fundamental level. The pro-lifers see fetuses as human beings, so your statement to them sounds like - ''Don't like the killing of innocent human beings? Don't kill them then.''

    Imagine if a slaveowner told abolitionists - Don't like slavery, don't own one.

    If you want to criticize the opposition, then you need to address them on their terms, not on yours.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    No, abortion should not be made illegal. Fetuses, whether they are human or not, are not rational or self-aware; as such, they do not have a preference to live, and if the mother so wishes that the fetus should be aborted, then her preference outweighs the non-existent preference of the fetus.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fortunesfool)
    I think the pro life argument is less about actually caring about the foetus, but more used to punish and label these women who have had sex (often, premarital sex). If they cared solely about the foetus, surely they would be against abortion even if the mother was raped. Obviously it's about sex, because they punish women who have an abortion after having chose to have sex, but don't punish women who have an abortion after being raped. This, in my opinion, shows that it isn't about "murdering an unborn child" but more as a means of punishing, labelling and oppressing these women. Technically, a foetus is still a foetus even if it was a product of rape, so theoretically they should be against even rape victims getting abortions.

    I don't agree with this at all, I'm not trying to be insensitive, I think it's completely up to the women. I'm not saying rape victims or women who have sex should be punished, I'm just saying that technically if they thought of it as murder, surely even the foetus of the rape victim 'deserves' to live. What makes it lesser than all these other 'murdered' foetus'?
    I
    've never heard that arguement before but it is so true and I agree so much.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is like RE all over again. In my opinion abortion shouldn't be allowed unless having the baby could put the mother's life in danger because even if the mother doesn't want the baby for whatever reasons the baby could be taken out of the womb early and it could still survive. A couple who can't conceive or a gay couple could adopt the baby. So instead of wasting a new life that baby could bring joy and happiness to a different family.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think that abortion should be made illegal in the UK. Women should not be burdened with a child that they do not want because it is less likely to be cared for sufficiently causing and increase in the number of children in child care etc. When a woman has been raped, keeping that child would be a constant reminder of the horror they experienced, is that really fair?? I understand that some women may become more responsible with the use of contraception if this law was announced but I think that everyone deserves one chance. Maybe it should only be legal once?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sadaf2)
    I
    've never heard that arguement before but it is so true and I agree so much.
    Thank you, it's my sisters viewpoint and she told me about and I completely agreed with her.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sky280)
    This is like RE all over again. In my opinion abortion shouldn't be allowed unless having the baby could put the mother's life in danger because even if the mother doesn't want the baby for whatever reasons the baby could be taken out of the womb early and it could still survive. A couple who can't conceive or a gay couple could adopt the baby. So instead of wasting a new life that baby could bring joy and happiness to a different family.
    There are already loads of children in care homes making abortion illegal would just produce more unwanted children, I would rather be aborted than grow up in care with no family, it's not right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body, it wouldn't stop abortion it would just mean people started making money from dangerous ones again.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • 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.