Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    I could never have an abortion. The thought of killing my own child is repellent to me, and I could not do it.

    At 24 weeks, that baby could be born and survive. I cannot see the justification of killing a human life. At any stage of pregnancy, that is a potential human life. That could be a baby, and more likely would be if the woman continued with the pregnancy.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So you would ban abortion ?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAFCStan)
    I am quite firmly on the left politically, and I identify with many women's rights causes and would consider myself to be a feminist.

    However, I struggle to morally justify the 24 week term limit on abortion. Abortion is a cause celebre for many of my fellows on the left - that if you support a shorter term limit, you are right-wing and anti-women. However, I will always stand with the oppressed, and in this case I think the unborn child is oppressed.

    Many of the arguments that people make sound like libertarian/right-wing points. "Abortion is a women's decision" - I disagree with this because I think that decisions should be collectively taken by society and the unborn child has no choice to be aborted. I find it morally unjustifiable for it to be acceptable to abort a 24 week old baby still in the womb, while if that same baby was out, killing them would be murder.

    Would like to get thoughts on this.
    I think not bringing unwanted humans into unstable, dangerous and unloving homes is whats best for society. I find Most of the people who think like this would be the first to turn their back on a child that crackhead mummy n daddy cannot care for or support or love.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    No. Forced organ donation is analogous to forced pregnancy.

    The fact that one chooses to have sex is irrelevant to the concept that both require the loss of bodily autonomy.
    Of course it is relevant. The whole point is that one is completely forced against one's will, whilst the other is a known consequence of a voluntary action. A far better analogy would be if the woman were to somehow intentionally give the violinist a fatal kidney impairment, then connect herself up to the violinist to temporarily prolong his life, before finally killing him by stabbing him in the neck, (because remember, abortion isn't just "unplugging" the fetus, it is active killing). Those are just a couple in a long list of truly atrocious analogies made throughout this paper.

    This isn't an issue of women's rights and never has been, despite what a legion of vapid feminists have tried to convince everyone of. Nowhere in the world are abortion laws made based primarily on the concept womens' autonomy - they are made based on the state of the fetus as a person with rights. Otherwise, we'd be permitting abortion right up until the moment of birth, which is ludicrous. The debate worth having is when the fetus becomes a human being and accrues said rights, which is what the OP is trying to discuss.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    Of course it is relevant. The whole point is that one is completely forced against one's will, whilst the other is a known consequence of a voluntary action. .
    Both are against her will.

    The fact she had sex doesn't change that .
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Both are against her will.
    Sorry pal, that's not how analogies work.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    Sorry pal, that's not how analogies work.
    Well, we are not talking about analogies any longer.

    You cannot even agree upon the simple point that a forced pregnancy has to override bodily autonomy.

    That is why you had to misrepresent the analogy.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I don't believe in any term 'limit'. Abortion is only wrong once the foetus/baby could survive on its own
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Well, we are not talking about analogies.

    You cannot even agree upon the simple point that a forced pregnancy has to override bodily autonomy.
    Except we are. This whole argument rests upon an analogy which is horrendously flawed and thus not actually used to determine abortion laws anywhere.

    A fetus's right to life is what the abortion debate is actually about, in the real world. As I said, otherwise we would be allowing abortion up until the moment of birth, in respect of bodily autonomy. Why doesn't this happen?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    Except we are. This whole argument rests upon an analogy which is horrendously flawed and thus not actually used to determine abortion laws anywhere.
    Again, you choose to ignore the fact that in both cases, bodily autonomy is overridden.

    You are just choosing ignore the subject completely.

    We can talk about abortion being allow at birth and etc once this basic concept is agreed upon.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAFCStan)
    I am quite firmly on the left politically, and I identify with many women's rights causes and would consider myself to be a feminist.

    However, I struggle to morally justify the 24 week term limit on abortion. Abortion is a cause celebre for many of my fellows on the left - that if you support a shorter term limit, you are right-wing and anti-women. However, I will always stand with the oppressed, and in this case I think the unborn child is oppressed.

    Many of the arguments that people make sound like libertarian/right-wing points. "Abortion is a women's decision" - I disagree with this because I think that decisions should be collectively taken by society and the unborn child has no choice to be aborted. I find it morally unjustifiable for it to be acceptable to abort a 24 week old baby still in the womb, while if that same baby was out, killing them would be murder.

    Would like to get thoughts on this.
    I agree with your thinking. I am an atheist liberal. But I have a penis, so apparently this means I cannot have an opinion on this subject.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    Agree with you there, 24 weeks is too extensive. If you're going to have any kind of consistency regarding this issue, you would want to ensure above all else that a fetus could not be aborted at any stage where it could potentially be viable. At 20-24 weeks fetuses do have a chance of viability and many have survived with medical assistance. The limit should be, at the absolute most, 20 weeks, if not even a little earlier. Since the vast majority of abortions happen well before this stage anyway, it wouldn't have much of a significant social impact either.

    Feminists trying to frame this as a misogynist issue hurt their cause far more than anyone else.
    Why is the viability outside the womb with medical assistance a reasonable cut off point?

    No baby is viable outside the womb without some pretty extensive assistance.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alba2013)
    Babies don't get aborted at 24 weeks because they are unwanted, but because they are found in scans to have severe disabilities or cause a deadly risk to the mother. It is 24 weeks because that is when those scans are carried out.
    So it's okay to destroy a life because of you've found a disability in it? Wow! I thought people learnt from the Nazis that life destroying eugenics was a really bad thing. Clearly not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    This is the most famous defense of abortion in philosophy.

    Just glancing at what limited reasoning you've presented here, you've prima facie reject the right to bodily autonomy. Not only can a woman not exercise a right of bodily autonomy, but society gets to make such choices for her.

    Would you be okay if society got to decide questions of bodily autonomy for you? Can we [society] lop off your arm because we feel its in your best interest, even if you disagree? Why not? Because you have a belief in a right to bodily autonomy? If so, then your belief as presented here is incoherent or inconsistent.
    I don't think the argument is about rejecting bodily autonomy, it's about restricting people's choices to do things when such a choice will lead to harm (in this case death) of another life.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadile)
    While I am all for abortions, I do agree that the 24 weeks limit may be too much. It is reasonable in the case of sudden health decline in the mother etc. since those things can't be predicted, but those cases already taken as exceptions to the limit anyway. In all other cases where the woman just wants to abort the pregnancy, she shouldn't need 24 weeks to do it.
    Would you support the woman's "right" to abort a child because the scan revealed it was a girl, and she wanted a boy?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    The decision of the mother takes precedence in this case because the foetus is not self-aware, and cannot reason, and therefore has no interest in continuing to live.
    So you would support the termination of an anaesthetised person (if someone wanted it to happen) because they are not self-aware, cannot reason, and has not interest in continuing to live?

    Likewise you would support the termination of a newly born (if the mother wanted it to happen), because again, it is not self-aware, cannot reason and therefore has no interest in continuing to live?

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Oppression is generally defeined as prolonged cruel or unjust treatment. It's not, however, possible to inflict cruelty on a foetus by aborting it, because it is not sentient: it simply cannot object to being aborted.

    You say it doesn't have a choice in the matter, but that's not because it's being denied a choice: it's because it cannot choose.
    Neither can a newly born baby or an anaesthetised person.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    In my view, 24 weeks is too early a limit: people should be able to have abortions at any stage of pregnancy.
    So at 9 months?

    And how about a few days post birth? Is it okay then based on your above reasoning?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Pretty sure that abortions only happen at 24 weeks if there's a serious problem detected. Nobody waits until they're 6 months pregnant to abort their child out of choice - when you more than likely have to give birth to the foetus in the process. It would be incredibly traumatic.

    It's also very rare,I read some stats somewhere from the NHS and very few are carried out this far along.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    I think not bringing unwanted humans into unstable, dangerous and unloving homes is whats best for society. I find Most of the people who think like this would be the first to turn their back on a child that crackhead mummy n daddy cannot care for or support or love.
    Surely adoption at birth to a lovely family is preferable to destruction of the life?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LavenderBlueSky88)
    Pretty sure that abortions only happen at 24 weeks if there's a serious problem detected. Nobody waits until they're 6 months pregnant to abort their child out of choice - when you more than likely have to give birth to the foetus in the process. It would be incredibly traumatic.

    It's also very rare,I read some stats somewhere from the NHS and very few are carried out this far along.
    Fact that it is rare is irrelevant.

    Murder in this country is rare, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't legislate to make it illegal.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Surely adoption at birth to a lovely family is preferable to destruction of the life?
    Do you think there are an abundance of people looking to adopt? There isn't!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Do you think there are an abundance of people looking to adopt? There isn't!
    Yes there are, and they always want to adopt babies, which are in very short supply. The interest in adoption dries up as the child ages and "becomes damaged". I mean the international adoption market is pretty huge (and of course it's almost always babies or very young infants)
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.