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

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel 96)
    What if I told you all that I'm non-religious and want abortions to be banned? Would you still disagree with me then? If so, why?
    I disagree with preventing legal access to abortions because I know what happened in history when abortions were not legally available. Women know what they can cope with and what they can't, and a pregnancy is physically and mentally demanding. When women who do not feel able to carry a pregnancy to term are denied access to abortion it does not make them able to cope with the pregnancy. They may seek out illegal abortion, or try to abort at home. That can cause infection and even death in the mother, and I personally would have to value the life of a mother over the life of a foetus - even a lot of pro-lifers value the life of the mother more than the unborn baby, as shown when they allow a baby to be delivered early even when it's likely that it will die once delivered so that the mother can get medical treatment, but they wouldn't approve of abortion in such a case. That seems cruel - to make both mother and baby go through premature labour with almost certain still-birth or premature death for the baby, when it could be done as a surgical procedure if the mother felt that was best for her.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel 96)
    What if I told you all that I'm non-religious and want abortions to be banned? Would you still disagree with me then? If so, why?
    Because you don't get to deny others their choices

    The right for a female to decide when and if she has a family is important and not one that can or should be dictated by Church or Men or anyone other than themselves.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel 96)
    What if I told you all that I'm non-religious and want abortions to be banned? Would you still disagree with me then? If so, why?



    Yes, there is a very popular position among the pro-life movement that the mother's life comes first in the rare occurrences where the mother might be suicidal, or where her life is threatened to the point where there is no other option but to carry out the procedure.



    If you believe in individuality and one's own right to life, how come you oppose the rights of an unborn child? A woman isn't what is in her uterus, that is a separate living being. You're effectively saying the same thing slave owners said in the 17th century; "If he/she's on my land, they'e my property".



    The trouble with that argument is that you have no right to carry out a procedure that threatens one's life when they haven't given you their consent. I believe in euthanasia because the consent is there, however, the foetus has no way of giving you any form of consent. Therefore, you're imposing your own will on them.
    Erm no. I am pro-choice abortion and I think women should do whatever they want with their bodies, and lets leave it as that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mscaffrey)
    Women know what they can cope with and what they can't, and a pregnancy is physically and mentally demanding.
    Yes, and sometimes pregnancy is an undeniably hard time for both my mother and the father, however, there is generally, in the majority of cases, no reason why the mother can't go through with the pregnancy.

    (Original post by mscaffrey)
    When women who do not feel able to carry a pregnancy to term are denied access to abortion it does not make them able to cope with the pregnancy.
    They are able to carry out a pregnancy. There is no reason why they can't, unless there is some medical implication.

    (Original post by mscaffrey)
    They may seek out illegal abortion, or try to abort at home.
    If they were to do that in a state where abortion is illegal, they would be punished either by fine or a jail sentence.

    (Original post by mscaffrey)
    That can cause infection and even death in the mother, and I personally would have to value the life of a mother over the life of a foetus
    That wouldn't be the law's fault. Yes, many pro-lifers take the side of the mother when it comes to particular situational moments, such as suicide.
    Taking something into your own hands that is unnecessary isn't of good will. It's of arrogance and nothing else.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Because you don't get to deny others their choices
    Such hypocrisy.
    You're denying a foetus' right to life because two people couldn't be bothered to have protected sex. You want to suck a foetus' brains out and cut them up into tiny pieces for extraction because two people were too arrogant to think about the complications. Yes, that doesn't go for all cases, but most.

    (Original post by loveleest)
    Erm no. I am pro-choice abortion and I think women should do whatever they want with their bodies, and lets leave it as that.
    I already pointed out the hypocrisy.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mscaffrey)
    But I also said that 'I would still argue religious organisations now'...because I do believe religious organisations are still involved with parts of society that other organisations ignore or put limited resources into. Christians in the UK have been at the front of the fight against cuts to disability benefits and housing benefits, they have also set up many of the food banks people are reliant on now because of the regressive policies that the government have put in place as well as the attitudes much of society has of people on benefits. I think it's pretty progressive to back up the poorest and most vulnerable members of society and to fight for the rights and respect they're still fighting for even in the apparently developed Britain of the 21st Century. Of course the attitude of anti-abortionists isn't progressive, but my point was that some religious organisations are still more progressive than certain areas of society and politics.
    :hugs: thank you so much for that sensible post.

    mscaffrey is quite right... the Christian churches, as well as our Muslim and Hindu friends do a colossal amount of unpaid and largely unacknowledged work in the community.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel 96)
    Such hypocrisy.
    You're denying a foetus' right to life because two people couldn't be bothered to have protected sex. You want to suck a foetus' brains out and cut them up into tiny pieces for extraction because two people were too arrogant to think about the complications. Yes, that doesn't go for all cases, but most.



    I already pointed out the hypocrisy.
    The foetus does not have a choice only the mother does.

    There are many issues why a women may choose to abort so your argument is rather narrow and for the most irrelevant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    :hugs: thank you so much for that sensible post.

    mscaffrey is quite right... the Christian churches, as well as our Muslim and Hindu friends do a colossal amount of unpaid and largely unacknowledged work in the community.
    That may be the case (but more a case of the state ignoring it's responsibilities) but this doesn't given them the right to tell others what they can or can't do with their bodies.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    That may be the case (but more a case of the state ignoring it's responsibilities) but this doesn't given them the right to tell others what they can or can't do with their bodies.
    its
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    its
    good rebuttal to my reply
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    The foetus does not have a choice only the mother does.

    There are many issues why a women may choose to abort so your argument is rather narrow and for the most irrelevant.
    So anyone who's unconscious, or unable to speak, doesn't have any rights?
    What do you mean by choice, exactly?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Good. In what kind of world is killing babies considered 'progressive'? We should be working on adoption/fostering for the unwanted babies and safer/nicer ways of helping women through pregnancy
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel 96)
    So anyone who's unconscious, or unable to speak, doesn't have any rights?
    What do you mean by choice, exactly?
    Straw man argument

    The choice to start a family or not.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel 96)
    The trouble with that argument is that you have no right to carry out a procedure that threatens one's life when they haven't given you their consent. I believe in euthanasia because the consent is there, however, the foetus has no way of giving you any form of consent. Therefore, you're imposing your own will on them.
    Aren't you imposing your will on them whether or not an abortion is carried out? The foetus hasn't give its consent to be born into an unhappy and unfulfilling life, either.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel 96)
    Yes, and sometimes pregnancy is an undeniably hard time for both my mother and the father, however, there is generally, in the majority of cases, no reason why the mother can't go through with the pregnancy.



    They are able to carry out a pregnancy. There is no reason why they can't, unless there is some medical implication.



    If they were to do that in a state where abortion is illegal, they would be punished either by fine or a jail sentence.



    That wouldn't be the law's fault. Yes, many pro-lifers take the side of the mother when it comes to particular situational moments, such as suicide.
    Taking something into your own hands that is unnecessary isn't of good will. It's of arrogance and nothing else.
    The thing is, reasons not to go through with pregnancy aren't always obvious or medically diagnosable (and if they are medically diagnosable do you know how long it can take to get a medical diagnosis for certain conditions? particularly emotional/mental health conditions that might well put the mother at higher risk of suicide). I don't think women should be forced to meet certain criteria to make decisions about their body. It takes a lot of effort to put your feelings and health first, especially when traditionally women have been expected to be maternal above all else. The majority of the time abortion is an incredible brave decision taken by a mother or family.

    You mention the lack of contraception above, but not all pregnancies are the result of lack of contraception. Sometimes contraception fails, whether it's a condom or a pill. Sometimes a woman is forced into having sex, in the case of abuse and rape. Even if you made exceptions for women to have abortions in cases where they were forced into having sex, it still wouldn't be in favour of protecting the woman as the woman would have to go through invasive questions (and sometimes even physical procedures) in order to 'prove' she was raped or abused. It's not fair to ask women to go through that - a woman should be able to ask for an abortion, receive non-invasive counselling, and receive an abortion if that is what she wants.

    And it's difficult for someone who supports contraception to make the argument that abortion is preventing a life from forming, because you could also argue that by using contraception while still engaging in sexual activity is preventing life from forming. Every egg and sperm has the potential to be a new life.

    Doesn't it tell you something that women would be willing to risk imprisonment by seeking out an illegal abortion (and don't say that they won't seek it out with jail as a deterrent - women have sought it out in Britain in the past and it's still common in places where abortion is impossible or difficult to access)? Women are desperate to not go through with a pregnancy for various reasons, from medical to situational, and it is not our job to question women in depth about their motivations for an abortion before giving them access to what is a medical procedure that is backed by all kinds of medical health professionals.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)

    The choice to start a family or not.
    So you consider the mother to have more of a say because, well, the mother has a say and the foetus doesn't. That's what you're saying, right?
    Just want to clarify that.

    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    Aren't you imposing your will on them whether or not an abortion is carried out? The foetus hasn't give its consent to be born into an unhappy and unfulfilling life, either.
    A foetus hasn't given their consent either way. You're practically guessing what they want, or going with what you want.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    One problem in all of this is defining when a fetus acquires a separate life. Most people would say that a crime has been committed if you could abort a fetus one day before delivery date.
    That has its own philosphical integrity, but if you think life begins precisely at conception, then you gain a different set of problems. Often, a newly-fertilized egg gets sloughed off or fails to implant, etc. But nobody says funeral masses or purchases cemetery plots when a woman trying to get pregnant has an unusually heavy period.

    So: where to draw the line? In the States, Roe v. Wade actually does a decent job IMO. It's been taken as an avatar of pro-choice policy by both sides of the debate, but what it does effectively say is that only the first trimester is solely the woman's business. Third trimester abortions can more easily restricted, and the second term is more up for grabs.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel 96)
    So you consider the mother to have more of a say because, well, the mother has a say and the foetus doesn't. That's what you're saying, right?
    Just want to clarify that.



    A foetus hasn't given their consent either way. You're practically guessing what they want, or going with what you want.
    No that's not what I am saying

    I'm saying the choice for a female to start a family is hers alone and no one else

    You build out of straw if you like but this is the nub of the matter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    :hugs: thank you so much for that sensible post.

    mscaffrey is quite right... the Christian churches, as well as our Muslim and Hindu friends do a colossal amount of unpaid and largely unacknowledged work in the community.
    :hugs:

    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    That may be the case (but more a case of the state ignoring it's responsibilities) but this doesn't given them the right to tell others what they can or can't do with their bodies.
    the bear was responding to my post where I was rebutting someone's claim that religion is regressive. I was making the point that you can't make as broad a claim as that, because there are areas where religion is proving more progressive than the rest of society/politicians. I did mention in the same post that I don't believe anti-abortionists are being progressive (obviously a point open to argument, although I've made it clear in this thread that I am in favour of legal abortion and religion should not be involved in making laws).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel 96)
    A foetus hasn't given their consent either way. You're practically guessing what they want, or going with what you want.
    Yes, exactly. Even if you don't have an abortion, there's no way to avoid imposing your will on the foetus and doing something to it without its consent. It's this sort of moral choice that I think only any particular woman in question can decide - I don't think anyone's more qualified to make the decision for her than her, let alone the government.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.