Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    My view is that the foetus is alive but not yet a human being therefor it can not be murdered.
    genetically it is human and the pictures recently published have shown that the foetus displays some caracteristic human behaviour much earlier than was previously thought
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    genetically it is human and the pictures recently published have shown that the foetus displays some caracteristic human behaviour much earlier than was previously thought
    It is easy enough to say that a foetus in the womb is "dancing" or is "smiling" because that is what it appears to be doing however you are putting a human emotion onto the foetus that it doesn't have. It has been shown that the foetus that they showed smiling doesn't have the capacity to be feeling happiness causing it to smile it is just a muscle movement. The foetus is alive I am not denying that however so are animals like pigs and sheep however they are killed in huge numbers everyday, I would say that they are much more alive than a foetus is they have been shown to have more brain activity ect. I think that it is horrible how late some abortions are carried out in this country and this is unaceptable but I just don't believe that a foetus is a human being.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    this is somewhat morbid
    Offline

    14
    I think only the abortions one, euthanasia shouldn't be legal because it might get twisted into an excuse for murder and it would cause a lot of problems, and death penalty for serious crimes is hypocritical.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm against the death penalty because mistakes can me made, I've seen people let out after being wrongly accused, but a life you cannot give back :/
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I think that it is horrible how late some abortions are carried out in this country
    Then this might shock you randdom.

    Here's something I came across from another forum:

    Its easy to say we all make mistakes when drunk, but when you get involved with someone you dont know doing intimate things, you really need your wits about you.

    My friend was in a similar situation to you - blind druink, went back to some random blokes house (didnt even catch his name) and had sex. Obviously, too drunk to think about protection. She said she couldn't even remember if they had or hadnt done it the next day.

    Some months went by and she never thought about it. She started getting stomach pains, and lo and behold, she was pregnant. She was 5 months gone as well (wasnt showing at all, she just thought she had put a bit of weight on) and felt it was too late for a termination.

    Even though it was a nightmare at the time, she now has a lovely 2 year old daughter. Only problem being she will never know who her dad is. My friends 'thinks' she has seen him in a local bar since, but still has no idea. It's important to think of the consequences.
    I can't see how people ever contemplated a termination as late as this. Also whilst I do not condone people taking advantage of people in the situatio nquoted above, if you get drunk you should not be excused, it is you that got yourself in this mess.

    I voted against the death penalty on several grounds, mainly it's not a deterrent and you will be reckless as to whether an innocent life will be taken away, and I did not like the wording on the abortion option and there was no mention of a cut off point.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Why is there no 2 only option? That's what I would (practically) choose. Idealistically though, I'm skewed towards the none of the three option.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Do Chickens Fly)
    Why is there no 2 only option? That's what I would (practically) choose. Idealistically though, I'm skewed towards the none of the three option.
    just tick number 2

    (have to admit I did the same thing before I realised that the first 3 votes would be for 1 only, 2 only or 3 only too)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I can't see how people ever contemplated a termination as late as this. Also whilst I do not condone people taking advantage of people in the situatio nquoted above, if you get drunk you should not be excused, it is you that got yourself in this mess.
    On other threads I have made my position on abortion clear. I think that in this case the mother should have had the option of an abortion withing the first 12 weeks of preganancy. Foetuses should be tested for genetic disorders before the 14 week and all abortions for any reason should be carried out before the 16th week. I feel that accidental or unwanted pregnancies should only be aborted within this 12 week period and after that it is too late. My cousin was born very early and I think it is horrible that so foetuses can still be aborted at the stage that she was born.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    On other threads I have made my position on abortion clear. I think that in this case the mother should have had the option of an abortion withing the first 12 weeks of preganancy. Foetuses should be tested for genetic disorders before the 14 week and all abortions for any reason should be carried out before the 16th week. I feel that accidental or unwanted pregnancies should only be aborted within this 12 week period and after that it is too late. My cousin was born very early and I think it is horrible that so foetuses can still be aborted at the stage that she was born.
    do you believe its right to abort a living thing simply because it displays a genetic disorder?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    do you believe its right to abort a living thing simply because it displays a genetic disorder?
    I don't think that it should be compulsary to abort a foetus because it has a genetic disorder but I think that the parents should be given the opportunity to do so if they feel that they cannot cope with a disabled child.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by randdom)
    I don't think that it should be compulsary to abort a foetus because it has a genetic disorder but I think that the parents should be given the opportunity to do so if they feel that they cannot cope with a disabled child.
    It would be nice if parents of such a child were given the opportunity to speak to someone who's actually experienced that particular impairment and their parents to base their decision on fact and not fears
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I don't think that it should be compulsary to abort a foetus because it has a genetic disorder but I think that the parents should be given the opportunity to do so if they feel that they cannot cope with a disabled child.
    Would this not lead to personal agendas on how they could cope? I mean, more lazy parents feel they may not cope if there child is a slow learner! To terminate a child on this note is totally wrong. So it depends really on how you define 'disabled'.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Would this not lead to personal agendas on how they could cope? I mean, more lazy parents feel they may not cope if there child is a slow learner! To terminate a child on this note is totally wrong. So it depends really on how you define 'disabled'.
    I think that has to be down to the doctor. The main ones that should be tested for are things like down sydrome ect things that are really going to effect the parents and childs life. But it has to be down to the doctors in the long run.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I think that has to be down to the doctor. The main ones that should be tested for are things like down sydrome ect things that are really going to effect the parents and childs life. But it has to be down to the doctors in the long run.
    Yes and there has to be checks so that this priviledge is not abused. If it is abused then appropriate action must be taken.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by randdom)
    I think that has to be down to the doctor. The main ones that should be tested for are things like down sydrome ect things that are really going to effect the parents and childs life. But it has to be down to the doctors in the long run.
    Unfortunately the majority of doctors still work on the medical model of disability (trying to "cure" differences to make people fit into a social norm) rather than the social model of disability (society needs to be "cured" to make it more accepting of differences http://www.bfi.org.uk/education/reso...ng/medical.php ). This leads to a very one sided problem-focussed image of disability being presented to the parents rather than a balanced view pointing out that a person is not defined by their abilities and disabilities (and of course that even an apparantly healthy foetus could turn out to have some sort of disability that cannot be screened for).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    DEath penalty, abortion, euthanasia

    Death Penalty - Somehow, the thought of Tony Blair thinking he has the legal right and justification to allow people to be publicly killed for serious crimes, is disturbing. So of course not.

    Abortion - A silly debate in my view, because I think that the majortiy of people would say that abortion is justified in extreme cases e.g.) When the health of the mother is at severe risk. So I say, legal, but only under certain circumstances.

    Euthanasia - Yes, if they want to die, let them die. It's supposed to be a free country isn't it? Why should we dictate whether someone is to live or not, when they don't want to, and there are the means to carry out a death that does not disrupt society? - Should be legal.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invisible)
    Death Penalty - Somehow, the thought of Tony Blair thinking he has the legal right and justification to allow people to be publicly killed for serious crimes, is disturbing. So of course not.
    Has he publicly said this? If so where and when? Just interested....
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by polthegael)

    Euthanasia easily available? I think you are phrasing the question so as to force people to say "no"!
    No. Sorry. I was trying to present it as a morally neutral option on the same level as the others.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    No. Sorry. I was trying to present it as a morally neutral option on the same level as the others.
    May be readily available would have been a better choice for words.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
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.