Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ruby321)
    What I'm saying is you know full well that having sex = possible child. So if a child was to occur you should take full responsibility for your actions if a child was to occur as you are a grown adult who can make adult decisions while knowing the consequences. (well at least you should be.)
    I do know that and take the necessary precautions, and I shouldn't be punished if an accident occurs. My body, my rules, and no-one will ever take my right to control my destiny away from me.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ruby321)
    I know I'm going to get negged to death for saying something "against the standards of this day and age" and "old fashioned" But oh well.

    I definitely don't blame you. I blame the society in which we live in. I'm sorry you had to go through all that, and its precisely the ordeal you went through is why I think this. Women and girls everywhere who have no choice but to abort because they aren't ready for a baby as it will ruin their life... but its not easy to just forget about the whole thing as if it never happened, like it wasn't a big deal. (this is what pro-abortionists commonly think and will have you believe) And maybe there are some women don't have an emotional connection to the foetus, it doesn't exude from the fact that loads do and abortion is very damaging emotionally.

    If only there wasn't such a huge pressure to find partners at such a young age, boyfriends that you wouldn't for a minute think about getting married to and starting a family with and its all purely for pleasure, enjoyment and sex. And at the end of this short term agreement, guy gets sex, girl gets = ? and the guy drops her just like that, for petty reasons or simply because he got bored or maybe they both had an argument. What a huge waste of time, energy and emotions not just for the girl, but for both of them. And if a baby is to occur by accident, it is very common for the guy to want nothing to do with it and there is nothing in the law to state that he must take care of it and he just gets up and leaves. The girl in the situation is screwed over in every way. Noone sees that this an unfair exchange.

    I think more emphasis should be put on having sex in stable relationships, (yes, preferably marriage), where if a baby was to occur by accident or not it would be welcomed and the whole argument of abortion wouldn't even exist.

    That's just me though.
    You can have stable relationships where the individuals simply aren't in the right place to raise children: during university, beginning of careers, planning a change of home, not old enough, ... What you are really suggesting (of course; you're pro-life) is abstinence until marriage, which is anti-progress as it causes earlier marriages, higher divorce rates, and a lack of sexual education.

    You also talk about sex like a typical conservative religious type: "guy gets sex, girl gets = ?" Guess what: the girls gets sex as well. It takes two, and claiming like you are that women don't desire or enjoy sex is damaging to both genders and the attitude is oppressive to women.

    "It's all purely for pleasure, enjoyment and sex"
    -And what exactly is wrong with any of these?

    And this stuff about the girl getting screwed over? Well, that's why abortion is available, so that women can make a conscious decision about when they want to have children. In fact, it gives the women more choice than the man, who (legally) has no say in whether his baby will be carried or not. As you say, men have the choice to be involved in a child's upbringing or not, and abortion is allowing that choice to be given to women as well. We aren't animals, we can and should control birth and it is pretty clear the prochoice view actually puts a higher value on human life than the prolife view. Prolifers, in reality, want to stop people having sex before marriage: the opinion doesn't really care about the mother or the baby. Pro-choice on the other hand wants every mother to be able to bring a child purposefully into the world and care for it, giving a special significance to the life of an individual as coming forth as a desire of two loving individuals. That would solve SO many more problems than premarital abstinence, and fosters a much more meaningful view of childbirth than the cold view put forward by pro-life activists, who do not care for the life of the baby or the mother, and fundamentally want to put a stop to sexual liberation and equality of the sexes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ruby321)
    I'm sorry but there are thousands are accidental children, and I'm sure most of them would be outraged if they didn't have a chance to live in this world because you decided that "its better if they had the stability to be raised properly." You don't get the right to make that decision. At all.
    So you'd rather a child was unwanted than aborted? Obviously not all unplanned children go unloved, that would be extreme of me to suggest that.

    There's also the classic rape argument but that has probably been raised a hundred times in this thread already.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because you are killing a life .... Both a Sin and Immoral !
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ruby321)
    I know I'm going to get negged to death for saying something "against the standards of this day and age" and "old fashioned" But oh well.

    I definitely don't blame you. I blame the society in which we live in. I'm sorry you had to go through all that, and its precisely the ordeal you went through is why I think this. Women and girls everywhere who have no choice but to abort because they aren't ready for a baby as it will ruin their life... but its not easy to just forget about the whole thing as if it never happened, like it wasn't a big deal. (this is what pro-abortionists commonly think and will have you believe) And maybe there are some women don't have an emotional connection to the foetus, it doesn't exude from the fact that loads do and abortion is very damaging emotionally.

    If only there wasn't such a huge pressure to find partners at such a young age, boyfriends that you wouldn't for a minute think about getting married to and starting a family with and its all purely for pleasure, enjoyment and sex. And at the end of this short term agreement, guy gets sex, girl gets = ? and the guy drops her just like that, for petty reasons or simply because he got bored or maybe they both had an argument. What a huge waste of time, energy and emotions not just for the girl, but for both of them. And if a baby is to occur by accident, it is very common for the guy to want nothing to do with it and there is nothing in the law to state that he must take care of it and he just gets up and leaves. The girl in the situation is screwed over in every way. Noone sees that this an unfair exchange.

    I think more emphasis should be put on having sex in stable relationships, (yes, preferably marriage), where if a baby was to occur by accident or not it would be welcomed and the whole argument of abortion wouldn't even exist.

    That's just me though.
    Being in a stable relationship doesnt mean you're ready to have your life ripped apart by an unwanted child.

    Aborting is taking responsibility for your actions, its not an easy way out, its something they will have to live with the rest of their lives. Your post is really very unfair to men, acting as if they all just go in for the hump and dump, as if its all their fault, women should be smart enough to choose their partners wisely if they're wanting something for the long term, if not then the guy gets sex and the girl gets sex, it takes two to tango. what about in cases where the guy does want something to do with the baby? and then she aborts it - there's nothing in the law stopping her, if she keeps it when he doesnt want it then he has to spend the next 18/19 years paying child support.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ruby321)
    what I meant is that you should only have sex if you are emotionally and physically ready to have a child IF it was to occur. Be an adult and take responsibility for your actions. You know full well: having sex = possibility of a child. And if you can't handle that then simply don't have sex!! It irradiates the need for all these is abortion wrong/right arguments.

    Also I think a women should be able to have an abortion in cases of rape if its done in the early stages of pregnancy, but rape only.
    So if i have sex and wear a condom and take other precautions, if the girl turns out to get pregnant regardless she must have the baby? even though neither of us are ready to support a baby emotionally and financially?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ruby321)
    If it fails they should definitely accept it. You are an adult and you know that sex may lead to children. If you cannot accept that possibility you shouldn't be having sex with that person or sex at all! They should be grown adults who should accept the consequences of their actions.
    Completely agree, there are consequences to our actions, and we have to deal with them.

    That being said, I am pro-choice, but feel that the age limit should be pulled back to closer to 16 or 12 weeks.

    (Original post by rainbow.panda)
    I do know that and take the necessary precautions, and I shouldn't be punished if an accident occurs. My body, my rules, and no-one will ever take my right to control my destiny away from me.
    This is the argument I really dislike. It's not just your body. The idea the foetus (no matter how undeveloped) is just a waste product from sex to do with as you wish is horrible.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ruby321)
    Its all opinions and mine is probably up until the time when it can survive on its own if separated from the mother! So about 21ish weeks which is what we have now.
    Utter horsecrap. No babies survive at 21 weeks. Babies which are born at 23 weeks have a less than 1% chance of survival. The current (correct) limit is 24 weeks. Educate yourself before making up numbers in your head.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    This is the argument I really dislike. It's not just your body. The idea the foetus (no matter how undeveloped) is just a waste product from sex to do with as you wish is horrible.
    Too bad the government is on my side, huh? It's funny because as a man, you will never have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy in your life, yet you think you can police how much control I, a woman, have over my own body.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A tumour has more cells than a fetus (within the first few months).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rainbow.panda)
    Too bad the government is on my side, huh? It's funny because as a man, you will never have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy in your life, yet you think you can police how much control I, a woman, have over my own body.
    Me not being able to get pregnant does not negate any opinion I have about abortion. You could easily say "As a woman, you will never have to deal with a woman giving birth to your child, therefore you should have no say as to the laws of child support.". But of course, that's just silly.

    Pregnancy, isn't just about you, and to claim it is, is downright selfish. As well as your own body, you're dealing with a potential (or current) life, as well as someones unborn child.

    You are free to do as you wish with your own body, as long it doesn't affect someone else's. And that is where the government is on my side. What we differ on, is when the limit is.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Presenttime)
    That I agree with : )
    it refers to acting before pregnancy. once someone is pregant, they have a child.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    it refers to acting before pregnancy. once someone is pregant, they have a child.
    That is incorrect, when you fertilise you have a conceptus, later on a blastocyst and morula. This is all a pre-embryo. When you get a primitive streak you have an embryo.

    These are the same things that fish have.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carrotstar)
    There might be no good to abortion in your opinion, but in mine there is less bad than in other options.
    never knew allowing an innocent human to live to be considered worse than killing him or her.

    Yes adoption is an option, but there is currently less demand for adoptable children than there are children, meaning that many live in care homes for their younger years.
    I played football for a team referred to as 'boys home'. these were kids who were never adopted. I work with one of them today, as well as had contact with many over the years. they are rather content and happy with their lives. what a person's live may be like, does not warrant a death penalty.

    The production of solar panels and devices which are supposedly saving other resources are using resources themselves to be produced...surely you would justify the point of mentioning those as that they are for the greater good?
    yes, some are. some are not - however. the idea is to replace "energey source". which may reduce other affects as well as reduce the demand on a single or multiple resources that are being pulled thin.

    still, I see no merit in killing another human being in excuse to ease living when the death does not solve the issue nor ease it.

    On the point that things cost resources to be produced, it is currently far more efficient to use pure gas for central heating or the hob because heat energy is lost in the process that changes the form of the energy. That means that until we can produce electricity without using any fossil fuels, we are wasting some of those precious resources.
    energy is always 'wasted' in every sort of way it is used. it is never 100% efficently used.

    Yes, many problems are created by the way we act rather than the size of the popultion..but a larger population would mean more people acting that way.
    incorrect. you assume how the child will act, and that this action in some way gives merit to kill the child. both assumptions are illogical.

    as stated before, killing a person does not solve the problem - therefore it is not a solution and should not be done.

    if anything it worsens the problem.

    "the way people act is harming our livelihood, we need population control in terms of abortion. oh, problem solved, we can be irrisponsible still."

    its similar mentality as littering. "someone is going to pick it up, so it does not matter what I do."

    And yes, perhaps I would abort a baby that was disabled so that they did not suffer after birth, but I wouldn't even consider killing a child or adult in such a situation.
    there is no garuantee that the child will suffer. "disabled" is a large umbrella. my friend is disabled - in a wheel chair.
    even the word "suffer" covers too large of a possibility. you suffer every day in stress.

    point is still the same. what people experience every day and just being different does not merit a right to kill another person. regardless to their developmental stage in life.

    May I also bring in that your reference to the Aryan race, as Hitler tried to appeal to, could actually be a way forward. Though I mean this as in ensuring that children are not born disabled so that they will struggle in life, rather than specifically blonde hair and blue eyes...that would be ridiculous.

    I will point out here that I hate Hitler.
    then why support his actions and reasoning? "suffering" was used as an excuse to force abotion on many as well as kill multiple "handicap" individuals. its the same system of ignorance used by a new face.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Abortion is evil.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    That is incorrect, when you fertilise you have a conceptus, later on a blastocyst and morula. This is all a pre-embryo. When you get a primitive streak you have an embryo.

    These are the same things that fish have.
    how is a human female pregnant?
    by having a human offspring
    which is also referrred to as a child!
    how so? oh - fertilization, etc. etc.
    oh, so a pregnant woman has a child developing within her womb. so what I said is correct.

    okay.

    these are not the same things that a fish has, as there is no human dna in fish. the process and the manner it is described is similar.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    never knew allowing an innocent human to live to be considered worse than killing him or her.

    I played football for a team referred to as 'boys home'. these were kids who were never adopted. I work with one of them today, as well as had contact with many over the years. they are rather content and happy with their lives. what a person's live may be like, does not warrant a death penalty.

    yes, some are. some are not - however. the idea is to replace "energey source". which may reduce other affects as well as reduce the demand on a single or multiple resources that are being pulled thin.

    still, I see no merit in killing another human being in excuse to ease living when the death does not solve the issue nor ease it.

    energy is always 'wasted' in every sort of way it is used. it is never 100% efficently used.

    incorrect. you assume how the child will act, and that this action in some way gives merit to kill the child. both assumptions are illogical.

    as stated before, killing a person does not solve the problem - therefore it is not a solution and should not be done.

    if anything it worsens the problem.

    "the way people act is harming our livelihood, we need population control in terms of abortion. oh, problem solved, we can be irrisponsible still."

    its similar mentality as littering. "someone is going to pick it up, so it does not matter what I do."

    there is no garuantee that the child will suffer. "disabled" is a large umbrella. my friend is disabled - in a wheel chair.
    even the word "suffer" covers too large of a possibility. you suffer every day in stress.

    point is still the same. what people experience every day and just being different does not merit a right to kill another person. regardless to their developmental stage in life.


    then why support his actions and reasoning? "suffering" was used as an excuse to force abotion on many as well as kill multiple "handicap" individuals. its the same system of ignorance used by a new face.
    Nice to know you have an opinion, but I'm gonna leave it there.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Science doesn't support your claims, because it doesn't make claims about things like this.
    there is no definition or clarification as to whom or what is human in science?

    no science does not make a claim, it is not a person. it does provide a system for gathering information, which supports my claim.

    my claim: we are human beings from conception to death.

    If you define an individual, science can tell you whether something falls under that definition or not. However your current definition of having different genetics or being a combination of two cells is not a good one.
    science provides information in determining who is human, that's dna. you want to know if organism a, b, or c is human? then you look at dna (if restricted from all other forms of evidence).

    information through science supports that.

    the new human individual is not a sperm cell nor egg cell. the genetic coding is different, and the purpose is different. what is purpose? lets break it down simple: sperm cell, to fertilize; egg cell, to be fertilize. is the single cell person supposed to do any of this? no. so if we looked at the purpose, we can see the child is not an egg cell or sperm cell as previously stated.

    When placental trophoblast cells form, they join together and become a syncytium. The placenta also combines maternal and paternal DNA. Does this make the placenta a new individual? Why aren't you campaigning to save the placentas? The placenta is alive, we could keep it alive, but we "abort" it regularly.
    in short, the placenta is an organ not a being. it is derived from fetal cells, making it a part of the child. the placenta, in turn does its purpose. there is also dna from the mother, however this is due to the connection it has to the uterus.

    What about triploidy mosiac syndrome? There are many cells in those individuals' bodies that have an entirely different number of chromosomes in their cells. The abnormal cells have their own DNA coding. Does that mean half of their body is a new individual?
    my statement about the number of chromosomes was towards the lack of a normal amount for the condition of distinguishing a human being versus the previously stated egg/sperm cell. there is a group of x numbers that represent the # of chromosomes for a human being which may be above, bellow, or exactly 46. 23 is not in this group.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    there is no definition or clarification as to whom or what is human in science?

    no science does not make a claim, it is not a person. it does provide a system for gathering information, which supports my claim.

    my claim: we are human beings from conception to death.

    science provides information in determining who is human, that's dna. you want to know if organism a, b, or c is human? then you look at dna (if restricted from all other forms of evidence).

    information through science supports that.

    the new human individual is not a sperm cell nor egg cell. the genetic coding is different, and the purpose is different. what is purpose? lets break it down simple: sperm cell, to fertilize; egg cell, to be fertilize. is the single cell person supposed to do any of this? no. so if we looked at the purpose, we can see the child is not an egg cell or sperm cell as previously stated.

    in short, the placenta is an organ not a being. it is derived from fetal cells, making it a part of the child. the placenta, in turn does its purpose. there is also dna from the mother, however this is due to the connection it has to the uterus.

    my statement about the number of chromosomes was towards the lack of a normal amount for the condition of distinguishing a human being versus the previously stated egg/sperm cell. there is a group of x numbers that represent the # of chromosomes for a human being which may be above, bellow, or exactly 46. 23 is not in this group.
    If you care so goddamn much about lowering abortion rates, go out and promote contraception, thus preventing pregnancy in the first place. Funny how when women like me who have had abortions have commented, you retreat right into your shell and say nothing. I think you are a coward and a hypocrite. You show all the empathy in the world for unborn foetuses, yet none whatsoever for grown human adults who are in horrible situations because of pregnancy. How about this case for starters: http://www.salon.com/2013/04/18/crit...ving_abortion/

    This is what happens when abortion is illegal. Women face imprisonment for having valid miscarriages, women who need abortions to save their own lives are punished, women who are raped are forced to raise the children of their rapists, women who do not want children or cannot support children financially, socially or otherwise are forced to have them regardless. By promoting an end to abortion, you are promoting what the UN describes as TORTURE. http://www.policymic.com/articles/30...ion-as-torture

    You know what torture is, right? Would you like to be tortured? Do you think any human adult deserves to be tortured because of another human who doesn't even exist yet?

    You clearly have NO concept of what it is like to have an abortion, the valid reasons for having abortion, nor the ways in which a foetus develops, and thus your opinion remains just that, an OPINION. Thank god that the rest of the world isn't as ignorant as you.

    Oh, and by the way, two abortions down and I'll probably have more in my lifetime. So will hundreds of thousands of other women. Get the hell over it. There are more important things to worry about rather than bullying women who decide to take their lives into their own hands. Women always have, and always will have abortions, whether you bloody like it or not. The state should provide services for abortion because otherwise, women are denied basic healthcare rights - basic HUMAN RIGHTS. If you don't want an abortion, then don't have one. Until then, how about you keep your hurtful and bigoted opinions to yourself.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    how is a human female pregnant?
    by having a human offspring
    which is also referrred to as a child!
    how so? oh - fertilization, etc. etc.
    oh, so a pregnant woman has a child developing within her womb. so what I said is correct.

    okay.

    these are not the same things that a fish has, as there is no human dna in fish. the process and the manner it is described is similar.
    Actually, the majority of DNA in a fish is the same. Same with great apes, bananas, ...

    Why this obsession with biological matter? As I've said before, this cold, biological perspective on human life degrades humanity far more than the pro choice perspective of valuing a human being for their personality, the love it took for them to exist, their thoughts and wishes, their experiences. It's almost materialistic to call something with human DNA "human" just because it has that DNA. What if we recombine the entire human genome into a virus? We can do that easily. Would that be human? No, DNA is not what makes humans human. It's the human condition that makes a human special. I simply don't ascribe importance to a conceptus because my opinion of the value of human life is based on more important things than that.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 

2,261

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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.