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

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xiomara)
    Only no. I'm not referring to why it exists, it's why people do it. People don't always have sex to make babies, people don't always drive cars to get from A to B. That's why Formula One etc. exist, or the concept of a Sunday drive, or why people buy cars to show off etc.
    But when you drive a car, you know there is a risk that you might end up in a car crash. And if you do, you can't just throw a tantrum and magically wish the car crash away.

    The problem with the analogy lies with what the risk is. Pregnancy isn't a car crash. And the closest comparison I can think of is if your friend became disabled because of that car crash, and you had to look after him/her until they recovered. You don't just kill your friend and go "Well at least they arn't disabled anymore."

    The point is, there risks in everything we do, and we can't just ignore those risks because we don't like them.

    (Original post by Ghostly.)
    And yes "then they shouldn't have sex" is a stupid thing to say, Oh, you were in a car accident? Well you shouldn't have driven ever in the first place then.
    If you are in a car crash, then you have certain responsibilities as a result of it. If you didn't acknowledge that a crash is a possible risk of driving, and you don't want to deal with any possible consequences of a crash, then no, you shouldn't be driving a car. The same applies with sex.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Sexual intercourse is seen as a way to satisfy two individual people
    of their own emotional & physical needs if however the woman does get pregnant then the question is
    viewing when LIFE Begins.

    Some people believe life begins within the first 120 days other people believe its the first 42 days and other
    people believe life begins at conception. Personally, I think abortion is murder to an extent but it is the personal
    matter of when you believe life begins. There are reasons why people have Abortion either financial circumstances or
    or the question of being emotionally ready but the Ultimate question is ' IS THAT A SIGNIFICANT REASON TO KILL OFF LIFE? '.
    If you are religious there are religious connotations which you will have to stand and justify such as '' Oh hear you believe, Do Not Kill your Children In Fear of Poverty & Sustenance we will provide for both them and you. Verily killing them is a great sin. ''

    ^ My OPINION ON THIS !!!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    Here we go again, this is the same medieval attitude that made people have "If you are not a witch hunter you are a witch", in your case if you do not approve of abortion you approve of imprisoning and killing women; which is utter crap. Just because we wish to prevent 93% of unnecessary killings it doesn't mean we can't make amends for where the lives of mothers are threatened.

    Oh and please spare me the emotional turmoil you were in, or the difficulties the pregnancy created, when compared to killing a life it is like a butcher saying "This hurts me more than it hurts you" before proceeding to throat a lamb.
    But it's the woman's choice, she is the one carrying the child after all. By looking at your point, you seem to assume the difficulties of pregnancy as being not that great when it can cause a woman huge difficulties, both emotinally and mentally. The case in Ireland where the woman died because she had serious complications and was refused an abortion, do you think it was right that she was refused an abortion becuase it was killing life? Even if her health was in serious danger? Personally, I think in scenarios like that it's the woman's right to have an abortion, she the human being, the one who feels emotion and makes decisions, not the unborn child.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    But when you drive a car, you know there is a risk that you might end up in a car crash. And if you do, you can't just throw a tantrum and magically wish the car crash away.

    The problem with the analogy lies with what the risk is. Pregnancy isn't a car crash. And the closest comparison I can think of is if your friend became disabled because of that car crash, and you had to look after him/her until they recovered. You don't just kill your friend and go "Well at least they arn't disabled anymore."

    The point is, there risks in everything we do, and we can't just ignore those risks because we don't like them.



    If you are in a car crash, then you have certain responsibilities as a result of it. If you didn't acknowledge that a crash is a possible risk of driving, and you don't want to deal with any possible consequences of a crash, then no, you shouldn't be driving a car. The same applies with sex.
    You shouldn't eat gourmet food, because you might choke. Eating is designed for nutrition only and you should only eat for that, not for pleasure.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    You shouldn't eat gourmet food, because you might choke. Eating is designed for nutrition only and you should only eat for that, not for pleasure.
    I'm not saying you shouldn't have sex. I also think what sex evolved for is irrelevant.

    That said, there are consequences to your actions. If you are not prepared to deal with the potential consequences, you shouldn't be doing the action in the first place. This isn't necessarily something that applies in every single case, but it is something that (I think should) apply to sex. Sex comes with the possibility of pregnancy, and it up to both parties to deal with it responsibly, as they were aware it is is a possible consequence.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pink pineapple)
    But it's the woman's choice, she is the one carrying the child after all. By looking at your point, you seem to assume the difficulties of pregnancy as being not that great when it can cause a woman huge difficulties, both emotinally and mentally. The case in Ireland where the woman died because she had serious complications and was refused an abortion, do you think it was right that she was refused an abortion becuase it was killing life? Even if her health was in serious danger? Personally, I think in scenarios like that it's the woman's right to have an abortion, she the human being, the one who feels emotion and makes decisions, not the unborn child.
    You quoted the thing that explicitly stated "Just because we wish to prevent 93% of unnecessary killings it doesn't mean we can't make amends for where the lives of mothers are threatened."
    Then... you went on to write that anyway...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cybele)
    I just wonder how many unwanted children pro-lifers will be adopting in the future. Seems hypocritical if they don't. :dontknow:
    I am just wondering why you would feel mothers are heartless enough to give away their babes once they have held them.

    But to answer your question I would adopt.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Care-Free)
    I find it very hard to comprehend the idea of forcing a living, breathing human being into doing something they could hate, something that could wreck their lives, no not all unplanned pregnancies work out like that, some, in fact i'd go as far as to say that most work out and the parents are fine, they're great parents who raise a happy child...but no one should be forced into that. Not for the sake of "saving" a non sentient bunch of cells, with no consciousness, no feelings, no idea of quality of life... My inability to understand that you would suggest something makes this a pretty impossible debate for us to have.
    I will say that if i got pregnant now, i'd abort it, i dream of having children and a family but i dream of being able to support them, love them and care for them, i dream of being financially stable, i dream of having a career, knowing that if something went wrong in my relationship i would be able to support my children on my own, I would not be able to do that now, i wouldnt be able to carry one for 9 months and then give it up a care home where it may never find a loving home, i wouldn't be able to raise it knowing i cant give it what it needs, knowing it'll forever have the "uni drop out" parent with no hope. And if abortions were illegal i would go to any length to get an illegal one, at the risk of my own life because for me personally right now, a child would wreck my life completely and i will never be forced into something like that, i will not be forced into giving birth to a child who wont have the greatest possible standard of life.
    Could you please tell me what those "bundle of cells be" if left alone in:

    a) 9 months
    b) 1 year
    c) 7 years
    d) 20 years

    And could you please also explain why a "child would wreck your life completely"?

    Oh and can you please elaborate on what "Greatest possible standard of life" is?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Care-Free)
    ...doing something they could hate, something that could wreck their lives...
    the key word is could. it makes no logical sense to kill a human because of your fear of what might happen


    Not for the sake of "saving" a non sentient bunch of cells, with no consciousness, no feelings, no idea of quality of life...
    so what is the quality of life?
    I can tell you my argument now. the quality of life is existence. that's what makes it so great.

    If you think it depends on whether or not a human may be conscious in order be alive or some importance:
    1. what about when you are unconscious (Not conscious)? I was knocked out once. during that period of time, was I a non-living, unimportant thing?
    2. what about when you sleep? some people claim you are unconscious during your slumber.
    3. what about someone who just woke up from a comma or is in a comma?

    My inability to understand that you would suggest something makes this a pretty impossible debate for us to have.
    huh?:confused:

    I will say that if i got pregnant now, i'd abort it, i dream of having children and a family but i dream of being able to support them, love them and care for them, i dream of being financially stable, i dream of having a career, knowing that if something went wrong in my relationship i would be able to support my children on my own...
    so what about when you become jobless and go for broke, end up living in a car? you stop loving your kids cause you can't provide for them? see, love...love is unconditional. if you must have x amount of money or things in order to love them or be a good parent - you already lost.

    ...i cant give him/her what he/she needs...
    see, you would not need to drop out. you're just making up excuses. still...you have not provided any information or evidence as to how your 'lack' in things gives you the merit to kill your own child. can you answer me that? can you even try?

    I will not be forced into giving birth to a child..
    then don't put yourself into that situation.

    the greatest possible standard of life
    the greatest standard of life is LIFE. it is existence.


    you did not address my comments about how terrible abortion is and how much pro-abortionists have lied to say it isn't, though you stated it was.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ghostly.)
    I know this is going to be a very controversial thing to say, but it isn't JUST about the baby... it's about the parents too....
    in exception to remote possibility and the least amount of abortion cases - the parents will not die if they continue to the pregnancy.

    And yes "then they shouldn't have sex" is a stupid thing to say, Oh, you were in a car accident? Well you shouldn't have driven ever in the first place then.
    accept:

    1.you acknowledge the risk of being in a car collision when you get into a car.
    -some people have the tendency to ignore the chance of pregnancy when having sex or think it will not happen at all.

    2. after a car collision, people accept the responsibility of/to all parties or are (in some cases) forced to deal with the responsibility of/to all parties.
    -once pregnant, the responsibility to the child is ignored.

    3. a car is identified as a car.
    - the child is...?

    4. the car can be replaced
    - a child should never be on the receiving end of "can be replaced" mentality."

    5. in some cases I do and would say a person should not have been driving: under intoxication, driving irrationally, and may cause harm to themselves or others. in other words, when they are irresponsible.
    - two (or more) individuals acting irresponsible and unaware about the outcome should be informed.

    It seems interesting enough to state:
    some people who, don't/can't know that sex leads to pregnancy, are mentally insane are unable to marry and actually have some form of refrain from having sex. some legally mentally ill individuals may not be wed as well as consent to sex.

    in the above condition it is okay or smart to deny sex. however, when you inform someone that not having sex would solve the "don't want to be pregnant" desire....some how it's stupid?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    Thank you for your input. Could you please elaborate on the ethical considerations that need to be considered in abortions?
    Most of the arguments we went over were pro choice arguments because most medical students are quite liberal and value the life and rights of a fully grown woman over that of a bunch of cells. In fact trying to argue the other viewpoint from a non religious stance is actually very hard, this is because aside from asserting that the bunch of cells we call an embryo is a human (it isn't, it is an emybro, whilst its debatable what point it becomes a human it's relatively safe to say it isn't prior to twenty weeks) there are no particularly valid arguments to prevent a woman from choosing what happens to her body and her life.

    Obviously I am not saying an embryo has no rights, but it is not a fully formed human being so asserting that itis and thereforekillingit is the same as killing someone you run into in town is not a valid argument. It just shows you do not fully grasp what an embryo is and how potential for something is not the same as that something.

    I have the potential to pick up a knife and stab someone, that doesn't make me a murderer until I do it. I could drop my white shirt in a muddy puddle, but the shirt isn't dirtying til I actually do so. There is a difference between an embryo and a baby. Quite a large difference.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cybele)
    I just wonder how many unwanted children pro-lifers will be adopting in the future. Seems hypocritical if they don't. :dontknow:
    (Original post by hypocrisy is:)
    The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
    does not appear to be hypocritical if someone says adoption is good, but does not do it, under the above definition. But hey, I never heard a pro-lifer claim that everyone should adopt.

    I am open to adopting, however.


    (Original post by Sereni)
    ...value the life and rights of a fully grown woman over that of a bunch of cells
    that woman, you, and any med. student are a bunch of cells. :eek:

    trying to argue the other viewpoint from a non religious stance is actually very hard
    it seems easy for me. what is difficult, however, (I do admit) is making the point to someone who ignores or disregards the non religious stance.

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfa...olife.html.csp
    the only difference between my label as a pro-life Atheist and your label as a pro-life Christian is our outlook on the existence of a deity. Similarly, the difference between a pro-life Jew and a pro-life Muslim is once again rooted in religious differences. That being said, we can easily deduct that an anti-abortion position is not dependent upon adhering to a specific religion
    http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/28/c...ight-abortion/


    The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer.
    http://www.skepticink.com/atheistint...inst-abortion/


    I am sure you may select several links to atheists being pro-abortion. my point in presenting the links is that this "abortion is wrong" mentality is that it is not based on religions. some may have their own fight or reason based on religion, but the core principal is based on science, history, and philosophy.

    an embryo is a human (it isn't, it is an emybro, whilst its debatable what point it becomes a human it's relatively safe to say it isn't prior to twenty weeks)
    a human egg cell and sperm cell can not form a non-human thing that magically becomes human. this is impossible!

    humans can only procreate another human.

    There is a difference between an embryo and a baby.
    "we are having a baby." is this not what is said by so many parents to be when they first discover the wife is pregnant? "have" is present tense. "baby" describes the embryo.

    regardless as to what you may refer a child in the embryonic stage of life as, similar to a toddler and a teen (of whom are not considered to be a baby), that child is still human.

    there are no particularly valid arguments to prevent a woman from choosing what happens to her body and her life.
    I strongly disagree, and agree. In contrast, the goal is to better inform the woman what her decisions mean. Also, some desire certain surgical abortions to be illegal under the premise of "right to life".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sereni)
    Most of the arguments we went over were pro choice arguments because most medical students are quite liberal and value the life and rights of a fully grown woman over that of a bunch of cells. In fact trying to argue the other viewpoint from a non religious stance is actually very hard, this is because aside from asserting that the bunch of cells we call an embryo is a human (it isn't, it is an emybro, whilst its debatable what point it becomes a human it's relatively safe to say it isn't prior to twenty weeks) there are no particularly valid arguments to prevent a woman from choosing what happens to her body and her life.

    Obviously I am not saying an embryo has no rights, but it is not a fully formed human being so asserting that itis and thereforekillingit is the same as killing someone you run into in town is not a valid argument. It just shows you do not fully grasp what an embryo is and how potential for something is not the same as that something.

    I have the potential to pick up a knife and stab someone, that doesn't make me a murderer until I do it. I could drop my white shirt in a muddy puddle, but the shirt isn't dirtying til I actually do so. There is a difference between an embryo and a baby. Quite a large difference.
    "Obviously I am not saying an embryo has no rights, but it is not a fully formed human being so asserting that itis and thereforekillingit is the same as killing someone you run into in town is not a valid argument. It just shows you do not fully grasp what an embryo is and how potential for something is not the same as that something."

    I agree hence why I say if the life of the mother is threatened then abortion can be done. However what right can a fully developed human who is in no physical risk by the pregnancy assert against the definite life of another.

    I wish to ask another question. What are the rights of the mother?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    However what right can a fully developed human who is in no physical risk by the pregnancy assert against the definite life of another.
    What about mental risk?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thecrimsonidol)
    A foetus, IMO, isn't a living being until it is out of the mother's womb, and maybe a month or two prior to that.

    So up to the first 6/7 months, it's just part of the mother and so up to her to do with as she chooses.
    A foetus is very much a living thing. Perhaps you're getting embryo and foetus confused?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cybele)
    What about mental risk?
    Can you please elaborate?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    in exception to remote possibility and the least amount of abortion cases - the parents will not die if they continue to the pregnancy.

    accept:

    1.you acknowledge the risk of being in a car collision when you get into a car.
    -some people have the tendency to ignore the chance of pregnancy when having sex or think it will not happen at all.

    2. after a car collision, people accept the responsibility of/to all parties or are (in some cases) forced to deal with the responsibility of/to all parties.
    -once pregnant, the responsibility to the child is ignored.

    3. a car is identified as a car.
    - the child is...?

    4. the car can be replaced
    - a child should never be on the receiving end of "can be replaced" mentality."

    5. in some cases I do and would say a person should not have been driving: under intoxication, driving irrationally, and may cause harm to themselves or others. in other words, when they are irresponsible.
    - two (or more) individuals acting irresponsible and unaware about the outcome should be informed.

    It seems interesting enough to state:
    some people who, don't/can't know that sex leads to pregnancy, are mentally insane are unable to marry and actually have some form of refrain from having sex. some legally mentally ill individuals may not be wed as well as consent to sex.

    in the above condition it is okay or smart to deny sex. however, when you inform someone that not having sex would solve the "don't want to be pregnant" desire....some how it's stupid?

    Look I respect what you have to say, but I'll never in a million years agree so theres probably not much point me carrying on posting here haha no one is going to change anyones mind.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    Could you please tell me what those "bundle of cells be" if left alone in:

    a) 9 months
    b) 1 year
    c) 7 years
    d) 20 years

    And could you please also explain why a "child would wreck your life completely"?

    Oh and can you please elaborate on what "Greatest possible standard of life" is?
    Yes but they wont be left that long if aborted will they? so at the time of abortion you're removing a bunch of cells, i believe it's a potential life, not a life with potential.

    Because im at uni, im 19 years old, im not in a stable relationship, i dont have a stable income, i wont have a home once i have to leave uni to give birth to it, i wont have the transferable skills/education/work experience to get a job while it's growing up, i'll have lost the dream i've work so hard to create, i WILL resent that child, i wont be able to support it and knowing im wrecking a perfectly innocent childs life is far worse than removing a bunch of cells.

    the greatest possible standard of life would be the same life as what i had, care, emotional support unimaginable unconditional love right from the moment i was born... i couldn't give that to a child at the moment, i'll give that to a child when im ready for it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    the key word is could. it makes no logical sense to kill a human because of your fear of what might happen

    It could wreck their life depending on the person, i dont simply fear that a child would wreck my life, i know on no uncertain terms that it would. for some people it'd be fine and dandy...i am not one of those people right now. im too young, too financially unstable, too inexperienced...how can i raise a child to live a life i dont even know how to live yet? how can i teach a child things about the world that i dont even understand yet? how can i help a child find the right path in life when i havent even found it yet?.


    so what is the quality of life?
    I can tell you my argument now. the quality of life is existence. that's what makes it so great.

    If you think it depends on whether or not a human may be conscious in order be alive or some importance:
    1. what about when you are unconscious (Not conscious)? I was knocked out once. during that period of time, was I a non-living, unimportant thing?
    2. what about when you sleep? some people claim you are unconscious during your slumber.
    3. what about someone who just woke up from a comma or is in a comma?
    In all these situations that person has lived life and experienced happiness. An embryo hasn't.



    so what about when you become jobless and go for broke, end up living in a car? you stop loving your kids cause you can't provide for them? see, love...love is unconditional. if you must have x amount of money or things in order to love them or be a good parent - you already lost.

    Yeah, excuse me one moment while i go feed my children on love and send them out in the snow with no clothes but wrapped in emotional support. you need money for a child. not heaps...and im not saying i need heaps for them. but you need money.

    see, you would not need to drop out. you're just making up excuses. still...you have not provided any information or evidence as to how your 'lack' in things gives you the merit to kill your own child. can you answer me that? can you even try?
    Yes i would need to drop out, i cant take a screaming child into a lecture, i cant take a hungry baby into an exam and no i will not get a nanny or baby sitter, it's my child and i will be the one to look after it, im not going to palm it off onto some other mother figure for the first years of its life. I could remove a bunch of cells because letting that bunch of cells develop and be born would mean that the resulting child has a life where it's own mother cant support it, cant feed it, cant clothe it, its own drop out mother cant even provide inspiration.

    then don't put yourself into that situation.
    pipe down, i havent put myself in that situation ¬.¬

    the greatest standard of life is LIFE. it is existence.
    People kill themselves over how bad life it...how is life the greatest standard? Life is terrible for some children...how about you go tell those beaten, abused, starving children that "well hey at least you're alive right?


    you did not address my comments about how terrible abortion is and how much pro-abortionists have lied to say it isn't, though you stated it was.
    Abortion is terrible, its horrendous and traumatising but i'd rather go through that than raise a child wrong and give it a bad life.

    It's my body, i will have a child when im ready for it, when i can love and support it and give it what it needs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Care-Free)
    Yes but they wont be left that long if aborted will they? so at the time of abortion you're removing a bunch of cells, i believe it's a potential life, not a life with potential.

    Because im at uni, im 19 years old, im not in a stable relationship, i dont have a stable income, i wont have a home once i have to leave uni to give birth to it, i wont have the transferable skills/education/work experience to get a job while it's growing up, i'll have lost the dream i've work so hard to create, i WILL resent that child, i wont be able to support it and knowing im wrecking a perfectly innocent childs life is far worse than removing a bunch of cells.

    the greatest possible standard of life would be the same life as what i had, care, emotional support unimaginable unconditional love right from the moment i was born... i couldn't give that to a child at the moment, i'll give that to a child when im ready for it.
    So you believe having a child at a young age essentially ends your educations and your career prospects. This is clearly wrong. After the first year you can pretty much do anything you wish go to school come home, find a job, anything. I believe this is where the break down of the family really shows its face.

    Let me elaborate. You have a mother yes? The same mother that gave you unconditional love as you put it. When my mother had me she was working full time as a tax inspector. Do you know who looked after me? My grand mother in the mornings and afternoons and mother in the evenings. I was given unconditional love by my family and extended family. Are you in a position if it ever were to happen to have your mother and father would help out?

    Don't worry your life will not be ruined as a consequence of bringing another life in to the world.

    You have obviously led a rather financially comfortable life. However there are billions out there that are not, but this doesn't stop them being happy. The fact that you deem having a rock solid financial basis as a prerequisite to having a happy life both for your self and for your child is rather sad.

    I was wondering, what is this dream you wish to achieve?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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

    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.