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

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by March)
    Interesting, isn't it? How the same people who call themselves 'pro-life' seem to be very much okay with cutting support for the poorest and most in need members of society when it saves them a pretty penny in taxes. It's a point most people overlook in debates.
    Umm, not me

    What I find interesting, though, is the same people who are pro-choice don't give a damn about the millions of baby boys who have their genitals mutilated without their consent, daily.

    Since we're making generalisations here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm neither pro-life or pro-choice.
    Thinking about it now, I don't think I could ever cope with having an abortion. And looking at how a baby develops in the womb, i would call that baby a human life ~12 weeks.
    But who is to say that my opinions may change if I actually did become pregnant, or was raped, or if my own health was threatened when carrying a baby?
    Also, just because *I* don't think I could go through with it, it doesn't mean I would look down on a woman that could or did have an abortion.

    The choice should be there for women who need it, and I believe others should not criticise a woman's choice just because it wouldn't be the choice they would make themselves.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HopefulMidwife)
    I'm trying to look for the original quote that I replied to, bare with me.

    Edit:

    Okay, I can't even find it (I went through about 10 pages, still couldn't lol) so I don't know whether I was replying with some validity, or not. So I'll just leave it.

    I'm not even really gonna engage in this debate anyway, not properly. They just go around in circles with various ad hominen attacks, and anger on both sides with no real conclusion. Not worth it.

    One thing I will say, however, about the law not seeing a fetus as a person. I don't think that's much of a valid point. The law is fluid and decided by other human beings. It is not an absolute truth. At various times in the judical system, various groups have no been defined as having a personhood. Maybe it'll change in regards to babies, maybe not. Who knows.

    This debate has no right answer, only opinion. And each side thinks they're right. So, I'm out.
    Babies are defined as humans.
    An embryo is not a baby, nor is it an individual yet.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HopefulMidwife)
    Thank you, it really is. I can't wait. I want to specialise in bereavement midwifery, so I will likely be working with women who have been through abortions as well as women who have suffered IUDs.

    I hope you didn't mean what you said about avoiding me if you ever come across me as a Midwife. I have strong opinions about abortion, yes, but I could never let a woman under my care feel discriminated against or mistreated because of that. I would probably cry when alone, and have thoughts in my head, but to transfer it into my conduct - no way. The worst I would do is respectfully ask my superiors if another Midwife could take my client if I really felt I couldn't handle it, if that.
    To be honest, I had assumed from your infantacide post that this was something you were very vocal about, which you could have allowed to impede your work, hence why I said that. You've since convinced me that's not the case So if I ended up with you as my midwife, sure I'd stick with you! I'm inclined to go for a doula I think though, whenever I do end up having kids, but its good to have midwives as well for the medical side of things.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HopefulMidwife)
    Umm, not me

    What I find interesting, though, is the same people who are pro-choice don't give a damn about the millions of baby boys who have their genitals mutilated without their consent, daily.

    Since we're making generalisations here.
    I was agreeing with you. I thought you made a good point.

    I also agree about the mutilation, by the way.

    Now I'm confused.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Babies are defined as humans.
    An embryo is not a baby, nor is it an individual yet.
    Is an embryo a human being, or not?

    Anyway, I was referring to the law's stance on personhood, nothing else, really.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HopefulMidwife)
    Is an embryo a human being, or not?

    Anyway, I was referring to the law's stance on personhood, nothing else, really.
    That IS the law's stance on personhood!

    An embryo is biologically a human being. But we don't value humans because they are biologically similar to ourselves; we value then for their individuality and character, their ability to interact with others, their experiences. An embryo does not have that and is not valued by default. It CAN be, if the conception is planned or wanted, but it does not have to have value or meaning.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by March)
    I was agreeing with you. I thought you made a good point.

    I also agree about the mutilation, by the way.

    Now I'm confused.
    I'm a bit confused as well. I don't think the original post was agreeing with me, though, because I'm pro-life and I don't agree with 'cutting support for the poorest and most in need members of society when it saves them a pretty penny in taxes'
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    That IS the law's stance on personhood!

    An embryo is biologically a human being. But we don't value humans because they are biologically similar to ourselves; we value then for their individuality and character, their ability to interact with others, their experiences. An embryo does not have that and is not valued by default. It CAN be, if the conception is planned or wanted, but it does not have to have value or meaning.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    lol

    And my point is the law changes, and has regarded other vulnerable groups as not having a personhood before.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No woman should be forced to go through childbirth if they don't want to. And it would change and possibly end the social, educational or physical life of the other. If it was a child that was pregnant, and they were not emotionally mature enough to care for a child, then it could send them into all kinds of mental health problems, as well as cause bullying or social isolation. It could be an emotionally scaring experience for the mother
    And what if the child was born into extreme poverty, or if it had a very poor quality of life? No child should be forced to go through that. They could also be traumatized by the thought that their parents didn't want them. Is that fair? Or is it better that its life was ended before it could feel any pain whatsoever?
    Sometimes circumstance means it's best for both the child and the parent if the mother has an abortion
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HopefulMidwife)
    lol

    And my point is the law changes, and has regarded other vulnerable groups as not having a personhood before.
    That is the law, however you ignored the rest of the post which was more important.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HopefulMidwife)
    I'm a bit confused as well. I don't think the original post was agreeing with me, though, because I'm pro-life and I don't agree with 'cutting support for the poorest and most in need members of society when it saves them a pretty penny in taxes'
    I know, that's why I said it. If you go back to my first post where I quoted you I highlighted a bit in red which I agreed with and I carried on with what you were saying. You were like:

    "The pro-life nuts who could care less about my health and wellbeing but who were totally up for me keeping the baby (but of course not helping me out financially or socially or in any other way after the pregnancy had run its course)"

    And I was basically nodding and going yup, it's interesting how they'll be pro-life until the thing's actually born.

    The whole highlighting in red thing wasn't all that clear to be fair, so I'm happy to take the blame for this one.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    That is the law, however you ignored the rest of the post which was more important.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm just going to say "okay". Would that make you happy? Not really arsed to go around in circles.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by March)
    I know, that's why I said it. If you go back to my first post where I quoted you I highlighted a bit in red which I agreed with and I carried on with what you were saying. You were like:

    "The pro-life nuts who could care less about my health and wellbeing but who were totally up for me keeping the baby (but of course not helping me out financially or socially or in any other way after the pregnancy had run its course)"

    And I was basically nodding and going yup, it's interesting how they'll be pro-life until the thing's actually born.

    The whole highlighting in red thing wasn't all that clear to be fair, so I'm happy to take the blame for this one.
    I didn't say the thing in the red, though. I was quoting you.

    I am so totally confused lol
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    To be honest, I had assumed from your infantacide post that this was something you were very vocal about, which you could have allowed to impede your work, hence why I said that. You've since convinced me that's not the case So if I ended up with you as my midwife, sure I'd stick with you! I'm inclined to go for a doula I think though, whenever I do end up having kids, but its good to have midwives as well for the medical side of things.
    No, no! I promise I'm not an arse, I just don't always ... express myself the best when it comes to emotive issues. To be honest, I can't even find/remember the original post I replied to so it's hard for me to make a retrospective decision on what I said.

    And I'd hope so!

    Doulas are good too
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Reading this has driven me to digging out my password and username so that I can log on to complain!

    The suggestion that irresponsible people who neglect to use other forms of contraception should be prevented from being given abortions is absolutely ludicrous, having a baby shouldn't be viewed as the punishment!!! Furthermore, aren't the people that unwittingly become pregnant probably those that are too young and irresponsible to have a baby? The idea that celibacy is the best form of contraception, while valid, is ridiculously unrealistic and not really a valuable contribution. Celibacy would stop 100% of unwanted pregnancies, but how many people do you think would be willing to abstain from sex until they're ready to have children?

    Women should be granted abortions because no-one should have how the next 18 years of their life will be lived dictated by a broken condom or a drunken mistake or a bunch of ignorant people screaming 'baby-killer.' Everyone makes mistakes, and an abortion is preferable to having the child and resenting it, or providing a poorer standard of living than you otherwise would have been able (had you had it under more favourable circumstances), or having the child grow up in the foster system. Adoption is a brilliant solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies, however, still require that the mother's life is disrupted for 9 months.

    Also, the ball analogy is one of the stupidest things I've ever had the misfortune to read. If you've set alight balls and are throwing them at yourself, why are we all responding to you as though you're not a crazy person? Why has no-one realised this is clearly a cry for help, HOLD HIM DOWN, WHILE I FIND A FIRE EXTINGUISHER!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HopefulMidwife)
    I'm just going to say "okay". Would that make you happy? Not really arsed to go around in circles.
    Well, yes, because you're just admitting you have no reply.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by March)
    I know, that's why I said it. If you go back to my first post where I quoted you I highlighted a bit in red which I agreed with and I carried on with what you were saying. You were like:

    "The pro-life nuts who could care less about my health and wellbeing but who were totally up for me keeping the baby (but of course not helping me out financially or socially or in any other way after the pregnancy had run its course)"

    And I was basically nodding and going yup, it's interesting how they'll be pro-life until the thing's actually born.

    The whole highlighting in red thing wasn't all that clear to be fair, so I'm happy to take the blame for this one.
    Actually I said the bit in red, not hopefulmidwife
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HopefulMidwife)
    I didn't say the thing in the red, though. I was quoting you.


    I am so totally confused lol
    Ahhh sorry I was confusing you with Edith.


    Edith said the thing in red and I agreed with her and then you thought I was generalising about something or other and... I'm still a little bit confused since it looks like we're making more or less the same points? I'm going to run away from this thread before my brain explodes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    Never said there were no differences between your bunch of cells vs a pre-born child at any stage in their life. just like how my cells are different than yours, as is an African's or a Jew's bunch of cells. we are all still human...you have still failed at arguing that.

    rightfully so, all humans should be respected and given the chance to live. your denial to this?
    Not just like our cells are different... Our cells are more or less the same. Just like how an African or a Jew's cells are pretty much the same. My point was that embryos are not yet human on even a cellular level, and you would have understood my point had you actually read about embryology as I advised rather than just coming back with your feel uninformed 'we are all different but we are all human' argument.

    You are making this a black and white argument to make it easier for you to argue against my point of view, but it isn't black and white. An embryo is simply not the same as a fully formed human being, it has a neural tube as opposed to a nervous system, it consists of far fewer types of cells, mainly pluripotent stem cells, and depending on the stage of development they can be classes into different categories. You seem to think an embryo is just a mini human, that is why I am trying to get you to actually look it up because yes you have every right to your opinion, but it is quite obviously a severely misinformed opinion.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.