Do you agree with abortion??

Announcements Posted on
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Tazarooni has hit the nail on the head.

    Abortion isn't right. It is choosing to end a human life because it is convenient. The time limits are totally arbitrary and the pro abortion arguments are just attempts to rationalise what instinct tells us is wrong.

    Having said that, in extreme circumstances I, too, may favour convenience over human life. For example, if my wife was impregnated by a rapist. That doesn't make it right though and I do believe a better person than me would not take that pain out on a baby.

    To me it is callous to say you agree with abortion. How can killing a human be agreeable? However, I can understand those who, with heavy heart, accept it.

    Although, the law should protect innocents, I think policy has to be judged against its outcomes. Prohibition is never effective if public opinion doesn't support it. I've been told by people old enough to remember that abortion was widespread before it was legalised. With attitudes on abortion as liberal as they are now and because it would be so easy to get an illegal abortion, I don't think trying to stop it is practically feasible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    It's been a frightening aspect of human behaviour throughout history, that they define who is human and who isn't, who has the right to life and who doesn't, based on whatever happens to suit them at the time. And then the majority of the thoughtless population, rather than questioning or calling out the killings for what they are, become very acclimatised to it and emotionally detached from those victims, and consider it to be normal feeling that "It's only a [whatever] that's being killed, not a proper person like me".

    The fact of the matter is that for most of you, your moral aversion to something being killed primarily depends on what happens to be normal at the time. If you had been a Dutch settler in southern Africa in the 1930s, you'd probably think it was morally acceptable to hunt the indigenous black people, because they were sub-human. If you had been an Arabian living in the 1400s, you'd probably think it was perfectly normal to bury your own newborn daughter alive just for being female. If you had been a German who had Jews getting exterminated in your back yard, you might well have been the train driver who took them to their deaths, or the architect who designed the gas chambers, or the bystander who did, said and thought nothing about it - as was the case with pretty much everyone at the time.

    I think the killing of unborn children could be something that will make future civilisations will look back on us with disdain, thinking "how could they have possibly lived with themselves after doing something like that?", the way we do to other societies now. We wonder why nobody used to bat an eyelid at these atrocities, and yet most of us would have done the same thing in the same situation, as much as we might like to think otherwise. And now, when it suits us to be able to enjoy sex with whomever we want without taking responsibility for the consequences, when it suits us to be able to curb the population in an overcrowded world, when it becomes convenient for us to kill off a certain type of person, we begin to exclude them from the category of "human being" in order to normalise it and help ourselves sleep at night, like so many before us used to do.



    We seriously exceed our own authority when we step in to make decisions about which members of our species are "real" humans and which ones aren't, because the fact is that we don't know anything about what gives rise, as opposed to a vegetative or robotic existence, to someone's awareness, experiences, desires, and fundamentally the preference to live rather than die. I'm all for the "right to choose", but did anybody find out from that unborn child, whether they would rather live or die if given the choice? Maybe if it had the ability to express itself, we'd be able to find out, but as it stands nobody really knows. So rather than dressing up this "24 week limit" as some kind of implication that we know the exact point at which a meaningful life begins, let's just be honest about the way in which our society has formed its view on abortion - based on no sound philosophical reasoning at all, but on whatever is convenient for us at the time.
    well stated.

    unfortunately there is also the idea of "this is not me" which has been seen through out history as well. a disconnect to the situation. As long as it's not me or mine, I won't step in - it doesn't bother me. not mine to worry about.

    Atrocities along with other injustices occur because of these two factors.

    the man in the video is not disconnected. He considers the act performed on his own kids and is, as the teen mentioned in my previous post, discussed.

    Getting people to recognize abortion for what it is may be difficult - but a worthy cause.

    Thank you for sharing your input. Seems as though you are not disconnected.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I think the killing of unborn children could be something that will make future civilisations will look back on us with disdain, thinking "how could they have possibly lived with themselves after doing something like that?"
    If the reason behind the abortion is due to the mothers' health, or that the kid is going to be mentally ill beyond all reconciliation and therefore the parents think that you have to be cruel to be kind, I'm pretty sure they'd understand.

    The only condemnation I have for abortion is when it's used by idiots as a contraceptive because they didn't use any at the time of conception.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanielOH)
    My problem with anti-abortionists is when they class a baby as "alive", a lot saying that they count as life from the moment of conception.

    So their logic here is that they are alive before there is brain activity or even a heartbeat.
    Given that a heartbeat or functioning brain is not a prerequisite to life, we have no viable grounds to declare a human being dead. By pro-life logic, rotting corpses should still be paying taxes.

    If we can agree on a cut off date at brain activity (a ceasing of brain activity is deemed clinical death) I have no qualms with that, but don't go around saying we are murdering stem cells.
    Anti- abortionists use scientific terms and evidence to define the children as alive while in the womb.

    Many creatures exist and are alive with out brains.

    The concept that a person is dead because they do not have a pulse or brain activity is viable only to those who have a heart or brain. You would not consider a jelly fish as dead. But again this is using the scientific description of life and death - according to an organism.

    Even if we use a very loose description of life to describe how one interacts with our environment, it is illogical to use an adult's perspective on life to determine what is life.

    We wouldn't use a human adult's perspective or ability to describe how a young kid's life should be ( not in regards to how they perceive reality nor interact with it). Likewise you would not be able to determine a "quality" of life in this manner. A factual and logical representation on how life should be is dependent on our stages in life, as described in biology.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    Anti- abortionists use scientific terms and evidence to define the children as alive while in the womb.

    Many creatures exist and are alive with out brains.

    The concept that a person is dead because they do not have a pulse or brain activity is viable only to those who have a heart or brain. You would not consider a jelly fish as dead. But again this is using the scientific description of life and death - according to an organism.

    Even if we use a very loose description of life to describe how one interacts with our environment, it is illogical to use an adult's perspective on life to determine what is life.

    We wouldn't use a human adult to describe how a young kid's life should be ( not in regards to how they perceive reality nor interact with it). Likewise you would not be able to determine a "quality" of life as this is dependent on our stages in life. As described in biology.
    Of course the standard as to what life is changes from organism to organism, but my argument is that brain activity is, in the legal sense, an attribute of life. If abortion is made illegal on the grounds that what we currently deem to be dead is in fact alive, how do we now define life and death in legal terms?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Im pro-life. I do not agree with the killing of an unborn child. I'm shocked and saddened at how people can actually support this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by finlay4)
    100% Agree with abortion, who is to say a women can't do want she wants with her OWN body?
    So women should be allowed to kill their children?
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Nope

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanielOH)
    Of course the standard as to what life is changes from organism to organism, but my argument is that brain activity is, in the legal sense, an attribute of life. If abortion is made illegal on the grounds that what we currently deem to be dead is in fact alive, how do we now define life and death in legal terms?
    We do not deem - not in science, not in medicine, and not legal - the pre born to be dead or non-living.

    There are laws in place for many countries that protect pre-born and state that a crime has been committed against two humans if an assault or murder had been against a pregnant woman.

    But I would not use law to determine what is or should be as many countries have allowed slavery and even executions due to "justified" reasons - one expressed by another in this thread.

    The argument for abortion uses "dead/non-living" claim but even in legal system i do not see this claim used to describe abortion or why it is legal or the pre-born. May be wrong but I have yet to read it as the law is written (and I'm saying this based on memory). Things could have changed since I last check.

    the law as it is written, uses brain activity and pulse to determine death for humans that have those things. how can you use something others do not have to determine life?

    In an analogy, this is like saying an embryo is not human or alive because they don't have legs or eyes.

    1. They are not supposed to have those things. How fair or moral would that explanation be?
    2. What about those who do not meet that criteria after birth?

    Now, how the law should be written is accordance to science. A human is alive at conception.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    If the reason behind the abortion is due to the mothers' health, or that the kid is going to be mentally ill beyond all reconciliation and therefore the parents think that you have to be cruel to be kind, I'm pretty sure they'd understand.

    The only condemnation I have for abortion is when it's used by idiots as a contraceptive because they didn't use any at the time of conception.
    Just as there are exceptional circumstances in which we may unfortunately consider it necessary to take another human's life e.g. in cases of self-defence or perhaps euthanasia, I can certainly see that similar exceptions may need to be made in the case of abortion as well.

    But I agree with you, these instances are potentially more justifiable from an objective point of view, than the situations in which convenience is treated as more valuable than life.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    We do not deem - not in science, not in medicine, and not legal - the pre born to be dead or non-living.

    There are laws in place for many countries that protect pre-born and state that a crime has been committed against two humans if an assault or murder had been against a pregnant woman.

    But I would not use law to determine what is or should be as many countries have allowed slavery and even executions due to "justified" reasons - one expressed by another in this thread.

    The argument for abortion uses "dead/non-living" claim but even in legal system i do not see this claim used to describe abortion or why it is legal or the pre-born. May be wrong but I have yet to read it as the law is written (and I'm saying this based on memory). Things could have changed since I last check.

    the law as it is written, uses brain activity and pulse to determine death for humans that have those things.

    Now, how the law should be written is accordance to science. A human is alive at conception.
    A solid argument. One I still disagree with as it's a matter of opinion, but I commend you for the effort.

    Edit: Although reading it again, the leg and eye analogy doesn't work because human beings lose legs and eyes all the time. Losing a pulse results in death.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanielOH)
    My problem with anti-abortionists is when they class a baby as "alive", a lot saying that they count as life from the moment of conception.

    So their logic here is that they are alive before there is brain activity or even a heartbeat.
    Given that a heartbeat or functioning brain is not a prerequisite to life, we have no viable grounds to declare a human being dead. By pro-life logic, rotting corpses should still be paying taxes.

    If we can agree on a cut off date at brain activity (a ceasing of brain activity is deemed clinical death) I have no qualms with that, but don't go around saying we are murdering stem cells.
    I think that our definition of death is fundamentally based around the permanent cessation of someone's conscious awareness, ability to interact with the world, and other bodily functions.

    We might deem the ceasing of brain activity to be clinical death, but this is really just a proxy for the definition above, because we assume that once someone's brain has stopped functioning, it never will again. But suppose science advanced to the point where we were able to revive the brain-dead under certain circumstances so that they can walk, talk and think once again in future? We'd probably have to revise our criteria for clinical death.

    I think it's all well and good to bury or cremate someone once a medical professional is satisfied that, given our current scientific knowledge and methods, there is absolutely no hope that the person will ever think, feel or act ever again. The person can be considered permanently gone, and there's no use to anyone in keeping it biologically "alive" in any sense. But of course this reasoning cannot usually be applied to an unborn child who, if allowed to continue on its current course, is destined to be an ordinary son or daughter, and a fully fledged human being like you and me, regardless of its current brain activity.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    He's not making real arguments, he's just trying to use emotion to force his opinion onto others. He also asked for opinions where it becomes a human being, and when he was given a nice point during the development (no brain activity yet) he gave the argument of "yeah but it will have it later!". But the thing is that it's not about what the kid might be later, the point is that in the moment then and there, it's still brain dead, it's still not a person. Why did he bother asking the question since he would dismiss it no matter what by saying "that thing that's not developed yet, will be developed later therefore we shouldn't prevent that". And that's assuming the fetus doesn't die for no reason just like many do, so it's not even guaranteed that it will become a person.

    He is also ignoring all the situations where the mother's life and/or health is under threat (where the kid will probably die too anyway), where the fetus is messed up and will probably die after birth, or the more "mild" (not immediately deadly) diseases/disabilities the child might be born with, he's ignoring cases of rape or cases where the woman is simply not emotionally stable enough to so much as go through pregnancy and childbirth, let alone raising a kid (plus a person with emotional and stress issues may end up miscarrying anyway). Lastly there are people who simply don't want kids, and no matter what you say, no type of contraception is 100% effective.

    I don't see what weight he is giving to the pro-life argument.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadile)
    He's not making real arguments, he's just trying to use emotion to force his opinion onto others. He also asked for opinions where it becomes a human being, and when he was given a nice point during the development (no brain activity yet) he gave the argument of "yeah but it will have it later!". But the thing is that it's not about what the kid might be later, the point is that in the moment then and there, it's still brain dead, it's still not a person. Why did he bother asking the question since he would dismiss it no matter what by saying "that thing that's not developed yet, will be developed later therefore we shouldn't prevent that". And that's assuming the fetus doesn't die for no reason just like many do, so it's not even guaranteed that it will become a person.

    He is also ignoring all the situations where the mother's life and/or health is under threat (where the kid will probably die too anyway), where the fetus is messed up and will probably die after birth, or the more "mild" (not immediately deadly) diseases/disabilities the child might be born with, he's ignoring cases of rape or cases where the woman is simply not emotionally stable enough to so much as go through pregnancy and childbirth, let alone raising a kid (plus a person with emotional and stress issues may end up miscarrying anyway). Lastly there are people who simply don't want kids, and no matter what you say, no type of contraception is 100% effective.

    I don't see what weight he is giving to the pro-life argument.
    That's the problem, though, the debate is fundamentally an emotional and opinionated one. Questions like "when is something alive" and "when is taking a life more valuable than making sure an already existing life maintains its quality" can never have a difinitive answer, because definitions and morals are purely subjective.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanielOH)
    That's the problem, though, the debate is fundamentally an emotional and opinionated one. Questions like "when is something alive" and "when is taking a life more valuable than making sure an already existing life maintains its quality" can never have a difinitive answer, because definitions and morals are purely subjective.
    Or we could keep emotions out of it and look at the practical side of things. For example, it's more reasonable to keep a mother of two in good health instead of sacrificing it for the good of a person who doesn't even exist yet. And looking at what is alive and what isn't is the wrong approach. Of course the embryo is alive, that doesn't mean it's human and should have human rights yet.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    So women should be allowed to kill their children?
    Arguably, is the fetus really considered a child when it's hardly grown past the size of a small classroom ruler? That's for the parent to decide and if they don't believe so, do as they wish.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadile)
    And looking at what is alive and what isn't is the wrong approach. Of course the embryo is alive, that doesn't mean it's human and should have human rights yet.
    What are you saying this based on? And why do you get to decide?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanielOH)
    A solid argument. One I still disagree with as it's a matter of opinion, but I commend you for the effort.

    Edit: Although reading it again, the leg and eye analogy doesn't work because human beings lose legs and eyes all the time. Losing a pulse results in death.
    Yes. Analogies are loose similarities. However, the point is still about using practical descriptions and characteristics in accordance to a person's age or stage in life. The focus is on how we describe an embryo.

    As you stated, "losing a pulse results in death." I agree. To lose a pulse requires a person to have it. If an embryo does not have a pulse to begin with, that embryo cannot loose it. So how do we determine death? We would have to use a different method. Therefore, we would not use the same methodology to describe an embryo as we would an adult - or any other stage of life for humans.

    Pulse would not be used to say an embryo is alive or not. Same for conscious.

    Thank you for your comments, though I (naturally) would disagree with it being a matter of opinion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    What are you saying this based on? And why do you get to decide?
    I didn't decide. The majority did which can be clearly seen from the fact that an embryo can be aborted. I mean, if it's not human, not a person then why in the world would it have human rights? Human DNA doesn't make you a person, if it at least has a functioning brain then it becomes reasonable to start thinking about that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    Okay so many problems with his ''destruction''

    45 ranting about killing baby - She's not literally think about killing her child 1 minute before giving birth how stupid is he.
    I don't believe him to think it occurs in a blink of an eye, but is responding to the way the presented actress was making her statement. Olivia did say that she is about to have her own child, but just after that she does explain that she should still be able to destroy that or a pregnancy. Ben Shapiro is criticizing how the message was presented.

    1:15 ranting about killing babies - Okay so I suppose this guy must break his heart when he stands on a snail, when he allows for a cow to be killed to eat steak, when he allows for a chicken to be killed etc. etc. There is no difference between that little cluster of cells in a woman's body and these animals, you can shove the word "KILL" on anything, doesn't change a thing. "Look at the chicken burger from an animal you had KILLED", "Look at the snail you KILLED". etc.
    none of this is relevant as those things are not human. Whether or not those things should have rights is not the same as asking, "should your human daughter or son have same rights as they would once born?"

    Otherwise, The difference between those animals and the pre-born child (even as an embryo) is the same difference they have to you - which is determined by DNA.

    2:00 - After the 24 week cut off, well there you go... he literally just ruined his own point because it's not a LEGAL ABORTION? JFC. Also many European countries have a cut off of around 12-14 weeks.
    There was a time when "cut offs" did not exist. They were fought for by various individuals. Many pro-abortionists argued for late term abortions during that time.

    I do believe the focus, however, was on who is being killed, not when. The child in the photo would not look all that different a couple weeks prior to that incident. As Ben says 1:22 - "I am tired of euphemisms." He wants to call the baby in the picture what we would call any "wanted" pre-born individual. My mum did not call me a fetus or group of tissues but "my baby."

    I agree with Ben to a degree, but I don't have an issue with the term fetus as that term is used for humans.
    Oxford dictionary. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception


    2:40 - Not a 'kid', not a 'child'.
    Knowing word meanings is important.
    Oxford Dictionaries
    NOUN
    1. a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
    synonyms: youngster · little one · boy · girl · baby · newborn · infant · [more]
    a son or daughter of any age.
    2. an immature or irresponsible person:
    "she's such a child!"
    3. a person who has little or no experience in a particular area:
    "he's a child in financial matters"
    (children)
    4. the descendants of a family or people:
    "the children of Abraham"
    (child of)
    5. a person or thing influenced by a specified environment:
    "a child of the sixties" · [more]


    Every definition I have ever found of the word child refers to all of us when we were still within our mother's womb. well, I am sure we would not use all definitions, but 1. and 4. are perfect. That is how the terms should be used and how pre-born children should be seen. Only reason why pro-abortionists say otherwise is to - dehumanize.

    2:50 - "You don't have a right to kill it", well yes you do as it's your body and your entitlement
    How is this an "entitlement?" How does that come in to play?

    Otherwise, the DNA of the kid is not identical to the mom, which makes the child, not her body.

    3:15 - Yes its own rights are more important than the baby's convenience whilst it's in the womb. God he probably would let women give birth even if they were going to die just for the child.
    how are you using the word "its" in this statement: May you elaborate that first sentence?

    4:05 - Yes actually you do get to choose other people's outcomes in life. "Pulling the plug" and the death sentence are two good examples. Also stop referring to the foetus as "someone" it's not yet.
    When do you get to choose to kill another person?
    Both your examples are in error as a baby did not commit a crime. Can't sentence pre-born to death in that sense. I would argue that "pulling the plug" is not the same either. One in the process of being introduced to life while the other is on their way out. Medically, I think there could be some steep differences.

    4:15 - Omg when the baby has tastebuds? God forbid.... and fingernails and teeth...

    4:45 - "BEGINNINGS OF" =/= fully formed at all, greatly over exaggerated.
    based on?

    what is fully formed?

    5:10 - "Personal convenience issue", goddamn I'm not even a ****ing woman but if I met this guy I would punch him so hard in the ****ing gob purely for referring to abortion as that. Don't ever ****ing describe it as that issue, especially to anyone who was raped.
    Part of the argument for abortion is convenience. Did you skip the intro to this video? Even abortion clinics have provided statements that suggests convenience being an underline decision. Statistics on who does what for what ever reason indicate over 90% +/- (I am rounding) is not based on want; not health, not rape, not incest. This is success to abortion clinics.

    5:30 - He just compared this to slavery and hitler, bye.
    I was confused by this portion. Not sure what is being suggested.

    5:40 - Right, and allowing women to die just to give birth was one of those disgusting legal things in the past
    There are many reasons why a mom might die while giving birth, but that was not based on allowing that woman to die. We did not have medical knowledge to identify why the woman would die and how to either a. prevent it or b. treat it. The birth rate grew between 1800 to 1900 simply because of breakthroughs in medicine.

    To kill another person just to prevent something that may be preventable or treatable is ridiculous. I'm sure you would agree. Medicines are advancing and can advance to solve the issue of health in regards to the mother - most incidences I have read about are not predictable however. For example, massive hemorrhaging.

    A co-worker once provided how his daughter was born to me. He explained there there was so much blood as result that his wife's parents (also in room during delivery) thought their own daughter was going to die. Some things are not foreseeable.

    If we focus our efforts and money on studying pregnancies then perhaps we can overcome many of the obstacles that still exist.

    6:10 - Can't call something that's incapable of committing any act 'innocent', since it can't be 'guilty' either.
    Innocent until proven guilty no?

    6:45 - Sure, when it's born it's a human.
    Why?

    --
    Okay how the ****ing hell are morons on YouTube defending this? All he's doing is scaremongering people by using words such as 'kill' and murder' alongside cute words like 'innocent' to make the act seem worse than it actually is. The entire thing is so greatly over-exaggerated and is full of complete crap.I am prochoice and always will be. And hopefully morons like this never influence any governmental policy regarding abortion ever... but then again, this is the states so.
    Your position is saddening.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 8, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?
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

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