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

    13
    ReputationRep:
    as long as it is terminated before the fetus can suffer, I don't have a problem with it. you are ending the potential for a human life not ending a life in its self, and that is a crucial distinction. you are not killing somebody with hopes and dreams and feelings, you are killing something that COULD have them in the future. by choosing to wear a condom when I have sex I am destroying the potential for a human life that might otherwise have been created had I chosen otherwise, the only difference from abortion is probability.

    at conception the zygote is a single cell without thought or feeling, with the potential to become a person, or two people, or even half a person, or spontaneously abort. there is no inherent worth in that. at birth you are a true person with emotions and a right to life, and are worth preserving. somewhere during pregnancy a line is crossed between the two
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toast565)
    I might point out that according to this analogy, contraception is also wrong because you "end a natural cycle before its definite end". Of course it wouldn't surprise me if you think contraception IS wrong. Potential humans being killed in their millions by little latex socks right there.

    Key word: potential. They have not become humans yet, even though they would have without intervention. Likewise, those little bundles of cells that are the casualties of abortions have not become humans yet, even though they would have without intervention

    Here's another natural process that would result in a human being with experience and emotion: I go out, have sex with the first woman I find. Is it morally wrong for me to end that natural process by not doing it?

    A life where I do that every day will definitely result in life coming into being that would not have been there otherwise. By not living that life, I am killing potential humans. But that's just the thing, they are potential humans, not actual humans. Sperm and eggs are not human beings. Little bundles of cells are not human beings.

    I'll admit that there's a grey area around what point the little bundles of cells BECOME human beings, but you can point to early stages and say no, that is definitely not a human being, and you can point to a new born baby and say yes, that is a human being.

    Actually the key word is definite potential, not potential. The fact that after a child has been conceived it is almost a definitely of being born.

    Now for contraception, this is indeed as you said just a potential. Because:

    "If you make love two or three times a week, you have about a 20 to 30 per cent chance of conceiving in any month."

    As you can see this is a probability and a fairly low one, it is just a potential not a definite.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical...onalhelp.shtml
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    **** off this isn't North Dakota, or republican america for that matter.

    Having an abortion is better than bringing at child into life without loving parents or care, or nurturing or good living conditions etc
    That's no different to killing homeless people/orphans etc just because they don't satisfy the conditions that you've given for a right to live.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    A ball that hasn't been dropped doesn't land. Simple Newtonian mechanics.
    Thank you for this deep insight.

    I meant to enquire as to whether you'd also be against contraception - i.e., actively preventing the 'dropping' of the ball, when without that contraception, the 'ball' would be dropped. You have still interfered with the ball landing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucaf)
    as long as it is terminated before the fetus can suffer, I don't have a problem with it. you are ending the potential for a human life not ending a life in its self, and that is a crucial distinction. you are not killing somebody with hopes and dreams and feelings, you are killing something that COULD have them in the future. by choosing to wear a condom when I have sex I am destroying the potential for a human life that might otherwise have been created had I chosen otherwise, the only difference from abortion is probability.

    at conception the zygote is a single cell without thought or feeling, with the potential to become a person, or two people, or even half a person, or spontaneously abort. there is no inherent worth in that. at birth you are a true person with emotions and a right to life, and are worth preserving. somewhere during pregnancy a line is crossed between the two
    No you are killing somebody that WILL have them in the future, and that future is very close. Going with that argument a new-born baby does not also have hopes nor dreams for the future yet it is illegal to kill it. Again with the condom comment... See my latest post. With the suffering, so we can kill people if they don't suffer?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    I have a ball in my hand. I drop the ball, now with interfering without the ball it will most definitely fall to the floor. This is its natural cycle. I let go, ball falls, ball hits the ground. The fact that the ball will fall is a fact. Now let me ask you, what is the difference between me releasing the ball, catching it before it even leaves my hand and burning it and me dropping the ball and catching it half-way and burning it. The answer is; there is none! You end a natural cycle before its definite end.
    But you have feet to catch the ball or cushion the fall.
    Use your head and use your feet woah-oh woah-oh.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Yes, because justifying a persons right to choice and racism are about the same thing.
    No justifying killing and justifying killing ARE the same thing. Of course if you asked a genocidal maniac if it were killing he would utter some sort of justification for his action to live with himself, which is rather similar to what you sir are doing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Thank you for this deep insight.

    I meant to enquire as to whether you'd also be against contraception - i.e., actively preventing the 'dropping' of the ball, when without that contraception, the 'ball' would be dropped. You have still interfered with the ball landing.
    Please read my post on how contraception is different on page 3.

    By the way, thank you all for the responses it is... interesting.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    1.Women's body is her own yes, but the childs is not. If there is any medical problems associated with birth than fair enough the mother is the bringer of life after all but this is 6% of the cases. With modern medicine you can hardly argue the pain of the women during birth is of higher value that the life of a individual.

    2. That is an assertion, I am pretty sure if you asked the kids at the orphanage weather they would rather be dead than alive they would pick the latter. Also please see my last response.

    3.You are again assuming mother after giving birth will not want the child. You are forgetting the emotional bond the mother forms in the later stages of pregnancy.

    4. The fault of one person should not be inflicted as punishment upon another.

    5. It is a lot different, for one you actually have life forming and an overwhelming chance of a life being born. Essentially you have already struck the match and lit the fire. Pill and condoms are the match with the logs, they are not burning.
    1. The foetus is entirely dependent on its mother for everything - it doesn't even have its own working circulatory system until long after the time limit for abortion has passed (I'm not saying there should be no restrictions!). You shouldn't be able to force a person's body to be used for any purpose they don't want, and that includes childbirth. You will undoubtedly turn that round to ask why I'm happy to force anything on the foetus, but if there's a choice, I'd prioritise a living, breathing, thinking, independent person over a cluster of cells that has no nervous system - let alone consciousness
    2. That's totally different, because those children are already alive, and obviously don't want to be killed. But at the stage of pregnancy at which abortion is legal, a foetus is nothing but a cluster of cells - perhaps vaguely resembling a skinned rabbit if you leave it really late, but certainly not a living organism
    3. If the mother thinks she will want the child, then she shouldn't have an abortion, obviously. I'm not promoting abortion - I think we should make it a last measure after everything else has been considered. Your statement that an emotional bond will be formed later on is more of an assumption than anything I said
    4. It's often nobody's "fault", and even if it is, a foetus is not a person. When abortion is legal, it is a cluster of cells with nothing resembling autonomy. You are aware that it doesn't just spontaneously change from an embryo to a complete baby, right? And it's not a punishment of any form - you cannot punish anything that has no sensory awareness whatsoever.
    5. If there's no contraceptive in use, there's an overwhelming chance of life being born. If the sperm cells could reach the egg (the condom is the only thing stopping them), one of them would almost certainly end up fertilising it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    **** off this isn't North Dakota, or republican america for that matter.

    Having an abortion is better than bringing at child into life without loving parents or care, or nurturing or good living conditions etc
    I think there is a valid argument for pro-choice. But I really don't think this is it. There are plenty of people who were born without loving parents or care, without nurturing or good living conditions. Some of them will have been adopted by loving parents, some will have been taken into care, some will have had to live out a terrible childhood in its entirety. But would you tell any of these people that they should have been aborted? Most people would not choose to never have existed.

    Abortion is not the answer to ineffective parents - adoption and social care with greater effectiveness and powers are the answers.

    If a woman doesn't want a child, she has a right to abort. It is her body and the state should have no power over it. But she shouldn't pretend that she is doing what's best for the potential child.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    No you are killing somebody that WILL have them in the future, and that future is very close. Going with that argument a new-born baby does not also have hopes nor dreams for the future yet it is illegal to kill it. Again with the condom comment... See my latest post. With the suffering, so we can kill people if they don't suffer?
    for a start, it is by no means certain that it will have them in future. up to half of all pregnancies spontaneously abort. and as I said before; while an embryo is potentially a person, it is also potentially multiple people (identical twins) or even half a person (chimera). a new born baby is still a person, with emotions and feelings and the capacity to suffer. a fetus is none of those things, at least at any stage that I would consider abortion ethical.

    and what is wrong with the condom argument? people trying to argue that abortion is wrong often say that I wouldn't have liked it if my mum had had an abortion, but that would have had no more difference to me than if my dad had worn a condom. both would have prevented my existence as certainly as the other.

    and I said "can't" suffer not "don't" suffer. I think that if a fetus is able to suffer, it is an individual and so abortion would be wrong. so I am using suffering as a criteria of personhood, not to determine the ethics of the method. if a fetus is capable of suffering and you kill it painlessly, it is still wrong. if it is incapable of suffering then termination is fine.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    Actually the key word is definite potential, not potential. The fact that after a child has been conceived it is almost a definitely of being born.

    Now for contraception, this is indeed as you said just a potential. Because:

    "If you make love two or three times a week, you have about a 20 to 30 per cent chance of conceiving in any month."

    As you can see this is a probability and a fairly low one, it is just a potential not a definite.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical...onalhelp.shtml
    50% of conceptions are miscarried before they are even detected by the couple. 25% of detected pregnancies miscarriage before 6 weeks after the last period. 10% of those surviving 6 weeks from the last period miscarriage before birth.

    So you are in short entirely incorrect. If you conceive, chances are ACTUALLY you will abort.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    No justifying killing and justifying killing ARE the same thing. Of course if you asked a genocidal maniac if it were killing he would utter some sort of justification for his action to live with himself, which is rather similar to what you sir are doing.
    By your logic I could argue that by forcing these children to live when their parents can't afford them, thus ship them to a foster care, where they may get bullied and suffer a life of torment, that's torturous.

    Or, as you put it, TORTURE! That makes you no better than the Chekists of Stalinist Russia
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    I have a ball in my hand. I drop the ball, now with interfering without the ball it will most definitely fall to the floor. This is its natural cycle. I let go, ball falls, ball hits the ground. The fact that the ball will fall is a fact. Now let me ask you, what is the difference between me releasing the ball, catching it before it even leaves my hand and burning it and me dropping the ball and catching it half-way and burning it. The answer is; there is none! You end a natural cycle before its definite end, you kill of the emotions, the experiences it was definitely going to have; you have killed a person.

    Now let me give you some statistics:

    196,082 abortions in the UK in 2011
    44,000,000 abortions (that is 44 million) in the world
    Let me put this in to perspective, in 10 years you have killed more than the population of the united States.

    7% of abortions are for either a consequence of rape or health problems to the mother. The rest is because of social reasons. This just infuriates me, if you don't kill your fellow man to steal his money why kill your own child?

    Millions are killed every year because people are unable to make an emotional connection with them just because they are bound in a sack of skin. The same people that say "How could the Nazis kill millions of people" well they did it the same way you do!

    (the You refers to everyone supporting abortion)

    Thank you for reading,

    Gray Wolf


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-england-wales

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journ...et-2012-01.pdf
    I'm guessing your male? It annoys me so much when men make comments on this and even go on to say it should be illegal blah blah blah.
    Well first of all I believe we all have our own views and I'm pro choice with slightly more twoards it is wrong.
    I would never throw my view down another's throat especially not a vulnerable pregnant female.
    Like it has happened for centuries generally men can walk away after conception or whenever they get another girl or whenever they want.
    So I understand young women being scared to have a baby alone with no support financially etc and I'm sure deep down that many of these girls want their baby deep down. I just think society is still a bit behind the times re abortion women need more counselling support if they are thinking of abortion or are confused. I wouldn't like to have one but I'm sure it's an extremely vulnerable situation to be in for a young woman and when men start giving out their views that's annoying. It's not your body for one and secondly the women is 99% the one that is left to bring up a child if the man leaves


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    So essentially you are saying human life is a disease, a virus if you will and so you can get rid of it as you see fit. Seems like the same sort of reasoning people use for ethnic cleansing. See the thing in front of you as something else and voila! Problem solved, no more conscience nagging at you.

    I shall scream baby killer just as someone would scream murderer because this is the case.
    Not really, merely pointing out the absurdity of your 'natural' argument.

    Speaking purely on a rational basis, to my mind a cluster of cells which might one day become a human being is little different to any other naturally-occurring cluster of cells. I don't consider it a baby. I imagine the definition depends solely on emotion and sentimentality (and my definition depends solely on my belief that medical and legal issues should be not be influenced by emotions/sentimentality/religion).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrissie19913)
    when men start giving out their views that's annoying.
    so because we can't have an abortion we can't have an opinion on it? right, because a woman choice whether or not to carry our baby, and whether or not she is legally entitled to that choice, has absolutely no effect on men whatsoever. I am pro choice but this really pisses me off, being told my opinion is irelelevant because I can't get pregnant. if we don't get to voice our opinions on abortions, you don't get to voice your opinions on men abandoning women to raise their alone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucaf)
    so because we can't have an abortion we can't have an opinion on it? right, because a woman choice whether or not to carry our baby, and whether or not she is legally entitled to that choice, has absolutely no effect on men whatsoever. I am pro choice but this really pisses me off, being told my opinion is irelelevant because I can't get pregnant. if we don't get to voice our opinions on abortions, you don't get to voice your opinions on men abandoning women to raise their alone.
    Men do have opinion too of course! But men sitting at desks throwing out phrases that abortion is wrong when they haven't been in a situation isn't fair. I meant men can walk away easier etc. I didn't mean an actual man and woman who were pregnant I meant men in government etc


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Way too many girls use abortion as contraception which is wrong.
    However, I do think that women should have the right to choose whether or not the wish to have a baby, to ensure the child has the best upbringing possible.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Abortion is sometimes necessary and in all the cases, two doctors have to get together and make a judgement on whether it is for the best so most of the time, the decision made is a good one. Besides, it the 'lesser of two evils' in some cases and it is for the woman carrying the foetus to choose as she will be primarily responsible unless she gets the bay adopted. Besides, orphanages are overflowing, our population is still increasing at an alarming rate and there has to be something to dam this. Of course, if a pregnancy is caused without it being needed, the cause may be not using contraception or problems with the contraception etc and as regrettable as it is, sometimes an abortion is necessary to stop further grief, isolation of the child etc
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think anybody should judge somebody who has had an abortion as there are many reasons why a women may need to terminate.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.