Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Do you think a woman who has killed a foetus could ever be a good mother? watch

    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeftWingMoron)
    Actually it will be my business if I want a compatable wife. A foetus is a potential baby. Surgical abortion is barbaric and shows all the traits of a terrible mother. No wonder they suffer from so much trauma afterwards.
    No, a fetus isn't a baby until 24 weeks by law and so it is not a potential baby and at the end of the day that baby wouldn't be yours anyway so why would you think you can decide it's life or not?

    So you don't agree with abortion but you would be ok to raise another man's child as your own? Even if it was because of rape that the child was conceived. At the end of the day, the body belongs to the woman and it is her choice.

    Your body your choice. So if you decide to get a **** tattoo of Homer Simpson on your testicles, that's your choice and if a woman decides she doesn't want that baby in her body, that's her choice.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Why wouldn't I compare the two? A foetus hasn't started it's life. It has no more of a future than a sperm cell. You aren't depriving it of any opportunities, and it doesn't care if you abort it or not.
    While I'm not anti-abortion (although I don't think it is ever the ideal choice), I also think that's slightly ludicrous. Of course a sperm cell is different to an actual foetus.

    A foetus is a proto-human; if allowed to continue to grow, it will become a person. A sperm cell has no such future unless and until it meets an egg and they merge. The likelihood of that is very low (it's almost like winning the lottery for a sperm to actually fertilise an egg) and so already the foetus is something special in terms of raw probability.

    Because in our experience being a human being is nothing special we forget that essentially each of us has won the lottery to be alive, that our sperm forefather met our egg mother and fertilisation happened, rather than the sperm next to him getting the egg. If that happened you wouldn't even be alive, someone else would be (an evil parallel universe twin?)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bethwalker85)
    No, a fetus isn't a baby until 24 weeks by law and so it is not a potential baby and at the end of the day that baby wouldn't be yours anyway so why would you think you can decide it's life or not?
    That's not strictly true (in fact, it's simply not true).

    A foetus is a foetus, and a baby is a baby. The law permits you to abort before 24 weeks, but that doesn't mean it's not a foetus. It's simply a matter of permission vs lack of permission, not a legal characterisation of one being a "baby" and the other not
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bethwalker85)
    No, a fetus isn't a baby until 24 weeks by law and so it is not a potential baby
    If a foetus isn't a baby till 24 weeks then before the 24 week mark it must be a potential baby as there is a chance it will develop into a baby
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    That's not strictly true (in fact, it's simply not true).

    A foetus is a foetus, and a baby is a baby. The law permits you to abort before 24 weeks, but that doesn't mean it's not a foetus. It's simply a matter of permission vs lack of permission, not a legal characterisation of one being a "baby" and the other not
    I didn't say it's not a foetus, I said that it's not technically a baby e.g alive and kicking and in the arms of it's parent.

    My point was that if a woman wants to abort, she has a right to do so and not listen to the opinions of ******** men who think they can make her keep a baby she doesn't want or can't care for.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kyragrace)
    If a foetus isn't a baby till 24 weeks then before the 24 week mark it must be a potential baby as there is a chance it will develop into a baby
    What's your point?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bethwalker85)
    I didn't say it's not a foetus, I said that it's not technically a baby e.g alive and kicking and in the arms of it's parent.
    You said that it isn't legally a baby until 24 weeks. I pointed out that's not true; a foetus is a foetus, and a baby is a baby (i.e. it's not a baby until it's born).

    Strictly as a matter of law, I was pointing out the law doesn't define baby as "foetus after 24 weeks" and the law doesn't decide abortions based on whether it is characterised as a baby. If it is in the womb, it's a foetus. And foetuses before 24 weeks may be terminated, after 24 weeks they may not without special circumstances.

    I was (slightly pedantically, as you were correct about the 24 week time limit) pointing out that the definitions were not entirely correct,

    My point was that if a woman wants to abort, she has a right to do so and not listen to the opinions of ******** men who think they can make her keep a baby she doesn't want or can't care for.
    That seems slightly sexist. If a man is the father of the baby he certainly has a right to an opinion. And all men (as equal citizens) have a right to have a view about abortion law and policy in general.

    I agree the final choice should be with the woman who is carrying it, but we should not go from there to assume therefore men cannot even express an opinion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bethwalker85)
    What's your point?
    you said it wasn't a potential baby, it clearly is
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    You said that it isn't legally a baby until 24 weeks. I pointed out that's not true; a foetus is a foetus, and a baby is a baby (i.e. it's not a baby until it's born).

    Strictly as a matter of law, I was pointing out the law doesn't define baby as "foetus after 24 weeks" and the law doesn't decide abortions based on whether it is characterised as a baby. If it is in the womb, it's a foetus. And foetuses before 24 weeks may be terminated, after 24 weeks they may not without special circumstances.

    I was (slightly pedantically, as you were correct about the 24 week time limit) pointing out that the definitions were not entirely correct,



    That seems slightly sexist. If a man is the father of the baby he certainly has a right to an opinion. And all men (as equal citizens) have a right to have a view about abortion law and policy in general.

    I agree the final choice should be with the woman who is carrying it, but we should not go from there to assume therefore men cannot even express an opinion.
    Yes, you're right in terms of law but I was referring to the point made by the OP. How is any man or woman right to say whether a woman is a good or bad person for an abortion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bethwalker85)
    Yes, you're right in terms of law but I was referring to the point made by the OP. How is any man or woman right to say whether a woman is a good or bad person for an abortion.
    I completely agree with you there. It's bizarre and extreme for this guy to say that a woman must be a bad person for having an abortion. I can't imagine how scary it would be to be a young girl who had accidentally gotten pregnant and not being in a position to care for it.

    As I said above, I don't think the OP needs to worry; with an attitude like that, he won't be in a position to be turning women down
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kyragrace)
    you said it wasn't a potential baby, it clearly is
    no it's not.

    By law, it's not a baby until birth and a cluster of cells at one week is a potential baby but that doesn't make it a baby.

    A baby is a baby when it's born and until then (or until 24 weeks) it is the mothers choice of what she does with it.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    I completely agree with you there. It's bizarre and extreme for this guy to say that a woman must be a bad person for having an abortion. I can't imagine how scary it would be to be a young girl who had accidentally gotten pregnant and not being in a position to care for it.

    As I said above, I don't think the OP needs to worry; with an attitude like that, he won't be in a position to be turning women down
    I agree with you! Let us hope that no girl, abortion in her past or otherwise, falls for this guy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bethwalker85)
    no it's not.

    By law, it's not a baby until birth and a cluster of cells at one week is a potential baby but that doesn't make it a baby.

    A baby is a baby when it's born and until then (or until 24 weeks) it is the mothers choice of what she does with it.
    And the law is always right is it?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kyragrace)
    And the law is always right is it?
    No, but what side are you arguing for? The law is always right in terms of free speech and human rights and if a woman decides she doesn't want that cluster of cells to become a baby then that is her human right.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kyragrace)
    Not to me, I strongly believe a foetus has started it's life, very different to a sperm cell.
    Of course, they are indeed different. But in terms of potential for life specifically - which was the criterion specified in the conversation you replied to - they really aren't very different, and more importantly are similar in the way they were being compared.. An individual can't base a sensible argument against abortion upon 'potential for life' alone without revealing their hypocrisy. The point was that if you do base an argument on this alone, you are necessarily obliged to be just as outraged by the things JordanL mentioned as you are by abortion, since they also possess potential.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    This is a silly question.. The baby isn't fully formed nor does it even resemble the child that they'd eventually have to look after. Having an abortion does not imply bad parenting, it implies someone has taken a well-reasoned approach to a very personal decision - one does not simply have an abortion for 'fun'.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Of course, they are indeed different. But in terms of potential for life specifically - which was the criterion specified in the conversation you replied to - they really aren't very different, and more importantly are similar in the way they were being compared.. An individual can't base a sensible argument against abortion upon 'potential for life' alone without revealing their hypocrisy. The point was that if you do base an argument on this alone, you are necessarily obliged to be just as outraged by the things JordanL mentioned as you are by abortion, since they also possess potential.
    I will simply refer you to BeastOfSyracuse's quote as it pretty much sums up my opinion

    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    While I'm not anti-abortion (although I don't think it is ever the ideal choice), I also think that's slightly ludicrous. Of course a sperm cell is different to an actual foetus.

    A foetus is a proto-human; if allowed to continue to grow, it will become a person. A sperm cell has no such future unless and until it meets an egg and they merge. The likelihood of that is very low (it's almost like winning the lottery for a sperm to actually fertilise an egg) and so already the foetus is something special in terms of raw probability.

    Because in our experience being a human being is nothing special we forget that essentially each of us has won the lottery to be alive, that our sperm forefather met our egg mother and fertilisation happened, rather than the sperm next to him getting the egg. If that happened you wouldn't even be alive, someone else would be (an evil parallel universe twin?)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    While I'm not anti-abortion (although I don't think it is ever the ideal choice), I also think that's slightly ludicrous. Of course a sperm cell is different to an actual foetus.

    A foetus is a proto-human; if allowed to continue to grow, it will become a person. A sperm cell has no such future unless and until it meets an egg and they merge. The likelihood of that is very low (it's almost like winning the lottery for a sperm to actually fertilise an egg) and so already the foetus is something special in terms of raw probability.

    Because in our experience being a human being is nothing special we forget that essentially each of us has won the lottery to be alive, that our sperm forefather met our egg mother and fertilisation happened, rather than the sperm next to him getting the egg. If that happened you wouldn't even be alive, someone else would be (an evil parallel universe twin?)
    Is it ludicrous though? A sperm cell, if it fertilizes an egg, will become a person. It's exactly the same. They'll both become a person, and neither are people yet. Every time a sperm fertilizes an egg, millions of potential people lose their chance.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thatbrownkid17)
    You're all speaking from nice easy positions in society; you're on TSR so you have internet access which already puts you in the upper 50% of the global wealth percentile. But look outside the shielded perspectives you have. If a woman is in abject poverty, working on her own as a single woman and gets pregnant, of course it's in her and the baby's interest to have an abortion! Why would she raise a baby if she knows she can't provide it with adequate healthcare, food, water and shelter? If women get the main responsibility of having a baby they deserve the right because it is their body. Whether you want to allow abortions freely for partners who just forgot to use protection is different. All I'm saying is it's entirely justifiable in some cases including rape. What sort of child would one day want to find out it's a product of rape and serve as a constant symbol of mental trauma for its mother??
    Very well said. :five:

    I really resent the growth of holier than thou attitudes on this topic amongst comfortable western people who are supposedly 'religious', especially when it is white well off men pontificating.

    The anti-abortion movement needs to reframe its arguments and have a serious think about what it is really doing. If it really wants to help women and children, a starting point would be to campaign for better health services globally.

    The anti-abortion movement is anyway a manipulated spin off from the religious right and from the Vatican.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    ..
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.