Turn on thread page Beta

Why would someone think that abortion is not permissible? watch

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JapanNet)
    Why would someone think that abortion is not permissible?
    Reagan said only people who were themselves born advocate abortion, we wouldn't have liked to have had the plug pulled in the womb. I believe it 'permissible' in cases but some people can get a bit extreme with all that 'it's my body so there' as if nothing else mattered. It is their body indeed and that may be all that matters to them but there you go, what about the potential human being they carry?

    It is complicated, there are sound arguments on both sides and it is politically very difficult to juggle. It shouldn't be illegal but neither should it be something dispensed over the counter.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    If you use an argument analogous to one used previously to commit other atrocities (I'll kill you because I choose not to consider you a real person) what else do you expect?
    So now you're saying that it is okay to compare people who disagree with the Nazis. Hypocrisy at its best.

    I already explained how the two are not analogous. Don't waste my time if you're not willing to read what I'm writing.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Nobody needs to decide. The point at which a foetus becomes a "person" has no objective answer, it's purely a matter of opinion.

    The same logic cannot be applied to crimes - punishments can be determined in many objective ways, for example by looking at whatever can be statistically demonstrated to be the most effectiveness deterrent.
    So, we just choose what you think is right to be in the safe? Can you seriously not see how hypocritical this is?

    Lol no. The morality in the death penalty has long been argued, and no statistics will ever make it objective.

    Your argument is leaking from everywhere at this point. Laws themselves are decisions on important issues - abortion is no less, no more.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    You won't ever be pregnant, but if you were to ever get someone else pregnant by mistake you may well benefit significantly from the fact that abortion is legal.
    That implies that I would want an abortion - how come?

    This is not about benefit or detriment. It's non of your business what a woman does with her body. Viewing it as 'I win, you lose' scenario is just childish.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Why on earth wouldn't they? The concept of a baby growing in the womb has been understood for centuries. The Qur'an talks quite at length about the formation of a baby in the womb in its various stages
    Care to link that? And a concept is not equal to scientific evidence.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Same sex marriage is clearly outlawed by various religions. Abortion is not.
    Christianity never talks about same sex marriage directly. It's just an inference from other sayings. Abortion is no different.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Yes, religions teach that innocent people shouldn't be killed, but that's something anybody would agree with. They do not say anything about when "personhood" begins exactly, whether at conception, 24 weeks, birth etc.
    That's interesting, because the Quran mentions that those who abandon the religion should be killed. Makes little sense when it says life is precious eh?

    As I said, it's an inference. Flawed one at that, because a foetus in the first stages does not resemble a human at all. It's like saying wasting sperm is murder.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Of course it's a generalisation - not all religious people oppose abortion, nor do all non-religious people support it. It's just a general trend
    Based on what? Any statistics?

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I don't know what you think is so empty about "we don't know enough about this so we should abstain from making potentially risky decisions". This is true in a lot of situations.
    We don't know fully about the space and its dangers either - should we stop exploring?
    We can never know 100% whether someone actually committed a crime - should we let them go just to be safe?
    We do not know if plastic surgery is safe, should we ban it altogether to avoid any risks?

    These examples make it pretty clear I believe.

    I don't know what kind of totalitarian society you dream of, but this is exo-pragmatic.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    There are many who would argue that we should.
    Yes, but what is it that makes it right? Why should society listen to them? Should the law just avoid the topic?

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    This is a completely useless argument to be honest.

    In order for it to work you have to assume from beforehand that a foetus is not a person in its own right and that abortion is therefore not immoral, which is the same as what you're trying to prove.

    Besides, either way I can voice an opinion on whether abortion is moral or not. I'm not stopping anyone from getting them.
    Well, you should know of useless arguments.

    Thing is, the UK has already decided so. There's no in-between.

    Immorality is, in any case, subjective. Using it as a basis is fundamentally wrong.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    It's not relevant to any of the arguments I have been making. They would still be the same whether God exists or not.
    You replied to my quote of another person's post. Religion had already been mentioned by that time.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Without getting too bogged down in questions of economic theory and justice, the situation you describe is not one of direct biological dependency.
    Yes it is. Without coercion on bystanders, the tramp will biologically starve to death.

    If this is OK so is coercion on pregnant women.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RichardSkew)
    It is a living thing still. Killing it is Murder, plain and simple.
    According to that logic, separating a carrot from the rest of the plant to eat it is also murder as carrots are living things.

    For the record, I personally agree with you that abortion is unethical (however, I believe that it's important to have access to free, safe abortion clinics for people who are okay with it) - just pointing out a really obvious flaw in your argument.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    If you use an argument analogous to one used previously to commit other atrocities (I'll kill you because I choose not to consider you a real person) what else do you expect?



    Nobody needs to decide. The point at which a foetus becomes a "person" has no objective answer, it's purely a matter of opinion.

    The same logic cannot be applied to crimes - punishments can be determined in many objective ways, for example by looking at whatever can be statistically demonstrated to be the most effectiveness deterrent.



    You won't ever be pregnant, but if you were to ever get someone else pregnant by mistake you may well benefit significantly from the fact that abortion is legal.



    Why on earth wouldn't they? The concept of a baby growing in the womb has been understood for centuries. The Qur'an talks quite at length about the formation of a baby in the womb in its various stages.



    Same sex marriage is clearly outlawed by various religions. Abortion is not.

    Yes, religions teach that innocent people shouldn't be killed, but that's something anybody would agree with. They do not say anything about when "personhood" begins exactly, whether at conception, 24 weeks, birth etc.



    Of course it's a generalisation - not all religious people oppose abortion, nor do all non-religious people support it. It's just a general trend



    I don't know what you think is so empty about "we don't know enough about this so we should abstain from making potentially risky decisions". This is true in a lot of situations.



    There are many who would argue that we should.



    This is a completely useless argument to be honest.

    In order for it to work you have to assume from beforehand that a foetus is not a person in its own right and that abortion is therefore not immoral, which is the same as what you're trying to prove.

    Besides, either way I can voice an opinion on whether abortion is moral or not. I'm not stopping anyone from getting them.



    It's not relevant to any of the arguments I have been making. They would still be the same whether God exists or not.
    You are wasting your time debating this person. its like debating with a wall.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Yes it is. Without coercion on bystanders, the tramp will biologically starve to death.
    You're being disingenuous. If a pregnant woman dies pre-viability, the foetus will not survive more than a few minutes. There is literally no way of keeping it alive. If the person providing the tramp with food dies, he will not also die on the spot, but will have a noticeable amount of time to find some other way of getting by. He could find someone else to provide him with food (a tramp can get another patron, a foetus can't get another womb). He could live off the land or attempt to hunt wild animals. Or to give the most likely possibility, he could simply steal.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Pro lifer here. I believe that abortion should not occur after 8 weeks. By this time the heart is beating and the brain is developing. I just can't justify killing that. A woman has by this time had 8 weeks to decide if they dont want it, and if they haven't decided by then then it's on them, their mistake that they have to live with.

    I'm a big advocate of responsibility. Many abortions are a result of a string of bad decisions - hooking up with an *******, having unprotected sex, not checking if you're pregnant in the coming days/weeks and/or delaying until after 8 weeks to abort. These are decisions that people should have to take responsibility for, not just take the easy way out through abortion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Fergo)
    Maybe, but this is a question on abortion - which implies that the mother does not want to keep it.



    That is incorrect. The law is very complicated with regards to foetuses. They are not considered 'persons', are not protected by human rights and cannot be placed on ward by courts. A foetus only acquires legal rights when it is separated from its mother and receives an existence of its own.

    Precisely because of this, a person who kills a foetus CANNOT be charged with murder (case: A-G ref (No 3 of 1994)).

    The offence is child destruction, and applies only when the foetus is capable of being born alive (Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority).

    I suggest double checking what you say before saying it. And no, it's not hypocritical, because the law views foetuses as part of their mother, and mother can choose to have abortion on that basis.
    Yup, because the law has always recognised and protected those who are human beings and their rights...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a.little.bird)
    Pro-choice does not equal pro-murder.

    Pro-choice means a woman has a right to control what happens to her body. Where do you stand on the topic if a woman's life is in danger if she continues the pregnancy? Does the woman's life matter to you? Or is she simply disposable?

    And pro-choice does not a lefty-liberal make...I'm a Conservative. But shock horror, I'm also pro-choice. Abortion isn't for me personally, but I fully support a woman's right to choose.
    I am pro life and don't consider it pro-murder - however, you are in support of condoning the act and in my eyes that's just as bad.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise12307)
    Yup, because the law has always recognised and protected those who are human beings and their rights...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The whole argument is based on whether foetuses are persons.

    It's all above.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Fergo)
    The whole argument is based on whether foetuses are persons.

    It's all above.
    I read it all, thank you.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Talk about tl;dr
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    funny how so many people seem to consider themselves so important that they can tell others what to do with their bodies. i'm pro-choice simply because it's none of my damn business what someone else chooses to do with their body.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by renphobia)
    funny how so many people seem to consider themselves so important that they can tell others what to do with their bodies. i'm pro-choice simply because it's none of my damn business what someone else chooses to do with their body.
    Destroying a foetus isn't simply doing something to your body, it's destroying another life.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by renphobia)
    funny how so many people seem to consider themselves so important that they can tell others what to do with their bodies. i'm pro-choice simply because it's none of my damn business what someone else chooses to do with their body.
    You hold that view because you view the foetus as part of the mother's body - I and others do not. I view it as a separate life - a body inside of the mother's body, yes - but that is not the same thing as the woman's body itself. The baby has its own genetic DNA - they are not one and the same.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Destroying a foetus isn't simply doing something to your body, it's destroying another life.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    until a foetus is born, it is entirely dependent on the mother. therefore i think this gives the mother a right to do what she wants, considering she cannot pass the responsibility to someone else. in order for a foetus to develop, it needs the consent of the mother. if she continues the pregnancy unwillingly, this is a violation of her basic human rights. which, ironically, are the same 'rights' to are trying to apply to a foetus.
    even if a foetus was considered 'another life', that doesn't automatically overrule a woman's right to choose. the freedom to choose is a fundamental right in society.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise12307)
    You hold that view because you view the foetus as part of the mother's body - I and others do not. I view it as a separate life - a body inside of the mother's body, yes - but that is not the same thing as the woman's body itself. The baby has its own genetic DNA - they are not one and the same.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    no, i hold that view because i am not a pregnant woman, therefore it is not place nor my right to tell somebody else what to do.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by renphobia)
    no, i hold that view because i am not a pregnant woman, therefore it is not place nor my right to tell somebody else what to do.
    In your very own words, you said that it is "none of your damn business to tell someone else what to do with their body". Correct me if I'm wrong, you're assuming there that the foetus is not a separate entity to the mother, which is incorrect. If it was a case of one person, then there wouldn't be any need for a pro life argument because it would be about individual choices (for example, if I wanted one of my kidneys removed). You're suggesting that because you view the body of the mother and that of the baby as one and the same, that we have no right to speak on behalf of the baby.

    tl;dr - yes, the reason you hold the view you hold is because you view the baby as a non-separate entity to the mother.


    All other reasons of morality are based around that - your main argument is that you can't tell someone what to do with their own body.. but a baby isn't a body part - it is its own person. So, you shouldn't take away its right to life unless it is a case where it is better to save one life than lose two - which is under 1% of cases.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by renphobia)
    until a foetus is born, it is entirely dependent on the mother. therefore i think this gives the mother a right to do what she wants, considering she cannot pass the responsibility to someone else. in order for a foetus to develop, it needs the consent of the mother. if she continues the pregnancy unwillingly, this is a violation of her basic human rights. which, ironically, are the same 'rights' to are trying to apply to a foetus.
    even if a foetus was considered 'another life', that doesn't automatically overrule a woman's right to choose. the freedom to choose is a fundamental right in society.
    It's irrelevant who the foetus is dependent on, just because something is dependent on you it I don't see how you being able to destroy it is a logical step. Which 'basic human right' are you referring to? Please point to the specific right/protocol of the ECHR. Where have I suggested a foetus should have human rights? I'm simply saying a foetus isn't a woman's body part, it's essentially a parasite inside of a woman's body. A foetus is another life, that much isn't debatable, it's just not another human life


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I don't like abortion because I don't believe its right to abort an unborn child. You may call it a fetus but I call it an unborn baby. Just sayin. Babies are adorable and i like children and it just seems so sad for an unborn baby to be ripped apart in the mother's womb, and has their body parts thrown away. I consider it selfish on the mother's part. I don't like it, and I think its a bad way to deal with unwanted pregnancies. Abortions are not birth controls.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,502

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
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.