Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    Well Science was around long before we called it science.... and I was talking about safe medical abortions clearly.

    No the sky is blue, just like a fetus is a fetus.
    What does the safety and existence of an abortion have to do with what a fetus is?

    Also, a Fetus and human are not mutually exclusive.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    What you consider mutually exclusive is irrelevant to what science proves.
    Are you are basing your opinion on the fact that the embryo is carrying out the cellular functions?

    Any cell does that, of course it's life. Your skin is life too. The sperm cell and the ovum are life too on their own, they are cells and therefore, they use up glucose as you said. Once they are together, the ovum becomes fertilised, and it's true that it is the first step to create a human.

    However, I don't understand why so many people get obsessed over the idea that when those two cells are put together magic suddenly happens and the human is created. It's not that simple. In my opinion, any woman should be able to choose whether to abort or not, no one has the power to choose over her, and force her to continue with the pregnancy for 9 months.

    I think that the right thing would be to establish the limit in the month that the fetus starts to develop the nervous system, and therefore be a person. Of course, even if it's “too late”, but the mother is going to undergo a great risk, abortion should be accepted too.

    Anyway, if you are against abortion because you state that the union of these 2 cells makes a person, are you also against artifitial reproduction (As In vitro techniques)? They create several embryos, in case one of them is not viable, and finally the only use one.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    In
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    MrsHolmes was arguing that a fetus was not alive nor human. Both which are false biologically speaking. Why are you bringing corn into this? Corn has nothing to do with this. Two distinct species entirely.

    You are wrong about that also, experts have been quoted as saying it is as early as 13 weeks to 20 weeks the fetus feels pain. Moreover, the part of the brain that mimimises pain in the unborn is not fully developed so they can still feel pain but much more intensely than a fully grown adult would.

    If that isn't messed up tell me what is? We treat our worst criminals better than our most innocent, helpless citizens. What kind of messed up nation are we?

    There is plenty of medical knowledge and anecdotal evidence that babies do hear things in the womb and can remember things they heard in the womb. They also play, cry, feel pain and do all the other things a baby outside of the womb would do after a certain number of weeks (I think 22+ weeks)
    Your experts and the BMA are clearly reading different journals. Please could you show me what these experts have said, so I can read it for myself? It would make for very interesting reading.

    I agree with you that foetuses can feel pain after a certain point- twenty-four weeks is the agreed-upon point, which is why abortion after that point is illegal. I also agree with you *deep science voice* that humans... are not corn.

    Look, this argument would be easier on both sides if you made it clear on what grounds you classify early foetuses as humans. DNA and respiration are obviously far too broad; sentience is under dispute- I await your quoted experts. Anything else?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    I'm not surprised that you still can't understand what I'm saying - your mental capacity is evidently limited.

    Your two sentences were complete opposites. You wrote the sentences and can't even understand what you wrote? What the hell?

    Did you say "why have sex then" or did you not? That assumes that sex is only for reproduction (and which is why you brought the whole me being homosexual aspect into this).

    Don't turn your own words around because you can't answer simple questions.

    If I'm thickead you're brickhead. Just be careful that you don't touch the wall cause you might colour it red.
    Lol insults it's okay, that's the way it should be if you can't go about the truth I've said.

    No it ain't "wth". Try fix that mentality of yours..

    Thanks.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion yeah, people can do what they want with their bodies. But abortion should never be endorsed as an easy fix, and there should certainly be slightly earlier cutoff dates on when termination is legal etc
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    No it wasn't, the modern experimental method of science was only developed around the 16th century. That's why before that time we believed the earth was flat and dragons existed and allsorts of other nonsense. Please go and learn your history more because you seem very ill-informed.

    Yes, a baby is a baby indeed.
    Clearly you need to improve your reading comprehension. Science explains everything. Science is why we are here. That is all science. What I said was science was still science even before it was identified as science.

    It may have been identified in the 16th century ( Butwhat about Plato and Aristotle, it was their theories scientists were begining to apply in the 16th century) but science existed way before it was identified.

    Maybe you need to clean up your knowledge as you seem misinformed lol .
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MangoCrazy)
    Lol insults it's okay, that's the way it should be if you can't go about the truth I've said.

    No it ain't "wth". Try fix that mentality of yours..

    Thanks.
    Oh my... signs of defeat already?

    And wait... You called me "********"/"thickhead" and even tried to use homosexuality against me. And you raise the point of insults for me? Hahaha you're making me laugh at your absolute silliness.

    You're welcome.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Oh my... signs of defeat already?

    And wait... You called me "********"/"thickhead" and even tried to use homosexuality against me. And you raise the point of insults for me? Hahaha you're making me laugh at your absolute silliness.

    You're welcome.
    That. :top:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sam1793)
    Women should be allowed to have an abortion simply because it's there body and they have a right to do what they wish with there body.
    Unless you consider the fetus as not part of their body.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    What does the safety and existence of an abortion have to do with what a fetus is?

    Also, a Fetus and human are not mutually exclusive.
    When were we talking about safety and existence of abortion. I made a whole other point that you don't seem to have caught on to.

    They are, because a human is a being that can 'live' on it's own, as I said before it doesn't share a life with it's mother in her uterus.

    Unless we are all walking uterus' now? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Abortion should be subsided.
    Should be... what? Should be subsidised? Or should subside?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MangoCrazy)
    That. :top:
    And further yet with the signs of defeat.

    You were probably the easiest prey on TSR, like ever. Must be on your immaturity.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pcabezas)
    Are you are basing your opinion on the fact that the embryo is carrying out the cellular functions?

    Any cell does that, of course it's life. Your skin is life too. The sperm cell and the ovum are life too on their own, they are cells and therefore, they use up glucose as you said. Once they are together, the ovum becomes fertilised, and it's true that it is the first step to create a human.

    However, I don't understand why so many people get obsessed over the idea that when those two cells are put together magic suddenly happens and the human is created. It's not like that simple. In my opinion, any woman should be able to choose whether to abort or not, no one has the power to choose over her, and force her to continue with the pregnancy for 9 months.

    I think that the right thing would be to establish the limit in the month that the fetus starts to develop the nervous system, and therefore be a person. Of course, even if it's “too late”, but the mother is going to undergo a great risk, abortion should be accepted too.

    Anyway, if you are against abortion because you state that the union of these 2 cells makes a person, are you also against artifitial reproduction (As In vitro techniques)? They create several embryos, in case one of them is not viable, and finally the only use one.
    Because if you got two gametes together you do get a human and as I've argued before to other people on this thread after a certain number of weeks they have all the same feelings and functions as babies outside of the womb.

    Your opinion is interesting but we are talking about medical facts here, i.e: after a certain length of time the fetus could be considered sentient and fully 'human'

    I don't see why the mothers choice (in the cases when she wilfully choose to conceive the baby by an act of sex) should automatically entail the painful destruction of an innocent human life. Why does the baby not have a right to life of it's own? It is genetically distinct from the mother so it's not even like you could say it's just like her sloughing off dead skin cells or anything. It is a distinct persons with a body of it's own

    My stance on artificial reproduction techniques is neutral; I think it's a shame that some people are infertile and they are entitled to use the wonders of modern science to give themselves a baby but I don't see why they couldn't just adopt. There are millions of unwanted children in the world needing loving parents.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Romula)
    Should be... what? Should be subsidised? Or should subside?
    I meant subsidised.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    Clearly you need to improve your reading comprehension. Science explains everything. Science is why we are here. That is all science. What I said was science was still science even before it was identified as science.

    It may have been identified in the 16th century ( Butwhat about Plato and Aristotle, it was their theories scientists were begining to apply in the 16th century) but science existed way before it was identified.

    Maybe you need to clean up your knowledge as you seem misinformed lol .
    No, the natural laws that govern us were here all along, yes. But the experimental method of discovering them were only developed fairly recently.

    Plato and Aristotle were philosophers, not scientists. They discovered nothing new that wasn't already known, if I remember correctly. Remember at this time they still thought everything was composed of air, water, fire, earth or spirit.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    I meant subsidised.
    Ah, right. Well, it sort of is, insofar as it is free on the NHS.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Because if you got two gametes together you do get a human and as I've argued before to other people on this thread after a certain number of weeks they have all the same feelings and functions as babies outside of the womb.

    Your opinion is interesting but we are talking about medical facts here, i.e: after a certain length of time the fetus could be considered sentient and fully 'human'

    I don't see why the mothers choice (in the cases when she wilfully choose to conceive the baby by an act of sex) should automatically entail the painful destruction of an innocent human life. Why does the baby not have a right to life of it's own? It is genetically distinct from the mother so it's not even like you could say it's just like her sloughing off dead skin cells or anything. It is a distinct persons with a body of it's own

    My stance on artificial reproduction techniques is neutral; I think it's a shame that some people are infertile and they are entitled to use the wonders of modern science to give themselves a baby but I don't see why they couldn't just adopt. There are millions of unwanted children in the world needing loving parents.
    Maybe they don't want to adopt?

    To most pro-lifer's adoption sounds like the 'perfect magical solution' and to that I say it's complete and utter BS, the adoption process is difficult firstly, so having your baby and then dropping it off to allow it to be adopted is going to be difficult for both parents and the child.

    Secondly the child grows up knowing it's mother and father abandoned him/her.

    Lastly, what if the adoptive parents finally have children of their own and don't want to adopt anymore, what if the child ends up in an abusive violent home, what if the child is sexually abused? what if it's open to risks it never would have been if an abortion had been carried out.

    Don't say these things are unlikely, they certainly are not. They happen to children all over the world. I have read books on terrible things that have happened to adopted children and I have come to realise adoption isn't all as 'perfect' as people make it seem.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Romula)
    In


    Your experts and the BMA are clearly reading different journals. Please could you show me what these experts have said, so I can read it for myself? It would make for very interesting reading.

    I agree with you that foetuses can feel pain after a certain point- twenty-four weeks is the agreed-upon point, which is why abortion after that point is illegal. I also agree with you *deep science voice* that humans... are not corn.

    Look, this argument would be easier on both sides if you made it clear on what grounds you classify early foetuses as humans. DNA and respiration are obviously far too broad; sentience is under dispute- I await your quoted experts. Anything else?
    I'm sure you can find them on the internet if you do bother to look.

    I'm not in the business of holding people's hands here. If experts cannot even agree on exact times and dates then what chance have we mere mortals got?

    Look, I don't ethically have a problem with abortion in the early stages (i.e: blastocyst stage) but when it gets to the point where there might be some uncertainty about whether the fetus feels pain or not I still think 24 weeks is too late.

    I'm just not all for people killing other people even if those people happen to be dependent on them because then where is the line drawn? Shall we allow people to kill all children as they cannot look after themselves? What about mentally disabled people and those with low IQ? What about the elderly? All human life is sacred.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Romula)
    Ah, right. Well, it sort of is, insofar as it is free on the NHS.
    It is only refunded. I want to give additional money for aborting.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    Maybe they don't want to adopt?

    To most pro-lifer's adoption sounds like the 'perfect magical solution' and to that I say it's complete and utter BS, the adoption process is difficult firstly, so having your baby and then dropping it off to allow it to be adopted is going to be difficult for both parents and the child.

    Secondly the child grows up knowing it's mother and father abandoned him/her.

    Lastly, what if the adoptive parents finally have children of their own and don't want to adopt anymore, what if the child ends up in an abusive violent home, what if the child is sexually abused? what if it's open to risks it never would have been if an abortion had been carried out.

    Don't say these things are unlikely, they certainly are not. They happen to children all over the world. I have read books on terrible things that have happened to adopted children and I have come to realise adoption isn't all as 'perfect' as people make it seem.
    A child can recover (God forbid worst case scenario) from abuse that adults inflict on it.

    It cannot however recover from its head being crushed, injected with deadly solution, its spine ripped out, its limbs ripped off or being sucked out of the womb and in some cases where its late term thrown in the toilet to drown and die.

    BIG DIFFERENCE
 
 
 
Poll
Favourite type of bread
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.