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

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Converse Rocker)
    Yeah, I am. Does that mean I'm allowed to support abortion now?
    I'll consider it.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dendodge)
    Bad example. Infant circumcision is wrong.
    It wasn't an example of anything, just something I've noticed.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sheldor)
    Technically speaking...it's not alive....and it's not an infant.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well, I guess that's down to personal opinion, I consider anything with a heartbeat alive, especially something that can react to external stimuli.

    Are you in favour of late term abortions? The only difference between a 23-weeker and a 24-weeker is one is protected from death, one isn't.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HopefulMidwife)
    It wasn't an example of anything, just something I've noticed.
    Where? If you can point me in the direction of these scalpel wielding pro-circumcision feminists, I'll certainly give them my two cents. As it is, sounds like you're just using one of the good old anti-feminist myths that are doing the rounds. Feminists are anti-circumcision, regardless of gender. Although to try and put male circumcision on a par with FGM is wrong, given the severe health problems associated with FGM (while I think male circumcision is wrong, at least you can still live a perfectly good quality of life without a foreskin).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    It always strikes me in the abortion debate that of all the voices making their opinions, none of them are women who have had abortions.

    I've had two. Best decisions of my life. Ask me nicely and I might even give some more details, but I'll be damned if I'm going to try and justify my decisions to some moron on the internet who has no idea what abortion entails emotionally and physically.

    (Now, lets see how many pro-lifers neg me!) :rolleyes:
    I laugh at this statement, it must require a lot emotionally to go through it twice...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Yeah, I don't think pro-lifers ever actually consider what it might be like to have an abortion. People who act like I'm a selfish cow who doesn't use contraception, when they don't even know my circumstances...

    To think it's a lightly taken decision is also a load of rubbish. EVERY girl who's ever had a preg scare knows quite how horrid it is. They were two of the worst days of my life, but I'd do it again if I had to. Abortions happen whether they are "allowed" or not. It is the responsibility of a decent government to make sure all women can access them safely and without judgement should they need to.
    Exactly! If someone told me I can't legally get an abortion I would no doubt get a 'back-ally one' putting my life at risk or travel to a different country. Abortions are going to happen whether people like it or not - it's just a question of whether they are going to be safe or not. I think this just shows how women have them because they HAVE to as opposed to just waking up one day and thinking 'you know what - i am just sick of being pregnant and lacking any sort of emotional bond with my unborn foetus.'
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    To those that say what right is it of yours.

    Well let us take that stance on anything. What right is it of us to sanction certain countries for massacring its peoples. What right is it of ours to condemn thieves of thievery or murders for murder.

    We as a society are obliged to protect the weak, to defend those that can not defend themselves against injustice. This moral obligation give me much more right than a self centred person taking the life of another.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dartanoir)
    Exactly! If someone told me I can't legally get an abortion I would no doubt get a 'back-ally one' putting my life at risk or travel to a different country. Abortions are going to happen whether people like it or not - it's just a question of whether they are going to be safe or not. I think this just shows how women have them because they HAVE to as opposed to just waking up one day and thinking 'you know what - i am just sick of being pregnant and lacking any sort of emotional bond with my unborn foetus.'
    Do you know what's worse than bringing a new life to the world (a lot of things actually) well for one, your whole family being killed in a car accident by a drink driver or someone torching your house down and killing your wife and kids. Now I ask you, is it lawful for the victim to hunt these people down and torture them and dispose of them as he/she sees fit? Does the law allow for those that have had their lives made hell to persue to kill those that have brought it upon them?

    No.

    So why should you be allowed to kill, just so you may live a what you perceive to be a better life?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dendodge)
    1. A woman's body is her own, and you can't force her to have a child she doesn't want. I've never experienced it myself, but I believe childbirth is rather painful and unpleasant.
    2. A child should not be brought up by a family that does not want them
    3. Orphanages and care homes are already overcrowded, so encouraging adoption is not a solution
    4. Having a child at a young age can completely mess up a person's entire life; nobody should force that upon them just because of a broken condom
    5. How is banning abortion any different from banning condoms or the Pill... or life-saving surgery? They all "interfere with natural processes". And I doubt you'll get much support on TSR for banning those.
    Got it right on the ball.

    Abortion is a choice and it's a choice of the person who is carrying the child with input from the father, if he wants to be involved.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    I laugh at this statement, it must require a lot emotionally to go through it twice...
    You have no idea. And I'll do it again, as many times as I choose to, because it's MY choice and MY right to do what I wish with my body (and regardless of your opinion, guess what? I'm no murderer, and the state agrees with me, not you).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HopefulMidwife)
    So tell me, are you against the circumcision of little boys? Just asking.

    Not saying you're a feminist, though you might be, but feminists seem to bleat loudly about abortion being a 'woman's right' and it's 'HER body', regardless of the other beating heart inside of it, but they are strangely silent when it comes to little boys not having their bodily autonomy and right to have an unaltered body.

    Not trying to be funny, just a real question.
    I don't really know where you pulled this one of out.. As a feminist (or you know.. a human being) I see male circumcision as unacceptable and just outright weird, however I don't think it's comparable to FGM. I think this is where you might be getting confused. You see I believe both are wrong but one is worse than the other. Male circumcision is often done for health and hygiene reasons that sometimes link in with religion whereas FGM is done to reduce her pleasure whilst having sex. Also male circumcision is done whilst they are roughly 10 days old so leave no emotional trauma, whereas female one is done around the age of 7 or up. But like I said - I still believe that male circumcision is wrong and needs to be banned as it's barbaric, can result in serious infection and men should have a say over their own bodies.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Where? If you can point me in the direction of these scalpel wielding pro-circumcision feminists, I'll certainly give them my two cents. As it is, sounds like you're just using one of the good old anti-feminist myths that are doing the rounds. Feminists are anti-circumcision, regardless of gender. Although to try and put male circumcision on a par with FGM is wrong, given the severe health problems associated with FGM (while I think male circumcision is wrong, at least you can still live a perfectly good quality of life without a foreskin).
    I'm not using anything, I am saying something I observed. I never put it forward as evidence for anything, or am I not allowed to say anything against feminists now?

    And the bolded is where you're wrong, and something many feminists say. If you'd done your research, you would have known that there are several types of FGM, with the complete removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy) and sewing up of the vaginal canal being the most severe.

    FGM can range from simply pricking the labia with pins to the severe form we hear about mostly.

    Bear in mind, a type of FGM involves removal or the clitoral hood which is almost anatomatically the same as the foreskin of the penis. If you know about fetal development, you will know that the glans of the clitoris forms from the same structure as the glans of the penis, with a foreskin/clitoral hood protecting and covering it.

    Source: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

    And there are PLENTY of men who are permanantly affected by the circumcision. Aside from things going wrong (skin tags, skin not stretching enough, infection - to name a few), the lost nerve endings can never be recovered. There are thousands of men who wish they weren't circumcised, but can't do anything about it - http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html, http://www.circumcisioninformation.c...stimonies.html. And there's something to be said about making men feel like a natural part of their body is 'wrong' or 'dirty'.

    So don't try and say it's less important. Sounds like the people who pay no mind to male rape or domestic violence against males. Once again it's 'women have it worse than me' or 'it's worse when it happens to a woman'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    Do you know what's worse than bringing a new life to the world (a lot of things actually) well for one, your whole family being killed in a car accident by a drink driver or someone torching your house down and killing your wife and kids. Now I ask you, is it lawful for the victim to hunt these people down and torture them and dispose of them as he/she sees fit? Does the law allow for those that have had their lives made hell to persue to kill those that have brought it upon them?

    No.

    So why should you be allowed to kill, just so you may live a what you perceive to be a better life?
    Way to make it impossible for me to take your point seriously due to extreme and absurd comparisons. :confused:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dartanoir)
    Way to make it impossible for me to take your point seriously due to extreme and absurd comparisons. :confused:
    I don't think you got the message I am saying it is not lawful for one person to kill another no matter how extreme the circumstance and how affected the victim of a crime was so why should it be any different for this.
    Offline

    13
    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
    This analogy would hold if 10-15% of balls spontaneously caught fire on the way to the ground.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    The ball analogy is a clear example of your mistake here. Just as police can raid a suspected t-be terrorists house without the actual act the mother has no right to abort what is a definity which is an individual, a person.
    The would-be-terrorist is making their own choice. The foetus is part of the mother, it is not its own being. Just because it will be in the future doesn't mean it is now.

    Taking your example the next step further, a woman should always be pregnant, because every time she goes a month without being in a state of pregnancy, an egg is dying which could have been a person. Not something I agree with at all.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dartanoir)
    I don't really know where you pulled this one of out.. As a feminist (or you know.. a human being) I see male circumcision as unacceptable and just outright weird, however I don't think it's comparable to FGM. I think this is where you might be getting confused. You see I believe both are wrong but one is worse than the other. Male circumcision is often done for health and hygiene reasons that sometimes link in with religion whereas FGM is done to reduce her pleasure whilst having sex. Also male circumcision is done whilst they are roughly 10 days old so leave no emotional trauma, whereas female one is done around the age of 7 or up. But like I said - I still believe that male circumcision is wrong and needs to be banned as it's barbaric, can result in serious infection and men should have a say over their own bodies.
    I've already detailed above about the parallels in the practise.

    And LOL.

    Male circumcision is often done for health and hygiene reasons - there is no studies that relate to the developed countries that can prove, undoubtably, that it has any health benefits. As for hygeine, the foreskin is fused to the glans until puberty. Until it seperates, it should be cleaned like a finger and, post seperation, cleaned underneath. Like females. Cos you know we can get smegma too, right? It's not hard to wash, and if somebody can't be bothered to wash under their foreskin, possible infections down there are probably the least of their worries. Amputation is not a substitute for hygiene.

    that sometimes link in with religion - religion is no excuse for anything, but even so, many people link religion in with FGM too. Again, religion can be used any way a person likes.

    whereas FGM is done to reduce her pleasure whilst having sex -

    Circumcision removes thousands of nerve endings from a male. They can still enjoy sex, but not to the extent that they could have without being circumcised. Not only that, but the foreskin HELPS WOMEN during sex too. It functions as a lubrication aid for man and woman, and facilitates in the sliding action. It impacts on sex lives too.


    Also male circumcision is done whilst they are roughly 10 days old so leave no emotional trauma, whereas female one is done around the age of 7 or up.
    - for a start, what makes you think that a child is impenetrable to trauma under a certain age? Just because a ten day old child is unable to verbalise what they have been through, it doesn't mean it doesn't cause trauma. If anything, I think it more traumatic for a newborn infant to be strapped down in a child shaped table and cut into without anastheatic. Not only that, but male circumcisions DO happen at older ages. My good friend had his done when he about 10 years old, with no anasthetic. Not only this, but evidence of trauma and shock can be seen on babies getting circumcised, and they often have trouble with breastfeeding, colic or attachment afterwards.

    I think you should do some research about MGM before claiming FGM is worse.

    Edit: Some links for you:

    The functions of the foreskin - http://www.drmomma.org/2009/09/funct...rposes-of.html

    How it impacts on the sex life of men and women - http://www.drmomma.org/2009/10/how-m...your-love.html
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    I don't think you got the message I am saying it is not lawful for one person to kill another no matter how extreme the circumstance and how affected the victim of a crime was so why should it be any different for this.
    A recent(ish) study done by RCOG shows that a foetus does not become 'conscious' nor does it feel pain until 24 weeks. So personally I do not consider it a 'person' - just a lump of cells that resemble a human.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HopefulMidwife)
    Well, I guess that's down to personal opinion, I consider anything with a heartbeat alive, especially something that can react to external stimuli.

    Are you in favour of late term abortions? The only difference between a 23-weeker and a 24-weeker is one is protected from death, one isn't.
    Even build-a-bears? I hear they've become quite advanced in recent years.

    Anyway, in all seriousness, I was looking at it scientifically in terms of whether they're alive at that point. Technically, they're parasites. But I suppose I'm just heartlessly clinical.

    It depends at what point under what circumstance and for what reason (So few abortions occur past 20 weeks anyway) but there is the small matter of fact of when the foetus can reasonably survive outside the womb that determines the abortion limit. Of course, I understand why people would object to the current one as some have been survived at 23 Weeks and want the termination limit to be changed to, say, 22 Weeks.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    To those that say what right is it of yours.

    Well let us take that stance on anything. What right is it of us to sanction certain countries for massacring its peoples. What right is it of ours to condemn thieves of thievery or murders for murder.

    We as a society are obliged to protect the weak, to defend those that can not defend themselves against injustice. This moral obligation give me much more right than a self centred person taking the life of another.
    There's a difference between the massacre of a country and abortion. Would you say they shouldn't be sanctioned?

    You say we have to defend against injustice... are we defending a child by allowing it to be born into a place where, for whatever reason, it cannot be brought up in the best way possible and may have a negative experience in life rather than ending the pregnancy before it has the chance to experience this?
 
 
 
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.