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

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    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.
    Your wrong. You don't remember clearlu obviously, doubt you 'remember' at all lol.They were philosphers with scientific theories that were expanded on and developed later by scientists when science was identified as science. Natural law's is a scientific term, making it science. Stop trying to wriggle yourself out of the fact you are clearly wrong here.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    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.
    Breaking news: a foetus is not a child. It's a foetus.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    Your wrong. You don't remember clearlu obviously, doubt you 'remember' at all lol.They were philosphers with scientific theories that were expanded on and developed later by scientists when science was identified as science. Natural law's is a scientific term, making it science. Stop trying to wriggle yourself out of the fact you are clearly wrong here.
    Whatever you say, sweetheart, but fact of the matter is all modern chemistry and physics did start to develop a lot more in the enlightenment era. This is even recognised by historians calling it the enlightenment era and not the dark ages anymore
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Well firstly it is silly to believe that the foetus isn't alive until some magical stage in the pregnancy because cells can't divide and differentiate if they are dead. The foetus is definitely human because it was produced from the fertilisation of human gametes and contains 46 chromosomes as normal human cells do. There can be a debate however on if the foetus is a 'person'. The definition of a person is: A human being regarded as an individual. From a biological stand point, processes such as crossing over and independent assortment which takes place during meiosis does lead to genetic variation so the genetic information of the foetus will vary from its parents. Furthermore, all humans have a different genome so in that sense we are all individuals ever since our conception (excluding identical twins). From a social stand point, a argument can be made as the interactions a foetus can make within its surrounding environment is limited mainly to the mother.
    Next we ask "So is abortion murder?"
    The definition of murder (according to the Oxford English Dictionary) is: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Well abortion is legal when approved so probably not. Also the act is premeditated so it can't really be considered manslaughter either.
    So essentially abortion is the legal premeditated killing of a human being. When phrased this way abortion does appear like a wrong, violent act but sometimes in life people are faced with choices which are all wrong but to different extents.
    It is wrong for hardcore pro choice activists to trivialise the issue by dehumanising the foetus but it is also wrong for those on the other end to impose their views on others especially if it originates from religious beliefs.
    By maintaining this balance abortion won't become a alternative form of contraception and will be a last resort, the freedom to choose would not be taken away and the family (or potential single mother) that has to make this decision won't make it lightly if they accept the foetus is alive but is reassured that society won't judge them because circumstances can be tough.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    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

    No, just NO. Go ask a child that has been sexually abused if they have 'recovered' Go ask a child with a drunken mother and father who beat them to death everynight, go ask if they have recorvered??? You are clearly SOO ignorant, like most pro-lifers.

    A child should not ever have to go through anything so trumatic. It is a child, everychild deserves love and a happy home. Not everyone is able to provide it, in that case don't bring a child into the world and carry out an abortion if necessary.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Whatever you say, sweetheart, but fact of the matter is all modern chemistry and physics did start to develop a lot more in the enlightenment era. This is even recognised by historians calling it the enlightenment era and not the dark ages anymore
    Don't call me sweetheart, what objectifying language. Change your tone with me, you are clearly wrong. Era changes nothing, theories where discovered long before science identified itself. You are completely wrong here.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I don't like it, however sometimes it's necessary so I suppose I'm more pro-choice then pro-life. Don't think it should be free on the NHS though unless it's a rape child or is going to endanger the mothers health in some way.

    Certainly don't think it's be something to be proud of as some of the posters in this thread are making it out to be.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pcabezas)
    Well at least it's nice to see someone arguing from a respectful point of view, instead of just shouting angry nonsense.

    I agree that there are some women that get pregnant because of their own irresponsibility, however, there are also many cases of women that did use birth control methods but the failed. Aren't they entitled to have sex for whatever reason they want? Moreover, if they were responsible, why shouldn't they be able to abort?

    Another question, are you also against the morning-after pill?
    As you said, there are millions of unwanted children, and obvioiusly now that they are alive we don't think that way, but, as crude as it might sound, wouldn't it have been better if their parents had not had brought them to a miserable life, and waited for the correct time to have a child?
    Thank you haha

    I agree with you that birth control methods are not always 100% effective but ones like condoms are nearly 100% effective. Even then the problem can be circumvented by avoiding coitus when the women is most fertile during the reproductive cycle

    I still fail to see how an innocent child in the womb having its skull crushed or being mutilated horribly in the name of 'choice' is a better alternative to giving birth to them and then giving them up for adoption. At least then they have a chance of life instead of having their limbs brutally ripped off in utero with no painkiller administered whatsoever

    The morning after pill to my knowledge merely prevents an implantation, am I correct? No implantation has taken place and therefore no fetal development.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    No, just NO. Go ask a child that has been sexually abused if they have 'recovered' Go ask a child with a drunken mother and father who beat them to death everynight, go ask if they have recorvered??? You are clearly SOO ignorant, like most pro-lifers.

    A child should not ever have to go through anything so trumatic. It is a child, everychild deserves love and a happy home. Not everyone is able to provide it, in that case don't bring a child into the world and carry out an abortion if necessary.
    Go and ask an aborted child who had its skull crushed in if it would have preferred a chance at life then? Oh wait.... That's right... You can't...

    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    Don't call me sweetheart, what objectifying language. Change your tone with me, you are clearly wrong. Era changes nothing, theories where discovered long before science identified itself. You are completely wrong here.
    You are wrong here, though. For example the theory of biogenesis was only proven and quantified when Louis Pasteur did his famous experiments on abiotic genesis. Before that people just thought 'bad air' caused illness and that animals mysteriously formed of their own accord from rotting organic material
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Go and ask an aborted child who had its skull crushed in if it would have preferred a chance at life then? Oh wait.... That's right... You can't...
    Um so in your head it's better for a child to go through truamatic sexual abuse/ violence than to never have lived at all?


    You are wrong here, though. For example the theory of biogenesis was only proven and quantified when Louis Pasteur did his famous experiments on abiotic genesis. Before that people just thought 'bad air' caused illness and that animals mysteriously formed of their own accord from rotting organic material
    I said science was around, did I say it was identified? and lol your comma is in the wrong place.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MangoCrazy)
    Your avatar is Ugh
    No it's not.

    (Original post by MangoCrazy)
    Yes.
    Because...? (Or do you just not like PDA?)
    Seriously GCSE English:
    - Point
    (- Evidence)
    - Explain

    Seriously it's getting annoying that TSR is incapable of doing this.

    (Original post by MangoCrazy)
    This thread ain't about homosexuality, if you wish to continue then you can simply VM me. Or not.
    Can I debate with you about that in this thread, or a new thread then?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    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.
    "Science also allowed abortions to come about"
    "and I was talking about safe medical abortions clearly. "

    The point you were making seemed to be some kind of conflict between science's position on what constitutes a human, and the invention of safe abortions. Can you explain it?

    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    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:
    I think you are confusing human with person or a more philosophical concept.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Only if you were raped or the child has a high chance of forming an extreme disability/disease.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    "Science also allowed abortions to come about"
    "and I was talking about safe medical abortions clearly. "

    The point you were making seemed to be some kind of conflict between science's position on what constitutes a human, and the invention of safe abortions. Can you explain it?
    I have to re-read it, I'll get back to you.

    I think you are confusing human with person or a more philosophical concept.
    A human is a person.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MangoCrazy)
    I stick to them, they don't need changing to suit your views



    Well there are reason too.
    Control them ****ing urges then.


    OP mentioned not wanting kids? They should have thought about that beforehand.
    A woman doesn't get the 'urge' to be raped so it's not her fault if she is pregnant after rape - and you're saying she should have to have that rapist's child?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    Um so in your head it's better for a child to go through truamatic sexual abuse/ violence than to never have lived at all?




    I said science was around, did I say it was identified? and lol your comma is in the wrong place.
    Yes because as I've said before to a certain extent you can recover and rebuild your life from it. This is why we have psychologists and counselling and psychological treatments. There are many positive stories of people who have been abused going on to rebuild their lives and becoming successful inspirations. Your thought process is all negative here, isn't it?

    Typical losing argument, can't refute what you say because it's the truth so begins to nit pick at petty points. LOL.

    What the ancients did could not be considered 'science' by any modern definition because they did not use the experimental method. They sat around and hypothesised. Therefore it is not science. What part of this small point are you having difficulty comprehending?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Thank you haha

    I agree with you that birth control methods are not always 100% effective but ones like condoms are nearly 100% effective. Even then the problem can be circumvented by avoiding coitus when the women is most fertile during the reproductive cycle

    I still fail to see how an innocent child in the womb having its skull crushed or being mutilated horribly in the name of 'choice' is a better alternative to giving birth to them and then giving them up for adoption. At least then they have a chance of life instead of having their limbs brutally ripped off in utero with no painkiller administered whatsoever

    The morning after pill to my knowledge merely prevents an implantation, am I correct? No implantation has taken place and therefore no fetal development.
    Actually our opinions are not that different. I think that the methods you talk about are only used in extreme cases. I am also against abortion after months and moths, I think that anyone can make that decision earlier, so that the method used for the abortion is completely different.
    However, if the mother has alredy been pregnant for 6 months, and she suddenly discovers that continuing with the pregnancy would potentialy risk her life, she should be able to abort, even if so brutal methods are required.

    Yes you're right about the morning pill, I was just asking because there are so many people against it because they say it's the same thing as abortion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MangoCrazy)
    I stick to them, they don't need changing to suit your views



    Well there are reason too.
    Control them ****ing urges then.


    OP mentioned not wanting kids? They should have thought about that beforehand.

    A woman doesn't get 'urges' to be raped so if she gets pregnant it's not her fault - she shouldn't have to give birth to a rapist's baby.
    Also, contraception doesn't always work, condoms break and unwanted pregnancies happen. What if the parents aren't able to support a child?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    How is my avatar "Ugh"? You have a problem with two homosexual males expressing love for eachother?
    I personally have no problem with it but god looking at it does make me ugh. I support the right to do it but no fan of seeing it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Yes because as I've said before to a certain extent you can recover and rebuild your life from it. This is why we have psychologists and counselling and psychological treatments. There are many positive stories of people who have been abused going on to rebuild their lives and becoming successful inspirations. Your thought process is all negative here, isn't it?

    Typical losing argument, can't refute what you say because it's the truth so begins to nit pick at petty points. LOL.

    What the ancients did could not be considered 'science' by any modern definition because they did not use the experimental method. They sat around and hypothesised. Therefore it is not science. What part of this small point are you having difficulty comprehending?
    My thought process on children going through SEXUAL ABUSE/VIOLENCE is NEGATIVE because I don't understand how it can be positive? It disgusting and vile and no human should even have the misfortune of experiencing it. You paragraph makes me sick to my stomach, that you actually agree that you would rather a child face truamatic experience such as Sexual abuse rather than it not living any life at all.

    No what are you not understanding? Ofcourse they used experimental methods you highly mis-informed person, Aristotle went to Lesvos and there he explored and experimented and wrote about, he is now considered a 'natural scientist' he wasn't then, not his theories are identified as Science.

    What part of that is so difficult for you to understand?
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.