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

    21
    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?
    To be honest, I'm pro choice and I think that too. I think it's pretty insulting and even possibly damaging to speak on behalf of abuse victims, especially if your implying that it's better to have not lived at all.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    To be honest, I'm pro choice and I think that too. I think it's pretty insulting and even possibly damaging to speak on behalf of abuse victims, especially if your implying that it's better to have not lived at all.
    I'm not saying they shouldn't live at all or should have been aborted. I'm questioning her stance on the situation, if she deems having an abortion is worse than a child going through trumatic experiences such as sexual abuse because they will recover, then I would say she is extremely wrong.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pcabezas)
    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.
    Yes, I kind of agree, except maybe it would be best if, in the case that that was the sad situation the fetus should at least be allowed the liberty of painkillers don't you think? That way any unnessesary suffering on part of the unborn is minimised. Also, if the mother wanted the baby and had to get rid of it due to life threatening complications I would hope that she would want the baby to die in the least possible painful way aswell.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    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?
    Well, no s***. of course abuse and violence is negative, but is murder any better? If you were given a choice between dying tomorrow and living your full life but having being abused for a set period of time by any means you wouldn't choose to end your life would you? My point is where there if life there is hope.

    The fetus would suffer immense pain from the methods of abortion without the benefit of painkillers, either self releasing or given medically. Any life is better than none.

    This wouldn't even be an issue as there are many loving adoptive parents out there.

    Yes he might have been a 'scientist' by those standards but not by todays standards. He made some progress towards a scientific method of sorts but not the standard of post dark age science
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    I'm not saying they shouldn't live at all or should have been aborted. I'm questioning her stance on the situation, if she deems having an abortion is worse than a child going through trumatic experiences such as sexual abuse because they will recover, then I would say she is extremely wrong.
    You're implying that it's better to have been aborted, then to face abuse. I'm saying that's a horrible thing to say and that I know actual abuse victims who'd disagree with you.

    We shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that abortions are ever for the sake of the child, because they're obviously not. Abortions are almost always for the benefit of the parents (usually the mother) and I'm in no way saying that's wrong, just that you shouldn't try to rationalise it by thinking it benefits the child in some way.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    You're implying that it's better to have been aborted, then to face abuse. I'm saying that's a horrible thing to say and that I know actual abuse victims who'd disagree with you.

    We shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that abortions are ever for the sake of the child, because they're obviously not. Abortions are almost always for the benefit of the parents (usually the mother) and I'm in no way saying that's wrong, just that you shouldn't try to rationalise it by thinking it benefits the child in some way.
    No I'm not implying that at all, I am looking at it from a perspective. I would NEVER say that. You clearly have read it wrong.

    Of course they are! They absolutely are, I would NEVER bring a child into the world knowing I couldn't provide for it. Knowing we would be living off less than it needs, not providing to it's needs. It's all about the child, I have never viewed abortion in any other way. I'm very suprised you think that actually.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Well, no s***. of course abuse and violence is negative, but is murder any better? If you were given a choice between dying tomorrow and living your full life but having being abused for a set period of time by any means you wouldn't choose to end your life would you? My point is where there if life there is hope.

    The fetus would suffer immense pain from the methods of abortion without the benefit of painkillers, either self releasing or given medically. Any life is better than none.

    This wouldn't even be an issue as there are many loving adoptive parents out there.

    Yes he might have been a 'scientist' by those standards but not by todays standards. He made some progress towards a scientific method of sorts but not the standard of post dark age science
    It's not murder LOL.

    As I made this point earlier I won't tak on the behalf of a sexual abuse victim but I certainly know they don't 'recover' as you so lighly put it

    Omg what don't you understand?! His theories were the beginnings of the identification of science in the 16th century. Science doesn't differ in era's, science is science, theories and theories.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    No I'm not implying that at all, I am looking at it from a perspective. I would NEVER say that. You clearly have read it wrong.

    Of course they are! They absolutely are, I would NEVER bring a child into the world knowing I couldn't provide for it. Knowing we would be living off less than it needs, not providing to it's needs. It's all about the child, I have never viewed abortion in any other way. I'm very suprised you think that actually.
    Perhaps I misunderstood your post then, if that's the case then my bad.

    I just can't understand how killing something that can't even make the decision for itself, can ever be benefiting it. I guess because I don't believe in an afterlife, I think the worst thing that can happen to any organism is it dying because it's extinguished forever now.
    The way I see it is that you're killing the kid because you aren't able to cope with the burden of a child. The parent(s) aren't willing or able to deal with the responsibilities and so they chose to avoid it all together.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    It's not murder LOL.

    As I made this point earlier I won't tak on the behalf of a sexual abuse victim but I certainly know they don't 'recover' as you so lighly put it

    Omg what don't you understand?! His theories were the beginnings of the identification of science in the 16th century. Science doesn't differ in era's, science is science, theories and theories.
    Murder is the unlawful termination of another human beings life at the hands of another human being. A fetus is capable of feeling and sentience and is fully genetically human. Therefore it is murder.

    Just because it is legal and safe doesn't make it morally right. Slavery was at one time legal. Does that make it right?

    I am not asking you to talk on behalf of a victim of sexual abuse, I'm asking YOU, TheonlyMrsHolmes, personally.

    Science has a specific definition which you can look up.

    What Aristotle did was a sort of observation but he did not do it empirically, you can find criticisms and why what he did is not science in the modern sense. He made lots of wrong classifications and many of his ideas were nonsense

    I agree that he laid the foundations of modern era science but in some ways he set it back aswell.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    Perhaps I misunderstood your post then, if that's the case then my bad.

    I just can't understand how killing something that can't even make the decision for itself, can ever be benefiting it. I guess because I don't believe in an afterlife, I think the worst thing that can happen to any organism is it dying because it's extinguished forever now.
    The way I see it is that you're killing the kid because you aren't able to cope with the burden of a child. The parent(s) aren't willing or able to deal with the responsibilities and so they chose to avoid it all together.
    You did, I would never say that. But I think it's also just as bad to assume on their behalf that they will 'recover', I don't think anyone ever recovers from truama, especially growing up.

    I don't believe in after life either.

    I see it as, if the circumstances are not okay for a child it should not be brought into the world, for example a violent abusive relationship that the woman(now I'm not saying men can't be in an abusive relationship either, I am just looking at it from the perspective of the woman who is carrying the child) cannot get out of, and she falls pregnant, it is not okay to bring a baby into this, firstly when and if she gets out of it, both mother and child will suffer, if she doesn't well clearly the child grows up truamatised seeing vile behaviour.

    Noone's life is perfect and these situations occur. You can't just make certain boundries for abortion. That it's only acceptable under circumstances, that is just not the case. I have just never seen abortion to be okay in any other way but for the benifit of the child.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with it, but think that the window of abortion should be shortened. It's currently 24 weeks (6 months) and I think it should be lowered to at least 20. It should not take you half a year to decide whether or not you're going to keep the baby.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    You did, I would never say that. But I think it's also just as bad to assume on their behalf that they will 'recover', I don't think anyone ever recovers from truama, especially growing up.

    I don't believe in after life either.

    I see it as, if the circumstances are not okay for a child it should not be brought into the world, for example a violent abusive relationship that the woman(now I'm not saying men can't be in an abusive relationship either, I am just looking at it from the perspective of the woman who is carrying the child) cannot get out of, and she falls pregnant, it is not okay to bring a baby into this, firstly when and if she gets out of it, both mother and child will suffer, if she doesn't well clearly the child grows up truamatised seeing vile behaviour.

    Noone's life is perfect and these situations occur. You can't just make certain boundries for abortion. That it's only acceptable under circumstances, that is just not the case. I have just never seen abortion to be okay in any other way but for the benifit of the child.
    Don't get me wrong, I don't think many people will fully recover from abuse. I've seen first hand what that stuff can lead to, even 10+ years down the line. It's just I know how damaging and unhelpful it is when people go on about how abuse victims will always have this cloud looming over their heads. After a while some people start defining themselves as an "abuse victim" and it's really hard to get them to see themselves as an normal human being again.

    Never thought about abortion like that, I suppose in that case it is being done for the child's benefit. (Although personally I disagree with the reasoning, but that's just a matter of opinion.)
    You've changed my mind a bit actually, I still think a lot of the time it is parents deciding they don't want a child in their lives and simply aborting them for their own sake, but I suppose there are also probably many cases of people thinking they're actually doing the child a favour by not bringing them into that type of world.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Abortion is an amazing thing. Hurrahh for science and medicine
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    1. Then the whole situation is a joke. Lol.
    2. Of course you did; you said "why have sex then?". I am not gay - I'm bisexual. Your adhominem only further reveals your weakness to reply properly. And you know how easily I could descend this into religion as well. But, me being a lot more mature, I'm not going to.
    3. Then stop acting like it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think I'm in love... :mmm:
    (What a conclusive, sharp response.)

    (Original post by )
    Your picture is damn disgusting! Stupid.
    Because....

    PEE: Point/Evidence/Explanation (GCSE English.) You're supposed to try accomplish all three.

    Do you differentiate between two men kissing, and a man and a woman, when saying that statement? Has it got exclusivity to the men? (Presuming so from past experience, but I avoid criticism until my arguments are foolproof.)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)

    Because....

    PEE: Point/Evidence/Explanation (GCSE English.) You're supposed to try accomplish all three.

    Do you differentiate between two men kissing, and a man and a woman, when saying that statement? Has it got exclusivity to the men? (Presuming so from past experience, but I avoid criticism until my arguments are foolproof.)
    Lol I love that!!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    I think I'm in love... :mmm:
    (What a conclusive, sharp response.)



    Because....

    PEE: Point/Evidence/Explanation (GCSE English.) You're supposed to try accomplish all three.

    Do you differentiate between two men kissing, and a man and a woman, when saying that statement? Has it got exclusivity to the men? (Presuming so from past experience, but I avoid criticism until my arguments are foolproof.)
    Seeing as i am on Studenroom at 03:23 AM i don't really feel writing unnecessary paragraphs and explanations.

    I wouldn't like to see a man and woman intimately kiss as your avatar either, however i do find it more repulsive with two men kissing.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by )
    Seeing as i am on Studenroom at 03:23 AM i don't really feel writing unnecessary paragraphs and explanations.

    I wouldn't like to see a man and woman intimately kiss as your avatar either, however i do find it more repulsive with two men kissing.
    Do you find it more repulsive simply because you're (presumably) heterosexual yourself, and it's weird/not the norm/you can't relate?
    Would you at all prevent/try to prevent two men kissing as a result of this repulsion, to a greater degree than a man and a woman?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tmckinnin56)
    With abortion being a hot topic is it wrong to abort a foetus considering if u don't want the kid or u are up the duff by error what u think of the subject


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It annoys me when people have sex carelessly just bc they know they are able to abort a child if something goes wrong. It's selfish.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    Lol I love that!!
    Ty! (I'm telling it to a lot of TSRians these days .)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drowzee)
    I don't understand how anyone can be anything other than pro-choice tbh.
    It's still a human life that you'd be killing, just bc it's a baby and hasnt been exposed to the earth doesnt mean that it isn't human. Would you commit murder, if not then why go through abortion? (Provided there's not a valid reason.) People shouldn't have sex if they arent going to be careful, theyre just taking advantage of what's available to them. If the only thing that was available was street abortions then no one would be as silly. Plus, I believe that abortion clinics being present increases the chance of teenage pregnancies and lots of people just use abortion as another form of contraception. It's stupid, it irritates me.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
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.