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

Do you think a woman who has killed a foetus could ever be a good mother? watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Sure?
    But what good mother aborts her child because she didn't take the precautions to not get pregnant? Oh well.
    I read about some women who think abortion is birth control. Women who done abortions are capable of being good mothers though.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    I do, but I'm not happy about it. I try to avoid where reasonable.
    I assume by 'where reasonable' you mean that you just don't eat meat or wear leather?

    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    No, what you are doing is finding something to point out to show hypocrisy. Examining my dietary and product choices is not picking apart my argument, it's picking apart my lifestyle which has no baring the morality of actions. I could for example, go around kicking babies, this doesn't make doing so any less moral.

    I view unborn humans similarly to born animals of similar complexity, and consider killing living things immoral. What I, or anyone else does as far as killing things goes is irrelevant to the morality of those actions, nobody leads a flawlessly moral life, and everyone chooses immoral actions for selfish reasons.
    Yes people make mistakes and commit acts they perceive as immoral but when you consistently do something that you claim is immoral you need revaluate your morality.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I assume by 'where reasonable' you mean that you just don't eat meat or wear leather?
    Essentially, yes.



    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Ies people make mistakes and commit acts they perceive as immoral but when you consistently do something that you claim is immoral you need revaluate your morality.
    I would argue you that you need to reevaluate your actions, not your morality.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Essentially, yes.

    We clearly have a different interpretation of what's reasonable then. There are far more things you change in order to avoid using products containing parts of animals.


    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    I would argue you that you need to reevaluate your actions, not your morality.
    Again, I suppose that's a difference of opinion



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BankOfPigs)
    This reasoning does not follow.

    I am not making the claim that abortion <=> bad character. I am saying that there is an argument for why someone might think they are linked. Your counter example doesn't refute this, nor have you given any counter arguments.

    Again, just because someone will never be put in said situation does not mean that it is not relevant to them. For example I am sure you agree that it is wrong for me to murder someone. However, you will never be me so you will never experience what it is like precisely for me to murder someone. Surely you think that you can still make moral judgements towards me?

    For an even more extreme example: Suppose a woman raped a guy for the purpose of becoming pregnant, and then had an abortion without asking them, do you not think there is something wrong here?
    this is just completely illogical and there are no legitimate arguments in here, why are you starting to talk about murder and making stupid examples, educate yourself fam
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niamhemily99)
    this is just completely illogical and there are no legitimate arguments in here, why are you starting to talk about murder and making stupid examples, educate yourself fam
    Again, simply saying something is illogical and without legitimate argument is not a response, you need to give an actual counter argument if you want to have some form of a debate. Further, throwing insults does not help anyone.

    My claim is that just because you may never be in a position to experience an action, does not mean that said action and whether someone should commit that action is not of your concern. My example regarding murder is simply that you might not experience what it is like to murder someone, yet you are allowed to have a (presumably negative) opinion about it, especially if it was someone related to you that was being murdered.

    A parallel could potentially be drawn with Abortion.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by idontknowmedoyou)
    its not real your business if a woman has had an abortion, and it doesn't make you a bad mother if you have had an abortion previously? it's a foetus not a baby.
    I don't think anybody would ever try to justify it if a parent killed their own newborn baby, whatever the reason might be. All the usual arguments in favour of abortion would clearly fail if it were a newborn baby in question, and nobody would hesitate to declare that anyone who kills their own newborn baby is a terrible parent and certainly not someone you'd ever want to have kids with.

    So all defence of killing an unborn child rests entirely on this one assumption you've made: "It's a foetus, not a baby", i.e. it only gains the right to continued life when it becomes a baby (after it is born), rather than when it is still a foetus (before it is born). All other arguments are really irrelevant; whether or not abortion ought to be acceptable swings entirely on this point.

    However the problem with this point is that it's totally subjective. Perhaps according to you, a foetus only gains the right to live after birth. But drawing the line at birth is arbitrary; it could just as reasonably be drawn at conception, or at the point of gaining consciousness, or at the point of a 50% chance of viability, or even any time after birth. It certainly doesn't help that entire scientific and philosophical communities have failed to come to come to a consensus on the matter. So this doesn't really seem like a very substantial foundation for something as serious as a decision to kill.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I don't think anybody would ever try to justify it if a parent killed their own newborn baby, whatever the reason might be. All the usual arguments in favour of abortion would clearly fail if it were a newborn baby in question, and nobody would hesitate to declare that anyone who kills their own newborn baby is a terrible parent and certainly not someone you'd ever want to have kids with.

    So all defence of killing an unborn child rests entirely on this one assumption you've made: "It's a foetus, not a baby", i.e. it only gains the right to continued life when it becomes a baby (after it is born), rather than when it is still a foetus (before it is born). All other arguments are really irrelevant; whether or not abortion ought to be acceptable swings entirely on this point.

    However the problem with this point is that it's totally subjective. Perhaps according to you, a foetus only gains the right to live after birth. But drawing the line at birth is arbitrary; it could just as reasonably be drawn at conception, or at the point of gaining consciousness, or at the point of a 50% chance of viability, or even any time after birth. It certainly doesn't help that entire scientific and philosophical communities have failed to come to come to a consensus on the matter. So this doesn't really seem like a very substantial foundation for something as serious as a decision to kill.
    Indeed the argument is actually at what point does a foetus become what we might call a person; someone who it becomes morally wrong in general to kill.

    You are incorrect to suggest that this is the only relevant argument, as there is a lot of philosophical material that argues even under the assumption that a foetus is a person at birth, there are still valid reasons why one might be allowed to terminate it.

    This argument hinges on the fact that whilst normally we think it outrageous to kill a person, in cases of self defence for example it seems acceptable. As a result, if the foetus for example were to harm the mother then we might validly accept that abortion is permissible, even if are generally against killing persons.

    This argument however gets relatively hazy when dealing with cases of rape and / or voluntary pregnancy.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BankOfPigs)
    Indeed the argument is actually at what point does a foetus become what we might call a person; someone who it becomes morally wrong in general to kill.

    You are incorrect to suggest that this is the only relevant argument, as there is a lot of philosophical material that argues even under the assumption that a foetus is a person at birth, there are still valid reasons why one might be allowed to terminate it.

    This argument hinges on the fact that whilst normally we think it outrageous to kill a person, in cases of self defence for example it seems acceptable. As a result, if the foetus for example were to harm the mother then we might validly accept that abortion is permissible, even if are generally against killing persons.
    I certainly agree that there are reasons why abortion may be acceptable certain specific circumstances, even if we were to consider the foetus to be a "person" with the right to life. As you say, if remaining pregnant is likely to pose a threat to the health and safety of the mother, then it might be acceptable to have an abortion, for the same reason that it would be acceptable to kill another person in self defence.


    However what I'm saying is, the only relevant issue when it comes to debating abortion specifically is whether or not the foetus is considered to be a person. That is, if we do consider it to be a person, then it would only be acceptable to kill it in the same specific circumstances that it would be acceptable to kill any other person (e.g. self defence), and there would be no special allowance for the fact that it happens to be a foetus. And if we do not consider it to be a person, then aborting it would be acceptable in general.

    My point is, all arguments such as "I can't afford to provide for this child", or "My contraception failed" or "I was raped", or "It's likely to be born with a disability", or "I should be allowed to choose whether or not to have a child" etc. Would never be considered as justification to kill a young person who had already been born. So if they are to be used to justify killing a foetus, once again it ultimately comes down to whether or not we can validly make a distinction between a foetus and other "people". So once again, it's "personhood" that's relevant to the issue of abortion, and not finances, contraception, rape, disability, choice etc.

    In a sense, the point about self-defence is not quite relevant to the debate on abortion either. It's not really an argument for why abortion ought to be acceptable. Rather, it is a justification for the otherwise unacceptable act of killing people of any kind.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by idontknowmedoyou)
    its not real your business if a woman has had an abortion, and it doesn't make you a bad mother if you have had an abortion previously? it's a foetus not a baby.
    Fetuses are living things...they will surely become babies. Have you ever killed fetuses?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skunkboy)
    Fetuses are living things...they will surely become babies. Have you ever killed fetuses?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes but they aren't babies yet, they may be living organisms but so are plants? I don't think a foetus that cannot take care of itself and needs the mother to live is more important then the mother carrying it, I think it should be the mothers choice, her body, her rights. And no I haven't killed a foetus, I just believe that every woman has the rights to her own body. Why should someone have to have a baby if they don't want to, it can be dangerous carrying a foetus and it should be the mothers decision to carry it or not.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    So a woman should have the right to kill her child? That's not barbaric at all.
    This post was a week ago
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    This post was a week ago
    Oh yeah lol my bad. I'll delete it.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by idontknowmedoyou)
    Yes but they aren't babies yet, they may be living organisms but so are plants? I don't think a foetus that cannot take care of itself and needs the mother to live is more important then the mother carrying it, I think it should be the mothers choice, her body, her rights. And no I haven't killed a foetus, I just believe that every woman has the rights to her own body. Why should someone have to have a baby if they don't want to, it can be dangerous carrying a foetus and it should be the mothers decision to carry it or not.
    A fetus will definitely become a baby. It's a lot different from plants. It's created by human beings. Plants can't make a baby. Yeah, a mother has the right to make a choice. But what about a father and a fetus? They have no right to make any choice?

    Only a mother can make a choice? That's quite fair? A fetus has no right to survive? A fetus has no right to its own life? It's just a very tiny & weak living being so people shouldn't care about it?

    It's fetus's fault? Fetuses are very dangerous living things? So killing them is the best choice?

    Would you be happy to be killed if you were a fetus?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skunkboy)
    A fetus will definitely become a baby. It's a lot different from plants. It's created by human beings. Plants can't make a baby. Yeah, a mother has the right to make a choice. But what about a father and a fetus? They have no right to make any choice?

    Only a mother can make a choice? That's quite fair? A fetus has no right to survive? A fetus has no right to its own life? It's just a very tiny & weak living being so people shouldn't care about it?

    It's fetus's fault? Fetuses are very dangerous living things? So killing them is the best choice?

    Would you be happy to be killed if you were a fetus?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Its the mother who has to carry the baby for 9 months, and it can be dangerous to carry a foetus every pregnant mother has a risk of dying, it's less common but there is still a risk, do you're research. I'm sorry if I put a grown woman's needs and choice above something that cannot even live without the mother. I'm not saying we should kill all foetus' obviously I don't think that? I'm saying if a woman doesn't want to carry her child she shouldn't have to, hopefully she would think carefully about that decision and consider all options but if abortion is the best option she should do that. The father if he's in the picture would hopefully support the mother in her decision, but rarely I suppose he would disagree, but at the end of the day I would still support the mothers decision as she's the one who carries the baby.
    If I was a foetus and my mother did not want to carry me, because she couldn't afford to take care of me, or she was raped and doesn't want a baby, whatever reason, I wouldn't want my mother to be forced to have me at all, not like a foetus could think that anyways because its a foetus not a functioning human.
    Answer this question would you rather the mother have an abortion, or keep the baby but die during labour? Also who's more important a grown woman or a foetus?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by idontknowmedoyou)
    Its the mother who has to carry the baby for 9 months, and it can be dangerous to carry a foetus every pregnant mother has a risk of dying, it's less common but there is still a risk, do you're research. I'm sorry if I put a grown woman's needs and choice above something that cannot even live without the mother. I'm not saying we should kill all foetus' obviously I don't think that? I'm saying if a woman doesn't want to carry her child she shouldn't have to, hopefully she would think carefully about that decision and consider all options but if abortion is the best option she should do that. The father if he's in the picture would hopefully support the mother in her decision, but rarely I suppose he would disagree, but at the end of the day I would still support the mothers decision as she's the one who carries the baby.
    If I was a foetus and my mother did not want to carry me, because she couldn't afford to take care of me, or she was raped and doesn't want a baby, whatever reason, I wouldn't want my mother to be forced to have me at all, not like a foetus could think that anyways because its a foetus not a functioning human.
    Answer this question would you rather the mother have an abortion, or keep the baby but die during labour? Also who's more important a grown woman or a foetus?
    1. Why the mother die during labor?

    2. A grown woman was a fetus. A fetus will surely become a grownup. So fetuses are as important as grownups.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm surprised by how angry this thread has made me, and that rarely ever happens, so congratulations. Consider the cirmunstances of an abortion before judging the character and morality of the person in question. Nothing is ever so black and white in real life.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skunkboy)
    1. Why the mother die during labor?

    2. A grown woman was a fetus. A fetus will surely become a grownup. So fetuses are as important as grownups.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeftWingMoron)
    Is there any way to tell if a woman has had an abortion in case she lies about it?

    Any woman who would be for it in any way would be removed of my list of potential partners. #1 turn off for sure. Utterly barbaric, killing your own potential child.
    She'd be a better mom than yours if that answers your question?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skunkboy)
    1. Why the mother die during labor?

    2. A grown woman was a fetus. A fetus will surely become a grownup. So fetuses are as important as grownups.
    Research it, labor can be dangerous and a foetus is not as important as a grown up, would you rather kill a grown adult or a foetus? Most likely a foetus as it cannot actually do anything yet.
 
 
 
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.