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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    **** off this isn't North Dakota, or republican america for that matter.

    Having an abortion is better than bringing at child into life without loving parents or care, or nurturing or good living conditions etc
    Plenty of people have grown up in all those conditions; most don't wish they'd never been born...
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    If you read my above posts, I didn't justify it, I'm against it.
    Fair enough, but both FGM and MGM have (and do) come in brutally damaging forms, there's not just one type of male circumcision. They're both intentionally designed for prevention of masturbation.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jcarz)
    So??! What do you mean so? You talk about people that don't express their opinions in the abortion debate. And yet you are unsympathetic to what would be the view of actual abortees themselves if they were alive to express themselves. Total hypocrisy.

    Fetal heart beat starts at 6 weeks.

    Limb movement after 8 weeks

    Life starts at conception, (not before and not after) and many scientists recognise this.

    You never hear the media talk about the Duchess of Cambridge's foetus, or her "bundle of parasitic cells", but her baby and whether it will be a girl or boy. But that's a different issue.
    "life begins at conception" is the worst line ever.

    Bacteria are alive, but you have no qualms killing them.
    Plants are alive, but you have no qualms killing them.
    Tumor cells are alive, but you have no qualms killing them.

    ENDING BIOLOGICAL LIFE IS NOT MURDER
    Offline

    0
    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
    Well I believe you are entitled to you opinion, we all are. Here is mine you sir are a Prat.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    "life begins at conception" is the worst line ever.

    Bacteria are alive, but you have no qualms killing them.
    Plants are alive, but you have no qualms killing them.
    Tumor cells are alive, but you have no qualms killing them.

    ENDING BIOLOGICAL LIFE IS NOT MURDER
    I don't think that's what the poster meant

    I believe she meant in the sense that human life begins at conception. Otherwise, sperm and eggs cells seperately would be considered "alive".

    How would you differentiate between "biological" life and "actual" life?

    (Original post by Arrhythmia)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkpIHvMo8zI

    I've always been pro - choice but after watching that, I don't know what to think.

    When does life start?
    Well screw you, I almost cried.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    If I got pregnant tomorrow I would have it aborted for the following reasons:

    It's not the right time in my life; i'm currently at 6th form and i'll be starting university in September.
    I don't have much money and I'm still living at home
    There would be no father as i'm single (Obviously I would need a bloke to get pregnant and i'm sure if I met him tomorrow he wouldn't stick around)
    I would be bring up the child in poverty- I wouldn't be able to afford everything it would deserve. I would be living in a council flat on bread and butter.

    It would be my choice what to do, for the sake of the unborn child it would be best for it not to be brought up in a rough area with no father or no grandparents (my parents would definitely disown me). I have aspirations to get a degree, go travelling and get married.

    You can say 'don't have sex until you're married' but the bottom line is that i'm not religious and living in the 21st century. I really hope I don't get in that situation as i'm using precautions and not engaging in sex unless i'm in a serious relationship.

    I'm sure many of those woman don't want an abortion, I bet they wish they were in a better situation to bring up a child but that's life. Also, what's the point bring an unwanted child into this world? There's enough children in care without a family and it's a continuous cycle of people brought up on benefits staying on benefits and bringing their children on benefits. Every child should have the opportunity to do well.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    "life begins at conception" is the worst line ever.

    Bacteria are alive, but you have no qualms killing them.
    Plants are alive, but you have no qualms killing them.
    Tumor cells are alive, but you have no qualms killing them.

    ENDING BIOLOGICAL LIFE IS NOT MURDER
    None of which you mentioned has a conscience and an inherent morality. Murder only applies to humans because only humans have these.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I dont believe in a abortion either have the kid healthy or disabled but dont abort


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    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:
    People are very quick to judge when they know nothing or have never been in that situation which is very unfair... May I ask your reasons etc? People can't judge unless they were in that situation themselves


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Patrick01)
    I dont believe in a abortion either have the kid healthy or disabled but dont abort


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I agree. I wonder how many of the people who are pro-choice would agree with their mother's actions of trying to abort them, if they were the subject of a failed abortion.

    If they do, it shows a disgusting disregard for their own life, and the lives or millions; if they don't, well their argument falls flat.

    It's really that simple.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jcarz)
    None of which you mentioned has a conscience and an inherent morality. Murder only applies to humans because only humans have these.
    How can something "have a morality"?

    And a bundle of cells doesn't have a consciousness. (I will assume you mean consciousness not conscience..) I don't even think neonates have a consciousness. They have no corticospinal tract, meaning all their movements are reflexes until about 1yr old when the tract finishes developing.

    To me, a conceptus has no rights until it can survive independently of the female's body. Before that, it is logically classed as part of her body as she entirely sustains it, and it is her right to do what she wants with it. I think children should be conceived on purpose, or at least in a situation where people have embraced the possibility of conceiving. This gives the child's life much more meaning than a resented accident. Nobody gets to choose to be born, and to me, nobody should get to chose to be born.

    Hence; freedom of the woman to do what she wishes with her body until you could remove part of that body and it could live on its own.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I should probably start this by saying I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other (but I would probably have to say I'm pro-choice as I don't actively oppose abortion and don't necessarily think things shouldn't be done if they are morally wrong), but I can see the logic of both arguments and would like to talk about it.

    I have seen more bad logic and odd moral rationalisations in this argument than any other. I haven't seen anyone actually try to disprove the ball logic, just berated the thread starter with all the feminist classics. The logic, in my opinion, is pretty solid. If you think of it another way, go from when the baby is one day old (where I'm sure every pro-choice person here would say this is morally wrong) then count back an hour at a time to the moment of conception, you could never pick a specific hour where killing a baby/foetus transitions from being wrong to right without it being arbitrary so then must you conclude that it is just as right/wrong to kill a one day old baby as a newly conceived foetus? (Again, I don't know with even a little bit of certainty and I don't think anybody can).

    Also, the rationalisations people use such as the child going into a bad home argument are irrelevant in my opinion. If this is about whether abortion is wrong then utilitarian arguments like that are irrelevant because you can apply logic like that to live adult humans and say that they are detrimenting from society, therefore they should die. It must be concluded therefore that in our society the only reason they aren't killed is because we believe this is morally wrong. Therefore, the only reason abortion is allowed is because it is believed to be morally right so clearly the utilitarian argument cannot be considered a relevant, only the morality (which is certainly not intrinsic so there may be no kind of absolute morality so this argument may have reached an impasse decades ago).

    I'm no philosopher, but I would like to think I looked at those arguments logically and objectively.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    How can something "have a morality"?

    And a bundle of cells doesn't have a consciousness. (I will assume you mean consciousness not conscience..) I don't even think neonates have a consciousness. They have no corticospinal tract, meaning all their movements are reflexes until about 1yr old when the tract finishes developing.

    To me, a conceptus has no rights until it can survive independently of the female's body. Before that, it is logically classed as part of her body as she entirely sustains it, and it is her right to do what she wants with it. I think children should be conceived on purpose, or at least in a situation where people have embraced the possibility of conceiving. This gives the child's life much more meaning than a resented accident. Nobody gets to choose to be born, and to me, nobody should get to chose to be born.

    Hence; freedom of the woman to do what she wishes with her body until you could remove part of that body and it could live on its own.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What do you mean by survive independently of the female's body, with the use of modern science or without?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Abortion is a basic social right for any developed society (up to 24 weeks). It cannot be argued against on religious grounds (as God doesn't exist and the Bible is fiction) nor can it on medical grounds (less than 30% of babies survive before 24 weeks.) The Republic of Ireland ought to be ashamed of themselves for being such a backward nation and having it illegal (not racist, I'm half Irish myself). The case on the news with that lady is disgraceful. Wake up you religious idiots.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jcarz)
    I agree. I wonder how many of the people who are pro-choice would agree with their mother's actions of trying to abort them, if they were the subject of a failed abortion.

    If they do, it shows a disgusting disregard for their own life, and the lives or millions; if they don't, well their argument falls flat.

    It's really that simple.
    It doesn't destroy the argument even if you held that view: the opinion of a grown adult is relevant, the potential future 'opinion' of a maternal growth with no nervous system and inability to survive without maternal life is irrelevant. The fetus's future 'opinion' is as relevant as the opinion of a person who cuts open a woman, climbs inside, sews her up and says "you can't abort me, I'm a living person and I have a right to live inside your body."

    You have rights until they impinge upon the rights of others, and when there is a clash of rights we need to decide who wins out. I say a human woman's opinion out-prioritises a trilaminar disc of cells' opinion.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Curtis Loew)
    What do you mean by survive independently of the female's body, with the use of modern science or without?
    With the use of whatever technology needed. Survive in any way without being connected to the mother.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    With the use of whatever technology needed. Survive in any way without being connected to the mother.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Then your argument is ambiguous. That would be to say that an abortion is right in a developing country where they cannot afford to keep a baby alive independent of the mother, at 21 weeks for example, whereas it would be wrong in the UK where they would be able to spend lots of money keeping a baby alive on life support. Therefore, by your argument the morality of abortion is dependent mainly on the technical advances in medical science and the relative wealth of countries, which doesn't make sense.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Curtis Loew)
    Then your argument is ambiguous. That would be to say that an abortion is right in a developing country where they cannot afford to keep a baby alive independent of the mother, at 21 weeks for example, whereas it would be wrong in the UK where they would be able to spend lots of money keeping a baby alive on life support. Therefore, by your argument the morality of abortion is dependent mainly on the technical advances in medical science and the relative wealth of countries, which doesn't make sense.
    Why shouldn't the criteria be different depending on scientific advancement? If we had the technology to take a blastocyst from the mother and grow it into a baby, that would change the moral problem entirely. Why should other scientific advances not change the moral problem?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Why shouldn't the criteria be different depending on scientific advancement? If we had the technology to take a blastocyst from the mother and grow it into a baby, that would change the moral problem entirely. Why should other scientific advances not change the moral problem?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The ability to keep a baby alive outside of the mother is something that will not be needed in the overwhelming majority of cases, therefore should it not be independent of the morality of killing it and be considered a completely different and irrelevant factor?

    Also, do you think the income of countries and therefore there ability to utilise technological advancements be a determinant of the morality of abortion?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Someone deleted their post, it had a video or something and ranted over how the foetus felt pain and how people are too young or either don't want a baby, thus they have an abortion. Any ways this was my reply, before the person deleted their comment:


    Okay, firstly, sometimes being impregnated is NO CHOICE, have you ever seen the word 'rape'? Have you ever considered that even by using contraception, there isn't always a 100% chance that you will not be impregnated, it is always at 99%. Have you ever considered that whilst having sex, the actual contraception may fail to work?

    Secondly, you establish the fact that there are two thresholds to deciding to have an abortion: either you are too young, or because you don't want it. That is absolutely ludicrous, there are a plethora of reasons why people want an abortion, which are truly justified.

    Thirdly, not all abortions are carried out at that stage of a pregnancy. Sometimes the foetus is not yet fully developed with receptors of pain to feel the procedure. The actual abortion can also sometimes be painless. You say 'creating life', which is actually a really broad idea. Have you ever considered that during the menstruation cycle of women, eggs which have the potential of life are (in your terms) 'savagely murdered' by nature?

    Fourthly, what if the baby was to be born severely handicapped or maybe possibly brain-dead? What would the effects be on the mother? Would you think that a mother would allow her child to suffer? What if the parents did not have the monetary capability of bringing up a severely handicapped child, what quality of life would the child be leading? Yes, I know that there are many charities that can help families look after severely handicapped children, but this doesn't solve the problem of the quality of life.

    Finally, what if having the baby would mean ending the life of the mother?

    Be broader when you state your opinion.


    I'm a man.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.