The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Pro choice or pro life?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Hydeman
You're not quite getting the point. I explained this to another person in an earlier post: Albert Einstein, or any other influential scientist, is the product of many, many choices and circumstances other than that of his mother to carry her pregnancy to term.

Unless you believe in predetermination, it cannot be said that fetus X could be this or could be that with a reasonable degree of certainty -- you just don't know, because the choices and circumstances of his life are determined in real-time as far as we can tell. Fetus X could also be involved in a terrible accident at the age of four and never regain consciousness. That's a circumstance that you couldn't foresee. As such, it's unreasonable to base a pro-life argument on the off-chance that potential humans could do potentially great things for humanity, especially when you're trying to balance this with the rights of the conscious, self-aware woman who is carrying the potential human.

Absolutely. You keep saying that there's a possibility and that what I've been saying too. It is possible that that child could change the world. It's not even about the parents all the tome. You see kids who were given the best opportunities in life who died of drug overdose and you see people raised in the gutter who go become the most influential of men. Bob Dylan for example.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Gwilym101
That's not what I asked. I asked are you a living donor, as in have you donated your kidneys, liver, bone marrow already?

Not yet but I might one day. Maybe I have reservations about the kidney but definitely I will go donate bone marriw one day. I can't donate blood because I'm underweight, but bone marrow and liver definitely. I'm only 21 now. How was that relevant to our discussion by the way.
Original post by TrotskyiteRebel
Not yet but I might one day. Maybe I have reservations about the kidney but definitely I will go donate bone marriw one day. I can't donate blood because I'm underweight, but bone marrow and liver definitely. I'm only 21 now. How was that relevant to our discussion by the way.


Because according to you, authorities should be able to override your reservations about donating your kidneys and force you to go through a medically traumatic event in order to keep someone else alive.
Original post by Gwilym101
Because according to you, authorities should be able to override your reservations about donating your kidneys and force you to go through a medically traumatic event in order to keep someone else alive.

You don't die. You'll live like a normal person and will recover in like 1 month or so. I think if there's a religious reason or obviously bad health or risks then no. I meant how's that relevant to the abortion debate?
Original post by TrotskyiteRebel
You don't die. You'll live like a normal person and will recover in like 1 month or so. I think if there's a religious reason or obviously bad health or risks then no. I meant how's that relevant to the abortion debate?


Because its a question of bodily autonomy, should a woman have to sacrifice her right to do what she wants with her body and have to go through a medically traumatic event in order to keep someone else alive? If you say yes, then following that logic as long as you're alive at the end and could recover, there is nothing wrong with being forced to donate your organs to keep someone else alive.

Most people would object to being forced to go through with a procedure against their will.
Original post by TrotskyiteRebel
Absolutely. You keep saying that there's a possibility and that what I've been saying too. It is possible that that child could change the world. It's not even about the parents all the tome. You see kids who were given the best opportunities in life who died of drug overdose and you see people raised in the gutter who go become the most influential of men. Bob Dylan for example.


I think you're still missing the point.
People become who they are for a variety of different reasons and due to various choices they made and random occurrences during their life time that cannot be predetermined.
What you're saying can only work if predetermination is true. And even then there'd have to be a way to figure out the people who have good destinies and the people who don't.
I could easily say we should abort all babies because they could all potentially be the next Osama bin laden's.
This arguement doesn't work.
Original post by TrotskyiteRebel
You keep saying that there's a possibility and that what I've been saying too. It is possible that that child could change the world.


A possibility. I've also said that this cannot be established with any degree of certainty, and that there are near-infinite other possibilities (unless you believe in predetermination). The possibility of an Einstein occurring purely as a result of his mother deciding to carry her pregnancy to term is, as a percentage of the near-infinite total number of possibilities, insignificantly small. Add to this the right of the mother (whose personhood isn't in dispute) to bodily autonomy, and it becomes unreasonable to use this to support a pro-life view.

To put it another way: if the practice of abortion stopped tomorrow, the overwhelmingly probable outcome would be a negligible increase in the number of Einsteins and Dylans in the world.

It's not even about the parents all the tome. You see kids who were given the best opportunities in life who died of drug overdose and you see people raised in the gutter who go become the most influential of men. Bob Dylan for example.


Again, these extreme examples are not indicative of what would have happened anyway, so these can't be used to support a pro-life view. Bob Dylan's success was quite improbable, and he could very easily have ended up as a nobody. An abortion is not the only event that would have hindered his success, so a pro-life argument based on the success of some individuals isn't valid at all.

You say that you don't believe in predetermination, but all these examples have a distinct undercurrent of, 'because this one example overcame difficult circumstances and became successful, an abortion is the only event that would have prevented this.' I may be reading too much into it, but that's what the implication seems to be, and it's an incorrect one at that, for reasons that I've already explained.
(edited 8 years ago)
to me, the unborn baby is just a clump of tissues for a bit and unconscious until the middle of the second trimester of pregnancy, there are already a lot of children in need of adoption, I'm pro life, other women's bodies are none of your business, its unfair to bring an unwanted child in a life that might be emotionally taxing too

ill probably get loads of hate for saying this but idc
Original post by Gwilym101
Because its a question of bodily autonomy, should a woman have to sacrifice her right to do what she wants with her body and have to go through a medically traumatic event in order to keep someone else alive? If you say yes, then following that logic as long as you're alive at the end and could recover, there is nothing wrong with being forced to donate your organs to keep someone else alive.

Most people would object to being forced to go through with a procedure against their will.




If the mother is "healthy" (no risk of disease/disability) and if the baby is healthy, why would it "traumatic" for the mother? That's what we are against; the idea that someone has the right to be involved in a murder just because of some "trauma" if it's not real. Murder has always been a crime, especially if the victim is your own family and it has to be stopped with force and law. A father cannot kill his son, so that he can "work" less hard for his family. Even if it the son is non-biological.

Likewise for similar situations and cases.
Pro-choice in every single circumstance.

It's dreadful having an unwanted child born into the world.
Original post by Sciatic
If the mother is "healthy" (no risk of disease/disability) and if the baby is healthy, why would it "traumatic" for the mother? That's what we are against; the idea that someone has the right to be involved in a murder just because of some "trauma" if it's not real. Murder has always been a crime, especially if the victim is your own family and it has to be stopped with force and law. A father cannot kill his son, so that he can "work" less hard for his family. Even if it the son is non-biological.

Likewise for similar situations and cases.


How is pregnancy not medically traumatic? Your organs get moved about, swelling, pain, (all of which you have to put up with for months) your body is permanently physically altered, and that's just in the case of a textbook absolutely no complications pregnancy. A person has every right to say that they don't want to put their body through something for someone elses benefit. Hence the argument would you be okay with someone taking a chunk of your liver to give to someone who needed a donation even if you didn't want to go through with it? Hell this argument doesn't even raise the issue of can something that can fit an a petri dish be considered a person.
Original post by Gwilym101
How is pregnancy not medically traumatic? Your organs get moved about, swelling, pain, (all of which you have to put up with for months) your body is permanently physically altered, and that's just in the case of a textbook absolutely no complications pregnancy. A person has every right to say that they don't want to put their body through something for someone elses benefit. Hence the argument would you be okay with someone taking a chunk of your liver to give to someone who needed a donation even if you didn't want to go through with it? Hell this argument doesn't even raise the issue of can something that can fit an a petri dish be considered a person.




Something that can fit a petri dish is not necessarily a person; I don't believe that a less than 4 months old foetus is a person. But more than, say 5 months, then clearly abortion = murder (unless as you said there is a significant risk of complications), and anyone in favour of murder should not be deserving of freedom of speech to air his/her views.

Yeah, if I can recover within a reasonable amount of time and from then onwards enjoy a reasonable quality of life - then yes I should be punished if I were to be as arrogant and uncaring as to avoid saving a person's life. The risk/harm should not exceed the benefit.
Original post by Sciatic
But more than, say 5 months, then clearly abortion = murder


Murder is a legal term, not the emotive, informal term that you're using here. The current legal term limit for abortion is 24 weeks, so the quoted is a false statement.

Yeah, if I can recover within a reasonable amount of time and from then onwards enjoy a reasonable quality of life - then yes I should be punished if I were to be as arrogant and uncaring as to avoid saving a person's life. The risk/harm should not exceed the benefit.


Speak for yourself, then. Don't expect others to give up their rights and be as 'caring' as you (note the inverted commas).
Original post by Anonymous
I'm both, if that makes sense. I think human life is valuable so I'd always encourage people to consider the alternatives before they abort. But, just because I would personally never have an abortion (unless the foetus was not viable), I would not want to take that choice away from anyone else.


That's the definition of choice.
Original post by Sciatic
Something that can fit a petri dish is not necessarily a person; I don't believe that a less than 4 months old foetus is a person. But more than, say 5 months, then clearly abortion = murder (unless as you said there is a significant risk of complications), and anyone in favour of murder should not be deserving of freedom of speech to air his/her views.

Yeah, if I can recover within a reasonable amount of time and from then onwards enjoy a reasonable quality of life - then yes I should be punished if I were to be as arrogant and uncaring as to avoid saving a person's life. The risk/harm should not exceed the benefit.


Your first paragraph is a somewhat different debate.

Your second however by that logic should you be punished for not donating your liver or bone marrow? Which you can do whilst living and with a far quicker recovery period than pregnancy.
Original post by Gwilym101
Your first paragraph is a somewhat different debate.

Your second however by that logic should you be punished for not donating your liver or bone marrow? Which you can do whilst living and with a far quicker recovery period than pregnancy.




Yes, but not if I am not the only one. If I was the only one who could save the life, then I should be punished for refusing to do so considering the fact that the inconvenience I would face is not that much...
Original post by Sciatic
Yes, but not if I am not the only one. If I was the only one who could save the life, then I should be punished for refusing to do so considering the fact that the inconvenience I would face is not that much...


You could be. Have you checked? Rare blood types can make donors be very scarce, organ size and shape can make donation difficult. You could be the only soul that could save some poor bugger and the NHS always needs healthy donors. Off you go.
Pro life. Pro choice "sounds" like a great thing to be and majority of people ( i think) are pro choice but i just can't be in support of unborn developing children thrown in trash cans like garbage. Abortion should be the least option and most pregnant women are pregnant by their own foolish choices. I'm no ruler of someone's else body but should abortion be taken lightly like a trip to a park or something? Abortion is pretty serious and there are no second chances once the kid is mutilated.

Abortion shouldn't be the first thing a pregnant woman thinks about because she lacks the resources or the love for her unborn kid. Some pregnant women just don't want to "mess" up their lives so they have no consideration for the life forming in them. All human beings started as cells. I will never stand in an abortion clinic protesting abortion but i will never say abortion should be the first option or even a positive one for anyone.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Anonymous
I'm both, if that makes sense. I think human life is valuable so I'd always encourage people to consider the alternatives before they abort. But, just because I would personally never have an abortion (unless the foetus was not viable), I would not want to take that choice away from anyone else.


In that case, you are pro choice. A lot of people think pro choice just means pro abortion, it doesn't. I'm pro choice but I'd never get an abortion myself, but at least I have the option of getting one if my health or the baby's health was at serious risk. You can't be both, you are pro choice. Embrace it.
Original post by EphemeralLove
I mean what stops you from just going through with the pregnancy?


What stops you from going through with anything? This is a very strange argument -- being able to physically go through with something is no reason to do so.

Even if you don't want it, then just give it up for adoption :confused:


And what of the physical and emotional impact of and changes brought by a pregnancy? And, as you said, the murky world of care system is another consideration.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you