Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Depends what constitutes a disease. It's awful hearing of stories where people are too eager to abort on grounds of sligh cerebral palsy and a celft palate.
    That's horrible. I know someone who has a cleft palate and I just had a nasty thought.
    Offline

    11
    I'm not one for saying "people should" do one thing or another. I do not consider myself the correct person to make such a statement.

    What one can say is that, for example, adoption of an unwanted child would be a better solution overall than an aborted one. However, that does still not mean that abortion should not be an available choice for the mother in such a case. Whilst it is easy to give personal opinions on such a matter, which could easily be well-founded, we do not have at any point have the right to suggest that women should be made to suffer months of indignity and hours of inestimable pain, simply in order to suit your opinion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
    Whilst it is easy to give personal opinions on such a matter, which could easily be well-founded, we do not have any point to suggest that women should be made to suffer months of indignity and hours of inestimable pain, simply in order to suit your opinion.
    Indignity? Where's the indignity in being pregnant?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ayaan)
    Indignity? Where's the indignity in being pregnant?
    Try being pregnant. Depending on how rough you have it there can be plenty of oppurtunities for indignity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
    I'm not one for saying "people should" do one thing or another. I do not consider myself the correct person to make such a statement.

    What one can say is that, for example, adoption of an unwanted child would be a better solution overall than an aborted one. However, that does still not mean that abortion should not be an available choice for the mother in such a case. Whilst it is easy to give personal opinions on such a matter, which could easily be well-founded, we do not have at any point have the right to suggest that women should be made to suffer months of indignity and hours of inestimable pain, simply in order to suit your opinion.
    Your criteria (indgnity and pain) is arbitary and so weak. Its painful for a poor person to have 6 children as they must go without and also must see their children go without it. Does this mean the mother should be allowed to kill say 2 of her children so there's less pain for the family? After all if thats what she thinks is the best thing to do since its her pain and she's the only one that can judge.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frost105)
    Try being pregnant. Depending on how rough you have it there can be plenty of oppurtunities for indignity.
    I know it can be uncomfortable or painful, with people poking around everywhere... what was my point?

    Oh yeah, there's nothing shameful in being pregnant.

    and I kinda agree with objectivism here which is new.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Your criteria (indgnity and pain) is arbitary and so weak. Its painful for a poor person to have 6 children as they must go without and also must see their children go without it. Does this mean the mother should be allowed to kill say 2 of her children so there's less pain for the family? After all if thats what she thinks is the best thing to do since its her pain and she's the only one that can judge.
    The point was that pregnancy is evidently not an enjoyable state. And you have no right to say to a person that they should have to endure this against their will, simply because of your own opinion. Whilst laws are (in theory) objective standards, morals are clearly subjective, and this is a moral rather than a legal issue: why should one theory of morality (ie yours) be allowed to prevail over that of the mother?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
    The point was that pregnancy is evidently not an enjoyable state.
    It is for lots of women actually.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Howard)
    It is for lots of women actually.
    Well, yes. But these are generally the ones that want to keep their baby, not ones that have been forced into having it for the purposes of adoption Because Objectivism Says So.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
    The point was that pregnancy is evidently not an enjoyable state. And you have no right to say to a person that they should have to endure this against their will, simply because of your own opinion. Whilst laws are (in theory) objective standards, morals are clearly subjective, and this is a moral rather than a legal issue: why should one theory of morality (ie yours) be allowed to prevail over that of the mother?

    Are you saying that there is no morality or immoralty, there's just differences of opinion? What shapes that opinion? Morality. How we decide which morality is right? We must need criteria and i believe life is superior to a womans choice to kill or not to kill. You youself are being objective while claiming to be subjective, for you are saying who are we to enforce our morailty on another, but who is the mother to enforce her morality on the baby? Also you are valueing freedom more than life, so once again you are making an objective judgement.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    It is for lots of women actually.

    really?? constant backache? stomach problems? i dont think the state is enjoyable, just the thought of a child at the end of it, for those who look forward to motherhood.

    i don't like the fact that abortions can be done up to 24 weeks- a premature child of that age can be kept alive in this day and age. i dont think they should be done on the whim of the mother, either. DONT GET PREGNANT IN THE FIRST PLACE. if you are responsible enough to have sex, you are responsible enough to have a baby. people should think about these things in the first place, rather than create a life, then decide you dont want it. whatever anyone here thinks, every embryo/foetus/baby whatever you want to call it has the potential for life. i do agree with it in certain cases, but not in the case of some irresponsible teenager, or adult for that matter, getting impregnated
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CogitoErgoSum)
    really?? constant backache? stomach problems? i dont think the state is enjoyable, just the thought of a child at the end of it, for those who look forward to motherhood.

    i don't like the fact that abortions can be done up to 24 weeks- a premature child of that age can be kept alive in this day and age. i dont think they should be done on the whim of the mother, either. DONT GET PREGNANT IN THE FIRST PLACE. if you are responsible enough to have sex, you are responsible enough to have a baby. people should think about these things in the first place, rather than create a life, then decide you dont want it. whatever anyone here thinks, every embryo/foetus/baby whatever you want to call it has the potential for life. i do agree with it in certain cases, but not in the case of some irresponsible teenager, or adult for that matter, getting impregnated
    They are talking about bringing the maximum term for abortion down to 20 weeks. It's much in the news.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Are you saying that there is no morality or immoralty, there's just differences of opinion? What shapes that opinion? Morality. How we decide which morality is right? We must need criteria and i believe life is superior to a womans choice to kill or not to kill. You youself are being objective while claiming to be subjective, for you are saying who are we to enforce our morailty on another, but who is the mother to enforce her morality on the baby? Also you are valueing freedom more than life, so once again you are making an objective judgement.
    You have a good point there. How valuable is freedom? That of course is a difficult decision to make. Is liberty more important than a potential life? But I fear that we are getting removed from my original point.

    I do not believe that abortion is a good thing. Nor do you. I do not think it particularly pleasant, I do not believe that it should ever be anything but a last resort. The thing is, neither will a woman. This is either the greatest strength in my argument, or the greatest flaw: I trust that a woman will take into account all factors of the argument when making her decision. Therefore, who am I, who are we, to tell her otherwise? She will consider all of your arguments. She will consider that she is "imposing her morality". But if she still believes strongly that an abortion is the right choice in her circumstances, then I believe that my opinion is not one that can override hers. She has taken her choice, with the consequences in mind. In conclusion, it might be said that it is not me choosing "between freedom and 'life'", in formulating my own opinion; rather, it is her doing that, and in the absence of any accepted moral consensus, I am perfectly happy to leave the issue to her conscience.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
    You have a good point there. How valuable is freedom? That of course is a difficult decision to make. Is liberty more important than a potential life? But I fear that we are getting removed from my original point.

    I do not believe that abortion is a good thing. Nor do you. I do not think it particularly pleasant, I do not believe that it should ever be anything but a last resort. The thing is, neither will a woman. This is either the greatest strength in my argument, or the greatest flaw: I trust that a woman will take into account all factors of the argument when making her decision. Therefore, who am I, who are we, to tell her otherwise? She will consider all of your arguments. She will consider that she is "imposing her morality". But if she still believes strongly that an abortion is the right choice in her circumstances, then I believe that my opinion is not one that can override hers. She has taken her choice, with the consequences in mind. In conclusion, it might be said that it is not me choosing "between freedom and 'life'", in formulating my own opinion; rather, it is her doing that, and in the absence of any accepted moral consensus, I am perfectly happy to leave the issue to her conscience.
    So in a Catholic or Muslim country abortion is wrong but in a secular country it is right? If so this seems to be very inconsistent.

    Also what about the baby? Just because it does not have the ability to express its views yet and so its moral views does that mean it should be ignored? On that logic are the serverly disabled (mentally and physcially) lesser beings?
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by objectivism)
    So in a Catholic or Muslim country abortion is wrong but in a secular country it is right? If so this seems to be very inconsistent.

    Also what about the baby? Just because it does not have the ability to express its views yet and so its moral views does that mean it should be ignored? On that logic are the serverly disabled (mentally and physcially) lesser beings?
    Firstly, it is quite clear that I referred to global consensus. For example, the world agrees that murder is wrong. Therefore, murder is outlawed. The world agrees that rape is wrong, and so it is illegal. However, with abortion, there are two logical sides to the argument. There is no clear answer, and so society cannot impose just one.

    On your second point. I am not saying that the child should be ignored, or that the views of the woman should be ignored, but that I am not the one to make that judgment, and nor is society. Therefore, the only person that can possibly make such a call is the woman herself. The extent to which a woman takes her own situation into account, as well as that of the potential child, is up to her alone: it may be unfortunate that the foetus is unable to express its views, but this is the sad truth of the situation. Although her decision may not be perfect, the decision of the mother is the best we have, and it is this that I am willing to trust.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    So in a Catholic or Muslim country abortion is wrong but in a secular country it is right? If so this seems to be very inconsistent.

    Also what about the baby? Just because it does not have the ability to express its views yet and so its moral views does that mean it should be ignored? On that logic are the serverly disabled (mentally and physcially) lesser beings?
    maybe not but who are you, or the woman in question to make the decision for the 'potential' baby?

    the only person qualified to make the decision to have an abortion is the woman in question who knows her own capabilities and moral values.

    people who justify abortion if the mothers life is at risk - if you say 'life is life and should not be destroyed', how can you give the mothers life a higher value than the babys?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leahw)
    the only person qualified to make the decision to have an abortion is the woman in question who knows her own capabilities and moral values.
    "Moral values" You raise an interesting point. What if she thinks it's perfectly acceptable to get pregnant multiple times from multiple partners and have multiple late term terminations to get rid of an "annoying problem"?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    she must have formulated her values from somewhere, most likely the people and society around her, and, as most societies do not see that as acceptable i do not see that as being the reason that most women have abortions. most women use abortion as a last resort.

    just because you don't see that as acceptable, does that mean it is wrong? or morally wrong? who defines morally right or wrong? society? and does that mean that we should live by what the majority of society think is morally right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Firstly, it is quite clear that I referred to global consensus.
    No it wasn't. If you meant global, you should have said global.

    For example, the world agrees that murder is wrong. Therefore, murder is outlawed. The world agrees that rape is wrong, and so it is illegal. However, with abortion, there are two logical sides to the argument. There is no clear answer, and so society cannot impose just one.
    So just because there is no consensus it is justified? Since when did majoritarianism = right. Hitlers election in 1933 was done on the back of a majorty, was this right?

    On your second point. I am not saying that the child should be ignored,
    Im afraid you are.

    or that the views of the woman should be ignored, but that I am not the one to make that judgment, and nor is society.
    Why can't society make it? Society accepts murder is wrong, even though if someone was to kill their rich aunt it would benefit them considerably due to a large inheritance? Society shouldn't decide because some may disagree? I disagree with insider trading laws and drug laws, so should they be abolished? What about more controversial laws like the amount of speed cameras on our roads? There is no consensus for them, so should we get rid of them all?

    Therefore, the only person that can possibly make such a call is the woman herself. The extent to which a woman takes her own situation into account, as well as that of the potential child, is up to her alone: it may be unfortunate that the foetus is unable to express its views, but this is the sad truth of the situation.
    Why don't we side with caution and accept that they can't speak for themselves thus they must be given the benefit of doubt. After all we are innocent until proven gulty, why not unborn babies as well?

    Your argument hinges on the premise that the woman knows best and society does not because there is no consensus on it in society. This does not make abortion right, rather it makes society wrong. There are many instaces of the majority being wrong e.g. Hitler's election.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    So just because there is no consensus it is justified? Since when did majoritarianism = right. Hitlers election in 1933 was done on the back of a majorty, was this right?
    Not that this changes your point, but that is a glaring innaccuracy. It wasn't even a majority of those who voted.

    Why don't we side with caution and accept that they can't speak for themselves thus they must be given the benefit of doubt. After all we are innocent until proven gulty, why not unborn babies as well?
    Unborn baby? Let's sell five year olds 18-rated movies, they're just ungrown adults.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,949

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
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.