Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
    That would make logical sense, even if I personally were opposed.
    So if in a hundred years time a very strong consensus was developed so much that a vote showed that 99% of people in society wanted to kill the 1% of Muslims. Should that go ahead, even if you were yourself personally opposed?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leahw)
    That is not the same as being forced to carry a baby because society finds abortion morally wrong and outlaws it. A woman has a right to control what happens to her own body. There are other options for a woman in that situation, she can leave or get help.
    ah, but it isn't just HER body, she is a 'host' to the child she is carrying.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    ah, but it isn't just HER body, she is a 'host' to the child she is carrying.
    If I held on to you and stole your blood and nutrients and made you ill for 9 months, I'd think that you'd have a pretty good case to arrest me for harassment.
    So, do we arrest all foetuses(-i?)?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    If I held on to you and stole your blood and nutrients and made you ill for 9 months, I'd think that you'd have a pretty good case to arrest me for harassment.
    So, do we arrest all foetuses(-i?)?
    i don't want to get personal, but if you truly beleive that 'foetuses' 'steal' their mothers nutrients you aren't fit to have children, and you have some serious issues. it is not the baby's choice to live off the mother, it is the only way it can survive.

    i have no sympathy for women who say 'well it's the wrong time'. it is no womans right to kill and unborn child, just as it isn't the father's right to impose upon her a termination. i'm sorry, but women have the right to choose, but not when deciding to kill an innocent child.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    i don't want to get personal, but if you truly beleive that 'foetuses' have human rights you aren't fit to have children, and you have some serious issues.

    Fixed.
    Although I obviously wouldn't go that far :rolleyes:

    Can you please give me an explanation of why a foetus is allowed to leech off a mother but the mother is not allowed to remove it? I'm just looking at this from a different perspective.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This whole issue, again and again and again seems to come down to whether or not you think of the foetus as as 'person' or as a 'lump of cells'. Most people agree that it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person - and right to stop others from killing an innocent person. Most people agree that it is NOT morally wrong to kill a lump of cells.

    People are arguing from completely different viewpoints here.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    i don't want to get personal, but if you truly beleive that 'foetuses' have human rights you aren't fit to have children, and you have some serious issues.
    i know - i'm such a ***** for wanting to protect thew rights of unborn children. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Can you please give me an explanation of why a foetus is allowed to leech off a mother but the mother is not allowed to remove it? I'm just looking at this from a different perspective.
    Well?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    i know - i'm such a ***** for wanting to protect thew rights of unborn children.
    Foetuses are unborn children as much as fertilised egg is. Would you protect the rights of one single cell as if it was a human being?
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Mishael)
    This whole issue, again and again and again seems to come down to whether or not you think of the foetus as as 'person' or as a 'lump of cells'. Most people agree that it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person - and right to stop others from killing an innocent person. Most people agree that it is NOT morally wrong to kill a lump of cells.

    People are arguing from completely different viewpoints here.
    This is an extremely good point, and I agree with it entirely.

    However, I could also develop this further by saying that in my beliefs, the whole perception of a foetus/child/whatever is again an issue of conscience; again, therefore, the mother of whateveritis should still have the right to make this decision herself, and thus any subsequent decisions as to an abortion based on it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    Can you please give me an explanation of why a foetus is allowed to leech off a mother but the mother is not allowed to remove it? I'm just looking at this from a different perspective.
    because with the mother it is a conscious decision. it's not the baby's choice, and besides i'd hardly call 9 months of 'leeching' long in the context of a whole lifetime.

    and what about the entire lifetime of the child, leeching off the mother once it's born. maybe the mother should just kill the child when she decides she cannot afford it.

    your argument was perhaps the most stupid pro-abortion argument on this board.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    Foetuses are unborn children as much as fertilised egg is. Would you protect the rights of one single cell as if it was a human being?
    yes. unlike you, i beleive that something so small, even if it doesn't appeal to you as a cute little baby, is a child.

    ok - define when a 'foetus' becomes a child, and therefore deserves to be protected and have rights.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leahw)
    maybe it becomes an unborn child at ~20 weeks when it can live outside the womb?
    I think that's a fairly logical conclusion. Something like 45% of babies that arrive prematurely at 24 weeks (the present cut off point for abortions in the UK) are sufficiently developed to survive. Now, to me, that suggests that at 24 weeks we are dealing with a bit more than a "bundle of cells"

    Now, I'm not anti-abortion per se (although I'm not nuts about it either) but this I think presents very strong grounds for reviewing the time line for abortion.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    because with the mother it is a conscious decision. it's not the baby's choice, and besides i'd hardly call 9 months of 'leeching' long in the context of a whole lifetime.
    I imagine that the vast majority of women who have abortions didn't, in fact, intend to get pregnant.

    and what about the entire lifetime of the child, leeching off the mother once it's born. maybe the mother should just kill the child when she decides she cannot afford it.
    Someone else can look after it. However, in the womb, the mother is forced to.

    yes. unlike you, i beleive that something so small, even if it doesn't appeal to you as a cute little baby, is a child.
    How about sperm then?

    ok - define when a 'foetus' becomes a child, and therefore deserves to be protected and have rights.
    When it is viable.
    And I mean actually viable, when it is likely that it will survive, not that it has a 1 in a million chance of survival.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'll simplify my argument - I'm pro abortion just because I don't regard a foetus to be a conscious human being.
    If my mother wouldve aborted me, I wouldnt have minded, because I wouldn't have known!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    I imagine that the vast majority of women who have abortions didn't, in fact, intend to get pregnant.
    i don't care whether she intended to get pregnant or not, the fact is she is pregnant, and it is not up to her to decide whether to kill the child or not. it is a seperate human being, dependant on the mother, but still a seperate human being, and the mother's rights are not greater than the child's right to life.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    i don't care whether she intended to get pregnant or not, the fact is she is pregnant, and it is not up to her to decide whether to kill the child or not. it is a seperate human being, dependant on the mother, but still a seperate human being, and the mother's rights are not greater than the child's right to life.
    But you just said:
    because with the mother it is a conscious decision.
    And can you, y'know, answer the points I made in my post?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
    This is an extremely good point, and I agree with it entirely.

    However, I could also develop this further by saying that in my beliefs, the whole perception of a foetus/child/whatever is again an issue of conscience; again, therefore, the mother of whateveritis should still have the right to make this decision herself, and thus any subsequent decisions as to an abortion based on it.
    But then as soon as you admit the possiblity that the foetus IS a 'person' and yet the mother still has the right to abort, you are opening yourself up to all sorts of difficult arguments. This would seem to justify infanticide and the killing of elderly dependent relatives, so long as the carer could square it with his/her own conscience.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thebucketwoman)
    I'll simplify my argument - I'm pro abortion just because I don't regard a foetus to be a conscious human being.
    If my mother wouldve aborted me, I wouldnt have minded, because I wouldn't have known!
    But a baby at 24 weeks is a conscious human being. Babies at 24 weeks dream, have hiccups, and feel pain. They are far more developed at this age than was previously thought.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    But a baby at 24 weeks is a conscious human being. Babies at 24 weeks dream, have hiccups, and feel pain. They are far more developed at this age than was previously thought.
    Dogs do all of these things.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,411

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.