Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lucy)
    I think in most cases pregnant women do think about their actions a lot more than drug addicts. I don't think anyone can describe the guilt or feelings a pregnant woman considering abortion goes through. I think comparing drug addicts to pregnant women is a little too thoughtless for my liking.
    Many women are left with a lifetime of these guilt feelings because intuitively they know that what they have done is wrong - it goes against all a females instincts of nurturing.
    Being raped, resulting in pregnancy and subsequently aborting the life does nothing to alleviate the anguish of the rape so cannot be a solution.
    To say a womans life is in danger from the child within is never a finite judgement, only speculation.
    I would urge all those who think abortion is a panacea to view the procedure. Be informed before you make these decisions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caz)
    Christians also believe those who do not believe what they believe will suffer in a burning pit forever, and ever, and ever. Amen.

    Anyway, life is not entitled to religion. If this were so, capital punishment would be outlawed. The fact of the matter is psychology and much research determines fear is caused by the EGO, which has been studied to develop a while after birth, in which case it takes even more and more time to become even stronger, and become aware of "itself". After all, we know people by their EGOs, this is their personality. People are their personality, and when it comes to life and death, when you're this young, you don't have a sense of self yet, no harm is done. The baby simply dies, because its memory does not yet allow it to experience pain. The pain occurs, but it passes. The baby is not self-aware. I personally believe if I was not self-aware, my body would be rightfully be up for auction.

    Nonetheless, the baby is still a life, but I feel the baby has nothing to gain, nor lose.
    Now thats how it should be done caz. Well done, and I agree fully too. Who would have thunk it eh?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    abortion should be up to the paretns as it in nearly all cases it currently is as it is really no one else's business what happens. The foetus is the union of the two gametes from these two people and no one else should have a say in what happens to the child, they should have the right to do waht they want up to it without unecessarily causing harm or damaging to the child once it has gained feelings. I am sure someone will interpret this statement as saying that i agree with infanticide by parents agianst their children but i am not. The law in England in this case appears to me on the actual abortion to be right. (Am i right in beleivning that in CHina it is legal to have an abortion up to the second that the entire baby is out of the body.)

    What i disagree with is the weighting of the decision to have the abortion. Whilst i accpet that it is the woman's body and that ultimately she should have the final decision, i believe that the father should be able to, for example force the courts to consider an abortion. He is not physically responsible for the child but will be considered financially responsible for it(and in most cases the mother) until it reaches 18. To me this appears unfair.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lucy)
    Most abortions are before 24 weeks. Late abortions are still legal but only in 'special' cases (i.e. mother's own life is threatened, severe disabilities etc.)

    The 24 week limit is there because foetuses become potentially viable at this point. Some babies (like yawn1 described) have been born even earlier and survived.
    ah, gotcha. Thanks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    Why to you think that?.. I can't think of any controversial issues that have become law and then forgotten about. There will always be a strong lobby against Euthanisa to keep it in check.
    The very Act we are talking of became law in 1967. The grounds for abortion were so narrow that it would be nigh on impossible to obtain one. Now they are available 'on demand'
    To think that euthanasia will not go the same way is foolish.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    To say a womans life is in danger from the child within is never a finite judgement, only speculation.
    It could be only speculation but it must be very probable for doctors to advise a woman to abort a wanted child. I think in these cases it is acceptable to abort.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    abortion should be up to the paretns as it in nearly all cases it currently is as it is really no one else's business what happens. The foetus is the union of the two gametes from these two people and no one else should have a say in what happens to the child, they should have the right to do waht they want up to it without unecessarily causing harm or damaging to the child once it has gained feelings. I am sure someone will interpret this statement as saying that i agree with infanticide by parents agianst their children but i am not. The law in England in this case appears to me on the actual abortion to be right. (Am i right in beleivning that in CHina it is legal to have an abortion up to the second that the entire baby is out of the body.)

    What i disagree with is the weighting of the decision to have the abortion. Whilst i accpet that it is the woman's body and that ultimately she should have the final decision, i believe that the father should be able to, for example force the courts to consider an abortion. He is not physically responsible for the child but will be considered financially responsible for it(and in most cases the mother) until it reaches 18. To me this appears unfair.
    I think you're right about China, but that I certainly don't agree with. Then you really are talking about murder. The decision is one that should be made rather quickly. Not a last minute thing. In my own opinion that is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    What i disagree with is the weighting of the decision to have the abortion. Whilst i accpet that it is the woman's body and that ultimately she should have the final decision, i believe that the father should be able to, for example force the courts to consider an abortion. He is not physically responsible for the child but will be considered financially responsible for it(and in most cases the mother) until it reaches 18. To me this appears unfair.
    force the courts for an abortion!?.. you can't force anyone to do something to their body they don't want to. If the mother wants to keep the baby then she will have adaquete financial help from the state. though I do agree that if the man is willing to bring up the child and can prove he will be a good parent then he should have a say in stopping the abortion..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    I think you're right about China, but that I certainly don't agree with. Then you really are talking about murder. The decision is one that should be made rather quickly. Not a last minute thing. In my own opinion that is.
    i don't agree with it, i was just highlighting the differences in culture, morals and subsequent behaviour in different societies, i didn't want to base a point on it as if it was wrong, id look silly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    The very Act we are talking of became law in 1967. The grounds for abortion were so narrow that it would be nigh on impossible to obtain one. Now they are available 'on demand'
    To think that euthanasia will not go the same way is foolish.
    Only if proper controls aren't put in place. You must remember, what you're talking about has already happened. Germany in the 1930s. Proper controls weren't put in place, and so some little Austrian twit was able to very easily manipulate it for the precise reason you mention. People no longer had choice. It should always be the choice of the patient.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Righto, common situation for you guys.
    Young woman is pregnant. Having the baby will cause her serious health issues. Having the abortion, and perhaps trying for a child again at a later date is an option. Which would you advise. Knowing of course that if you say no to abortion, you've made life extremely difficult for two people. When the alternative was a good quality of life for two people.
    Abortion when a Mothers life is in danger is a seperate issue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    i don't agree with it, i was just highlighting the differences in culture, morals and subsequent behaviour in different societies, i didn't want to base a point on it as if it was wrong, id look silly.
    Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you agreed with it. My bad mate
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    The very Act we are talking of became law in 1967. The grounds for abortion were so narrow that it would be nigh on impossible to obtain one. Now they are available 'on demand'
    To think that euthanasia will not go the same way is foolish.
    So why (out of curiousity) have relgious groups not protested against this? are they in the minorty?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Scientific evidence shows that the nervous system of the unborn child is in place from within days on conception. These babies feel pain from that time - the surgical instruments that tear the baby away from the womb cause pain to the baby.
    Just because they have no memory is it right to inflict this pain? We don't do it to newly borns - they have analgesia.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Abortion when a Mothers life is in danger is a seperate issue.
    True, though I did only mean long lasting health issues. Ah stuff it, I give up on this thread. I am now agreeing with both sides. Thanks Bigcnee, you did mention a few points I hadn't thought of.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you agreed with it. My bad mate
    alls cool i get the way u meant it, now. I'm just used to people disagreeing with me about everything cos i tend to play devil's advocate
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    True, though I did only mean long lasting health issues. Ah stuff it, I give up on this thread. I am now agreeing with both sides. Thanks Bigcnee, you did mention a few points I hadn't thought of.
    It's a complex issue, and thus leads to a good debate (well, as good as a debate on something like this, can be)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    alls cool i get the way u meant it, now. I'm just used to people disagreeing with me about everything cos i tend to play devil's advocate
    Aye, I've noticed that, but you do clarify your points well, and you're one of the users whose posts I enjoy reading.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    So why (out of curiousity) have relgious groups not protested against this? are they in the minorty?
    They have. But the government don't listen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    So why (out of curiousity) have relgious groups not protested against this? are they in the minorty?
    I can't believe you think they have not and are not still protesting! Where have you been for the last 40 years - sorry you weren't alive for a lot of them I guess
    Protests are been carried out all the time - particularly in Northern Ireland where abortion is illegal, although many abortion clinics from this country are trying to set up there as well.
    In Britain there are regular candlelight vigils held for the victims of abortion, both mothers and their aborted children.
    We now have a whole generation of people who have never known anything other than aborting unwanted children. I think young people should be thinking more carefully of the long-term consequences of undergoing abortion.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 30, 2003
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
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.