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

If society says abortion is a normal part of life, then women will be guilt free? Watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PinkMobilePhone)
    If the woman is taking prescribed drugs whilst pregnant then it is the doctor who has been negligent.

    and you would still need to prove that the action of the mother caused the miscarriage. How can the cause of a miscarriage be proven? It cannot, it can only be assumed and/or speculated about, which is not enough evidence to conclude that the woman is guilty of manslaughter as there is enough reasonable doubt that it might have just happened in any case, and that it wasn't in fact the woman taking such substance that caused the miscarriage.

    innocent until PROVEN guilty.
    And if she is proven guilty? Then what?
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    And if she is proven guilty? Then what?
    Then I suppose she would be guilty of manslaughter - but it's a complete hypothetical because the point is that the cause of miscarriages cannot be determined with certainty, so it's a bit of a moot point.

    Okay, enough abortion debate for me I'm off for a shower - my lovely son has just peed on my leg :thumbsdown:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kinkerz)
    Wrong. If that were the case, it could survive outside the womb from that age. There is still a lot of development to be done from that point.


    No, I just feel equating the "killing" (though it's not really killing unless it's done after it's able to survive outside the womb, before that point, it is essentially a parasite) of something that isn't conscious of it's own existence and that cannot live without using the mother to murder is ludicrous.


    Don't really see your point here.


    I agree with this statement (providing you didn't construct it swollen with sarcasm).
    There is not a lot of development to be done, there is a lot of growth to be done. It needs to grow more before it can fully support itself, but that is inconsequential. The sentience argument, as well as the reliance argument fail massively. Do hospitals have the right to kill temporary coma patients for instance... Can someone who is driving a car pull upto a cliff and turf his passengers out of the door because of their dependence on him? Conciousness and forced reliance on someone are not linked to being human.

    I will re-write what I wrote before in a different way so that you understand it, perhaps I wasn't direct enough:
    If a mother goes into labour and has a child, but that child is still connected to her via the placenta, should she be allowed to kill it, despite the feasibility of its life if you just cut the cord? You seemed to agree that it would be ok because it is reliant on her, without any choice in the matter. You do realise that if a mother decides she wants rid after 24 weeks she cannot induce labour whenever she wants don't you? She has to carry it to term to give it the highest chance of survival possible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kinkerz)
    But it still can't survive without the mother (well, I'm not an expert, possibly it'd have a chance, but it'd be an extreme preemie).
    Babies can't survive without somesort of mother figure on the outside, yet they don't have the right to kill it. At the end of the day they are the ones who forced the baby to be dependent on them, it's not like we don't know what causes pregnancy - meaning the consent to have a baby is uniquely entwined with the act of sex.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    And if she is proven guilty? Then what?
    Legal precedent.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I'm against abortion unless the womans life is in danger from the pregnancy or giving birth, even in cases of rape I believe women should be encouraged to have the child then if they so wish the baby can be adopted., however practically I think there should be some access for women. But Iam against these private abortion clinics and I think every woman should have to go through the NHS.

    Where she should be counselled to choose life unless her health was at risk,but if she was determined she could have the abortion. But I would certain make harsher restrictions than we have now for when it is legal to abort. I would also make it law that the father has to be informed although she could make the final choice.

    I also insist that doctors be allowed to morally object to abortion and can refuse to study it as part of their training. In fact I understand this attitude is increasing amongst young doctors as telling your friends at a dinner party you abort babies isn't quite the same as telling them you cure cancer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For me, abortion is no different to simply abstaining from sex.

    A fetus, while human, is not a person, and as such, does not deserve rights.

    I can understand arguing from a religious viewpoint and thus fundamentally disagreeing with me, and I also understand the emotional toll it can take on women, however irrational it may be. However, any other pro-life justification seems completely irrational to me.

    my opinion, blah blah...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Also, people never seem to consider the fact that if abortion is illegalised, women will go back to backstreet alley abortionists or to throwing themselves down stairs to get the job done.

    Making something illegal doesn't make it go away. It just makes it more harmful.

    not my opinion, fact, blah blah
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toxic Tears)
    Science SUPPORTS the fact that life begins at conception...
    The zygote (fertilised cell) up through the foetal stages, are scientifically alive.
    Wrong.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Babies can't survive without somesort of mother figure on the outside, yet they don't have the right to kill it. At the end of the day they are the ones who forced the baby to be dependent on them, it's not like we don't know what causes pregnancy - meaning the consent to have a baby is uniquely entwined with the act of sex.
    By 'mother figure' I assume you mean... an adult who's willing to look after it? 'Cause I'm sure you wouldn't be so stupid to suggest that a baby cannot survive without its mother.

    The crucial difference between a fetus and a baby is that a fetus can only ever be dependent on one person, whereas responsibility over a baby can be transferred. If women could give an unwanted fetus away to someone else, then I'm sure most would. As it it stands, we can't, and born people always take precedence over unborn organisms, as it should be.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ministerdonut)
    I'm against abortion unless the womans life is in danger from the pregnancy or giving birth, even in cases of rape I believe women should be encouraged to have the child then if they so wish the baby can be adopted., however practically I think there should be some access for women. But Iam against these private abortion clinics and I think every woman should have to go through the NHS.
    Why?

    If someone wants to pay for an abortion, why shouldn't they be able to? If everyone got their abortions on the NHS, then waiting times would be longer which, if you consider the fetus to be a 'person', is surely worse as the fetus would be more developed? I would have thought private abortions would be much better from the pro-life POV.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Venom123)
    If it were initially deemed as acceptable and totally normal in society then yes, they'd feel guilt free. As now it has that feeling of 'guilty-ness' associated with it in society now, now woman/man who decide to go for an abortion will feel 100% guilt free.
    Or maybe they feel guilty because they've just aborted a potential baby.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sorafdfs)
    Or maybe they feel guilty because they've just aborted a potential baby.
    So should we feel guilty every time we use contraception or abstain because we've denied a potential baby the right to exist?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    So should we feel guilty every time we use contraception or abstain because we've denied a potential baby the right to exist?
    Maternal instincts only come around during pregnancy so you won't really feel anything close to the same guilt.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Forgot about this thread.

    (Original post by Elipsis)
    There is not a lot of development to be done, there is a lot of growth to be done. It needs to grow more before it can fully support itself, but that is inconsequential.
    It's not just growth. There is alot of tissue differentiation to be done. Tissue differentiation that's essential to support a life.

    (Original post by Elipsis)
    The sentience argument, as well as the reliance argument fail massively. Do hospitals have the right to kill temporary coma patients for instance... Can someone who is driving a car pull upto a cliff and turf his passengers out of the door because of their dependence on him? Conciousness and forced reliance on someone are not linked to being human.
    The coma patient has been alive in the past and also, most comas only last a few weeks, at which point the patient will either wake, die, or progress into a vegetative state. It's a different ball game completely.
    As for the driving a car off a cliff point, that strikes me as a 'clutching at straws' type argument.

    I'm sorry, but consciousness is linked to being human.

    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I will re-write what I wrote before in a different way so that you understand it, perhaps I wasn't direct enough:
    If a mother goes into labour and has a child, but that child is still connected to her via the placenta, should she be allowed to kill it, despite the feasibility of its life if you just cut the cord? You seemed to agree that it would be ok because it is reliant on her, without any choice in the matter. You do realise that if a mother decides she wants rid after 24 weeks she cannot induce labour whenever she wants don't you? She has to carry it to term to give it the highest chance of survival possible.
    As soon as the foetus becomes viable - a grey area, but usually the lungs are said to be mature enough to support life at around 26 weeks - I have an issue with abortion. The abortion limit in the UK is, I think, 24 weeks, so the chances are that the mother would be in labour after this point, meaning an abortion would be illegal anyway - whether she wants to kill it or not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sorafdfs)
    Maternal instincts only come around during pregnancy so you won't really feel anything close to the same guilt.
    Ah, I thought you were implying women should feel guilty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)

    Many pregnancies self-terminate, and no one weeps at the thought of all those lives that never went ahead.
    Sorry if this comment is a little late - but this isn't true, miscarriage can upset and isn't particularly easy for those involved.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pink Bullets)
    Why?

    If someone wants to pay for an abortion, why shouldn't they be able to? If everyone got their abortions on the NHS, then waiting times would be longer which, if you consider the fetus to be a 'person', is surely worse as the fetus would be more developed? I would have thought private abortions would be much better from the pro-life POV.

    No nhs waiting times for Abortion would in fact be shorter as ,I would allow far fewer women to have abortions because I would lower the wk limit significantly ,unless there was a medical case that the mother would die from the act of giving birth.I would also be in favour of compulsory counselling for the mother and the father (I would also make it compulosory for the female to tell him ,but ultimately she would have the final decision) but that would depend on funds and time.

    The reason I am against private abortion clinics is they commericalise killing the unborn child.I believe the people who own such clinics should be treated like any murderer although I wouldn't go as far as some of the nuts in the united states as that would make me a hypocrite. I also think if further restrictions were enforced on abortion it would be harder to police, than if abortion was only available on the NHS.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's very much a case by case matter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kinkerz)
    Forgot about this thread.


    It's not just growth. There is alot of tissue differentiation to be done. Tissue differentiation that's essential to support a life.


    The coma patient has been alive in the past and also, most comas only last a few weeks, at which point the patient will either wake, die, or progress into a vegetative state. It's a different ball game completely.
    As for the driving a car off a cliff point, that strikes me as a 'clutching at straws' type argument.

    I'm sorry, but consciousness is linked to being human.


    As soon as the foetus becomes viable - a grey area, but usually the lungs are said to be mature enough to support life at around 26 weeks - I have an issue with abortion. The abortion limit in the UK is, I think, 24 weeks, so the chances are that the mother would be in labour after this point, meaning an abortion would be illegal anyway - whether she wants to kill it or not.
    As you yourself admit it is entirely a grey area. If the fact that someone was ever conscious plays a role in whether or not they should be taken off life support for their reliance on others, then surely you are all for abortion upto 8 months 3 weeks 6 days? Afterall the child was never conscious as we know it. I do agree it is a grey area, but I can't find the point at which it becomes wrong, so it is better to be safe than sorry and just not do it. I don't think lungs have anything to do it, nor does 'tissue differentiation'. If people can't handle having a child they shouldn't be having sex, protection was not created to provide a guaranteed solution to not getting pregnant, and it certainly wasn't created with the intention of letting people off the hook with the age old excuse 'I tried to use protection, so I guess it's ok to abort'. It is just another case of societies morality bending towards what it wants to do rather than what it should do.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • 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.