Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Wrong, you do not own that babies body. That can only belong to the unborn child. By all means enjoy your own body.. But your rights end where the next set begins.




    Why are you being sexist? Why are you turning this into a man versus woman thing?

    See this is the main problem with this debate. You get patriarchal religious men and hairy femenist women, who turn it into a debate of womens rights only. And in the process the fact that there exists a living child with a beating heart doesn't even come into the equation.

    I think it is disgusting, and selfish on both sides of the divide.

    Oh and as for your attempts to de-humanise the child, by labeling it a parasite.. That tactic has beeen used before to further the agenda of those who sought to kill other human beings. Namely by the Nazi's in the holocaust, and does nothing but detract from the quality of your argumment. (apologies to Godwin)


    well first of all im not a feminist in the slightest but from this topic it seems to be that its mainly men kicking off about it (not saying its ALL the men but a lot of the people disagreeing are male)

    and as long as that parasite/baby/fetus/whatever you want to call it is inside the woman it IS her property as upto a certain point it can not survive without the woman
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tinktinktinkerbell)
    well first of all im not a feminist in the slightest but from this topic it seems to be that its mainly men kicking off about it (not saying its ALL the men but a lot of the people disagreeing are male)

    and as long as that parasite/baby/fetus/whatever you want to call it is inside the woman it IS her property as upto a certain point it can not survive without the woman
    Women who think like this should be sterilized.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UGeNe)
    Women who think like this should be sterilized.

    why? im never having kids anyway
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tinktinktinkerbell)
    and as long as that parasite/baby/fetus/whatever you want to call it is inside the woman it IS her property as upto a certain point it can not survive without the woman

    Many disabled people and all neborn babies cannot survive without other human beings. Does that mean they become property aswell?


    Are the passngers of a plane the property of the pilot?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tinktinktinkerbell)
    why? im never having kids anyway
    I should take your word for it? :o:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Many disabled people and all neborn babies cannot survive without other human beings. Does that mean they become property aswell?


    Are the passngers of a plane the property of the pilot?
    by survive i mean breath
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UGeNe)
    I should take your word for it? :o:

    yes you should
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tinktinktinkerbell)
    by survive i mean breath

    What about a coma patient who cannot survive without a respirator provided by society?

    Do we own these people?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    What about a coma patient who cannot survive without a respirator provided by society?

    Do we own these people?

    no the hospital does/his/her next of kin do :rolleyes:


    but thats totally different, their body is not IN someone elses body

    meh i cba with this any more, you have your opinion of what ever that is and i have my opinion that its upto the woman and you cant force someone to do something with their body that they dont want to do
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tinktinktinkerbell)
    meh i cba with this any more, you have your opinion of what ever that is and i have my opinion that its upto the woman and you cant force someone to do something with their body that they dont want to do

    Except the unborn child of course. Apparently it's ok to kill it without it's permission. :rolleyes:

    no the hospital does/his/her next of kin do

    So they can do whatever they want with this coma patient can they? they can kill him, eat him, stick needles in his eyes etc..etc.. After all they do own him. :curious:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Except the unborn child of course. Apparently it's ok to kill it without it's permission. :rolleyes:




    So they can do whatever they want with this coma patient can they? they can kill him, eat him, stick needles in his eyes etc..etc.. After all they do own him. :curious:

    yes of course they can do illegal things to the person :rolleyes: come on son have a word

    when there is a patient in a coma in hospital we all know that the next of kin are the ones to decide things for them IE if the LSM should be turned off, what treatment they get etc
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tinktinktinkerbell)
    yes of course they can do illegal things to the person :rolleyes: come on son have a word
    But you said that they owned the coma patient. Why wouldn't they be able to do those things to it? If i owned a chicken i am allowed to kill and eat it.

    What is stopping them from doing that to him? What is the difference between him and the chicken? And why doesn't that apply to the unborn child aswell?

    when there is a patient in a coma in hospital we all know that the next of kin are the ones to decide things for them IE if the LSM should be turned off, what treatment they get etc

    Yes, but it is only when all other options are exhausted, when there is next to no chance he will live again.

    An unborn child is garunteed to live and has a whole life ahead of it. Why is it not ok to kill a coma patient if he has a chance of waking up. But ok to kill an unborn baby when we know it is most definately going to be born and live?

    Bearing in mind that both cannot survive without the care or life support of another.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But you said that they owned the coma patient. Why wouldn't they be able to do those things to it? If i owned a chicken i am allowed to kill and eat it.

    What is stopping them from doing that to him? What is the difference between him and the chicken? And why doesn't that apply to the unborn child aswell?



    Yes, but it is only when all other options are exhausted, when there is next to no chance he will live again.

    An unborn child is garunteed to live and has a whole life ahead of it. Why is it not ok to kill a coma patient if he has a chance of waking up. But ok to kill an unborn baby when we know it is most definitely going to be born and live?
    Bearing in mind that both cannot survive without the care or life support of another.

    because its illegal, illegal things are illegal


    yes because its not illegal to kill and eat a chicken

    the law

    ones legal and the other isnt

    because abortion isnt illegal

    that is not true at all, babies can die in the womb before they reach full term, they can die the they they are born, they can die the day after/the week after/6 months/a year after they are born, a unborn baby is NOT guaranteed to live and have its full life ahead of it

    killing a coma patient is illegal (if its not agreed with medical staff/net of kin) abortion is not illegal
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tinktinktinkerbell)
    because its illegal, illegal things are illegal


    yes because its not illegal to kill and eat a chicken

    the law

    ones legal and the other isnt

    because abortion isnt illegal


    So you think that just because it is the law in Iran for homosexuals to be stoned to death, it makes it morally right?

    I am not talking about the law here, im talking about what is morally right or wrong, and wether it is morally right to kill an unborn child simply because it cannot survive on it's own.

    that is not true at all, babies can die in the womb before they reach full term, they can die the they they are born, they can die the day after/the week after/6 months/a year after they are born, a unborn baby is NOT guaranteed to live and have its full life ahead of it
    :facepalm2: Which has more chance of living a proper life. An unborn, healthy child, or a coma patient who cannot survive without a LSM and is essentially a vegetable?


    Stop making strawmen to avoid the point.

    killing a coma patient is illegal (if its not agreed with medical staff/net of kin) abortion is not illegal

    Again, we are talking about morals and ethics not what is simply legal and illegal. Otherwise you would agree with it is right for an Afghan husband being able to rape his wife, simply because it is legal.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    So you think that just because it is the law in Iran for homosexuals to be stoned to death, it makes it morally right?

    I am not talking about the law here, im talking about what is morally right or wrong, and wether it is morally right to kill an unborn child simply because it cannot survive on it's own.



    :facepalm2: Which has more chance of living a proper life. An unborn, healthy child, or a coma patient who cannot survive without a LSM and is essentially a vegetable?


    Stop making strawmen to avoid the point.




    Again, we are talking about morals and ethics not what is simply legal and illegal. Otherwise you would agree with it is right for an Afghan husband being able to rape his wife, simply because it is legal.

    this topic is about fathers rights when it comes to abortion

    i agree 100% with abortion so yes i do think its morally right
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tinktinktinkerbell)
    this topic is about fathers rights when it comes to abortion

    i agree 100% with abortion so yes i do think its morally right


    :rolleyes: I will repeat myself then.....





    (Original post by tinktinktinkerbell)
    because its illegal, illegal things are illegal


    yes because its not illegal to kill and eat a chicken

    the law

    ones legal and the other isnt

    because abortion isnt illegal


    So you think that just because it is the law in Iran for homosexuals to be stoned to death, it makes it morally right?

    I am not talking about the law here, im talking about what is morally right or wrong, and wether it is morally right to kill an unborn child simply because it cannot survive on it's own.

    that is not true at all, babies can die in the womb before they reach full term, they can die the they they are born, they can die the day after/the week after/6 months/a year after they are born, a unborn baby is NOT guaranteed to live and have its full life ahead of it
    Which has more chance of living a proper life. An unborn, healthy child, or a coma patient who cannot survive without a LSM and is essentially a vegetable?


    Stop making strawmen to avoid the point.

    killing a coma patient is illegal (if its not agreed with medical staff/net of kin) abortion is not illegal

    Again, we are talking about morals and ethics not what is simply legal and illegal. Otherwise you would agree with it is right for an Afghan husband being able to rape his wife, simply because it is legal.




    If you choose to avoid all of these points again. i will assume it is because you cannot come back with any kind of effective argument.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    :rolleyes: I will repeat myself then.....









    So you think that just because it is the law in Iran for homosexuals to be stoned to death, it makes it morally right?

    I am not talking about the law here, im talking about what is morally right or wrong, and wether it is morally right to kill an unborn child simply because it cannot survive on it's own.



    Which has more chance of living a proper life. An unborn, healthy child, or a coma patient who cannot survive without a LSM and is essentially a vegetable?


    Stop making strawmen to avoid the point.




    Again, we are talking about morals and ethics not what is simply legal and illegal. Otherwise you would agree with it is right for an Afghan husband being able to rape his wife, simply because it is legal.




    If you choose to avoid all of these points again. i will assume it is because you cannot come back with any kind of effective argument.

    no i do not always think that because something is the law it makes it morally right

    how can forcing someone to do something with their body they dont want to do be morally right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tinktinktinkerbell)
    no i do not always think that because something is the law it makes it morally right
    So i will repeat my previous point before you used illegality which you have agreed is not relevant now we are discussing morality:

    You said that the family owned the coma patient. Why wouldn't they be able to do horrid things to it and kill it whenever they wanted to? If i owned a chicken i am allowed to kill and eat it.

    What is the moral difference between him and the chicken? And why doesn't that apply to the unborn child aswell?

    Bearing in mind, you said that the mother should own and be allowed to kill her unborn child because it cannot live without her life support.


    how can forcing someone to do something with their body they dont want to do be morally right?

    But again you employ double standards. You are only applying this to the mother while ignoring the unborn child within her. Why is it morally right to kill the child without it's permission, but it is not morally right to force a woman to carry a child for nine months?

    if you are going to employ this line of reasoning then you must at least be consistent.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    So you're arguing against abortion in general? See, that's not necessarily the same as the argument that men should have control over the foetus.
    missy - have you given up hope? What is the issue here. I posted a reply to our discussion which you then ignored, however continuing to respond to someone else's.

    In the spirit of debate, which you've previously mentioned, would you please post a rebuttal to my point?

    I apologise if my point was too poignant and you've been incapable of coming up with sufficient counter-arguments.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yodude888)
    missy - have you given up hope? What is the issue here. I posted a reply to our discussion which you then ignored, however continuing to respond to someone else's.

    In the spirit of debate, which you've previously mentioned, would you please post a rebuttal to my point?

    I apologise if my point was too poignant and you've been incapable of coming up with sufficient counter-arguments.
    If your point was against abortion in general- well, I've argued that for so long that I'm bored and frustrated by going in circles with people, I hope you'll forgive me if I don't really want to debate you.

    If your point is that abortion is fine, but men should have a say in it (which I thought was your initial point, which is why I replied to you)- I find that much more interesting, and if you clarify your stance I'll happily respond.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,694

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE 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.