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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tinktinktinkerbell)
    the fact is NO ONE has the right to tell ANYONE what to do with their bodies, yes they can have an opinion on it but its their body to do as they please with it
    Legalise drugs then.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Legalise drugs then.

    this is a good point
    i really do believe that what people do with their own body then its their own business, if they want to put something into it they should be able to and if they dont want something in it they they shouldnt have to have
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Legalise drugs then.
    I'm for the legalisation of drugs. But the drug laws are there to protect people from themselves, right? So it's a bit of a different situation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    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.
    Here's a copy+paste of what I've already replied to you in an above post:

    Not at all - abortion is absolutely fine if neither parent wants the child, if the father does not come forward, or if it's rape, etc. etc.

    My post was treating this specific situation: If a mother wants an abortion and the father wants his child alive, the he should have the right to make her keep it, even if she does not want anything to do with it after birth.

    You can't infer from that that I'm against abortion in general.

    Please do people the courtesy of reading their posts and giving a decent argued reply, not just finding ways to avoid responding properly.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yodude888)
    Here's a copy+paste of what I've already replied to you in an above post:

    so a woman has no say in what goes on with her body then

    wow
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I feel that in the case of the mother wanting it but the father not, the father should be allowed to completely dissociate from the child and not have any parental status or pay any kind of child-support fees.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yodude888)
    Here's a copy+paste of what I've already replied to you in an above post:
    Apologies, I hadn't noticed that reply, I can see how it looked like I was ignoring you.


    My response is that- abortion isn't permitted because the child is biologically the woman's. The parenthood of the child is almost irrelevent when it comes to abortion. The only, sole reason that a woman is permitted to abort the foetus is because it's her body, and she can do what she likes with it. This is why the father can neither decide to have the child aborted or to keep the child- it's not his decision to make, because the issue is entirely around the body that the foetus is living in. Once the child is born, however, the father should have equal rights to the mother. But when it's an issue of the woman's body, unfortunately the dad is irrelevent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Apologies, I hadn't noticed that reply, I can see how it looked like I was ignoring you.


    My response is that- abortion isn't permitted because the child is biologically the woman's. The parenthood of the child is almost irrelevent when it comes to abortion. The only, sole reason that a woman is permitted to abort the foetus is because it's her body, and she can do what she likes with it.

    What about the childs body and what the child would want to do with it? nature has made it unfair for women yes, but why does that give her the right to kill?

    This is why the father can neither decide to have the child aborted or to keep the child- it's not his decision to make, because the issue is entirely around the body that the foetus is living in.
    Why is it? Why isn't about the child? There is not just one life in the equation, there are two. The childs heart is beating, it is alive inside the woman. On what grounds can you simply brush aside it's own right to life? Don't you think that is rather brutal and savage, quite primitive and selfish?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tinktinktinkerbell)
    so a woman has no say in what goes on with her body then

    wow


    What about the child? Why is it only the woman who matters?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    i could be wrong but im sure fetus dont have rights until born, is that right?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    What about the child? Why is it only the woman who matters?

    because the woman has to basically change her life, carry it for 9 months, have x amount of hours of labour

    and then theres the rest of the stuff, not to mention all the changes to HER body (some of which arnt very nice)

    so yeah it shouldnt be about the woman at all :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    i wouldnt think twice about getting rid if i got pregnant, i wouldnt think about the baby or my bf

    carrying/giving birth to it would not be an option for me

    and yes that is selfish but :dontknow:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tinktinktinkerbell)
    because the woman has to basically change her life, carry it for 9 months, have x amount of hours of labour

    and then theres the rest of the stuff, not to mention all the changes to HER body (some of which arnt very nice)

    so yeah it shouldnt be about the woman at all :rolleyes:




    Lolwut? Oh dear that poor poor woman she has to get all fat. :cry:


    So the child must be killed, must be terminated and murdered, it's existence destroyed just so the woman doesn't have to suffer inconvenience for 9 months?


    That is savage.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tinktinktinkerbell)
    i wouldnt think twice about getting rid if i got pregnant, i wouldnt think about the baby or my bf

    So you are ok with murdering children. Good to know.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Apologies, I hadn't noticed that reply, I can see how it looked like I was ignoring you.


    My response is that- abortion isn't permitted because the child is biologically the woman's. The parenthood of the child is almost irrelevent when it comes to abortion. The only, sole reason that a woman is permitted to abort the foetus is because it's her body, and she can do what she likes with it. This is why the father can neither decide to have the child aborted or to keep the child- it's not his decision to make, because the issue is entirely around the body that the foetus is living in. Once the child is born, however, the father should have equal rights to the mother. But when it's an issue of the woman's body, unfortunately the dad is irrelevent.

    You haven't really answered my concern -

    Right - so once we've accepted that there's nothing we can do about the fact that the mother and father have their child in the mother's body... we have two possible conclusions.

    I see that you read it as "it's in her body therefore it's her choice" which implies that the fact that it's a human being with two parents who have moral rights over it is irrelevant.

    Now, why couldn't the conclusion be "it's in the woman's body, but tough. She's the biological vehicle of the child's survival, and therefore if either parent wants the child to live, she should have the responsability to bring it to this world."


    Your argument has just restated the first view, but not it's relative strength over the second possibility.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    What about the childs body and what the child would want to do with it? nature has made it unfair for women yes, but why does that give her the right to kill?



    Why is it? Why isn't about the child? There is not just one life in the equation, there are two. The childs heart is beating, it is alive inside the woman. On what grounds can you simply brush aside it's own right to life? Don't you think that is rather brutal and savage, quite primitive and selfish?
    Didn't I make it pretty clear that if since you've refussed to be civil I no longer have any interest in anything you say?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yodude888)
    You haven't really answered my concern -

    Right - so once we've accepted that there's nothing we can do about the fact that the mother and father have their child in the mother's body... we have two possible conclusions.

    I see that you read it as "it's in her body therefore it's her choice" which implies that the fact that it's a human being with two parents who have moral rights over it is irrelevant.

    Now, why couldn't the conclusion be "it's in the woman's body, but tough. She's the biological vehicle of the child's survival, and therefore if either parent wants the child to live, she should have the responsability to bring it to this world."


    Your argument has just restated the first view, but not it's relative strength over the second possibility.
    Why does the father have a moral right over whether the foetus lives or dies? If the baby was in a tank independent of either parent, they would have no say over whether it lived or died (neither would anyone else, because nobody's body is involved). The only reason the mother does have a say regarding abortion is because it's in her body. Not because she has any moral right to the foetus because it's got her genes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tinktinktinkerbell)
    so a woman has no say in what goes on with her body then

    wow
    "So a woman has no say in murdering a human being that she is only partially responsable for then?

    wow"

    Is that what you mean?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yodude888)
    "So a woman has no say in murdering a human being that she is only partially responsable for then?

    wow"

    Is that what you mean?
    If you put it like that, why is it ok to 'murder a human being' when the father agrees?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I'm for the legalisation of drugs. But the drug laws are there to protect people from themselves, right? So it's a bit of a different situation.
    No. If drug laws were really for our protection they would be legalised, regulated and made cheaper than on the black market. It's political suicide if drugs were legalised and the continuing additions of controlled drugs are a mere example of social authoritarianism. Besides, all wars on drugs fail spectacularly. They increase the price of drugs that help to make more profit to fund crime. Nice one.

    I use it as an example to say that prohibition doesn't work, whether it is alcohol, drugs or abortion.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    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.