Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Well, my repeated response to that has been that a foetus is not necessarily a human being.

    On what basis do you make this assumption?



    So I take it you don't have a source.

    :lolwut: You have seriously not heard of these people??

    :k: Ok then:

    The second treatise of Government by John Locke. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Second-Treat...4336542&sr=1-3

    The rights of man by Thomas Paine. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rights-Commo...4336661&sr=1-1

    On Liberty by JS Mill. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Liberty-Essa...ref=pd_sim_b_4

    And many many more. But honestly. If you just want a brief overview of these quite colossal works theni suggest checking this page out. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/



    I really, really did not say this. Are we reading the same posts?

    Right lets go back to the start. Do you class those on life support as people?


    Of course I am not saying this. My point is about CONSENT, as was yours, originally. Something can be your fault but this doesn't mean you consented to it.
    Ok then, if i threw a penny from the Empire state building. Knowing that there is a slight risk it may kill someone. Would you say it would be my fualt if it did.

    Bearing in mind i chucked it even though i new there was the extremely small chance it would kill. So in fact i did consent to it, because i accepted the risk and in making the choice accepted the fact that there could be consequences.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tetrahydro)
    So you can just neg rep those who neg rep you when you feel like it? Will have to complain about this. That is absolutely ridiculous... Well you've admitted what you will be doing anyway. Print screen.

    Good thing a bunch of other people neg repped you, and you spent your rep on neg repping them back for now, eh? How pathetic are you? You don't deserve the powers you have.

    That's why I'll have to wait two hours or so to get your rep, lol, because you can't right now. Don't woz, dawg, You will be getting reported and I have more than a case against you... unless you want to carry on this promise of neg rep... lol

    regardless, you will be getting reported. I don't care about my rep you see...
    He hasnt broken any site rules. I can see the names of those who neg rep me too. Its awesome.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    On what basis do you make this assumption?
    It's not an assumption. I'm not saying 'foetuses are not human beings', I'm saying 'foetuses are not necessarily human beings'. The idea of being a 'human being' is subjective. To you, foetuses are human beings. To me, they are not. Nobody can claim it is factually one way or the other.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    :lolwut: You have seriously not heard of these people??

    :k: Ok then:

    The second treatise of Government by John Locke. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Second-Treat...4336542&sr=1-3

    The rights of man by Thomas Paine. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rights-Commo...4336661&sr=1-1

    On Liberty by JS Mill. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Liberty-Essa...ref=pd_sim_b_4

    And many many more. But honestly. If you just want a brief overview of these quite colossal works theni suggest checking this page out. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/
    Oh, right, I assumed your sources would be more significant that some philosophical theories. I'm talking declaration of human rights, or, yknow, the law. Not just some purely subjective philosophy. I might as well claim God exists, my source being Aquinas or Kant or Anselm.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Right lets go back to the start. Do you class those on life support as people?
    If they are pretty much braindead, then no.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Ok then, if i threw a penny from the Empire state building. Knowing that there is a slight risk it may kill someone. Would you say it would be my fualt if it did.

    Bearing in mind i chucked it even though i new there was the extremely small chance it would kill. So in fact i did consent to it, because i accepted the risk and in making the choice accepted the fact that there could be consequences.
    Something being your fault doesn't mean you consented to it.

    If the penny hit someone, it would be your fault. Not the same as consent.

    To consent to something you literally have to specifically give permission for something to happen. That is what consent means. So, if you said to a robber, I'm leaving my door open, go and take what you want- that would be consent. If you just absent mindedly leave the door open and get robbed- well, you were stupid, and some might argue that it was your fault- but you didn't consent to being robbed. You didn't give anyone your explicit permission. You were just careless and silly. Even if you left your jewellery and ipod and tv in a pile by the door, you're still not consenting. The robber would still be charged with theft.

    With the penny example- if you dropped a penny off the empire state building and it killed someone, it would be your fault. That doesn't mean you consented to being a murderer. It means you were careless and stupid, but if it was accidental, you didn't agree to it occuring.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    It's not an assumption. I'm not saying 'foetuses are not human beings', I'm saying 'foetuses are not necessarily human beings'. The idea of being a 'human being' is subjective. To you, foetuses are human beings. To me, they are not. Nobody can claim it is factually one way or the other.

    So the fact the line is blurred shows that you could indeed be wrong, and that you could be advocating the murder of people and human beings, millions of tiny children terminated.

    If my position is wrong, then it means that the rights of a large number of women have been violated for 9 months. If your position is wrong, then it means that millions of unborn children, human beings, people have been murdered in the name of convenience and selfishness.


    Oh, right, I assumed your sources would be more significant that some philosophical theories. I'm talking declaration of human rights, or, yknow, the law. Not just some purely subjective philosophy. I might as well claim God exists, my source being Aquinas or Kant or Anselm.

    I was finding it hard to take you seriously beforehand, but now it is pretty much impossible. What do you think the declaration of human rights is based on? Where do you think the idea and concept of human rights comes from. :facepalm2: ffs.

    If they are pretty much braindead, then no.
    Why not exactly?


    Something being your fault doesn't mean you consented to it.

    If the penny hit someone, it would be your fault. Not the same as consent.

    To consent to something you literally have to specifically give permission for something to happen. That is what consent means.
    No it doesn't. There are varying levels and understanding of what consent is and how consent should and can be applied. But to be honest you have admitted above that you haven't even read slightly into the various philosophies concerning it, yet are still adamant you are right. So me trying to discuss this with you is going to be like talking to brick wall.


    With the penny example- if you dropped a penny off the empire state building and it killed someone, it would be your fault.

    So you agree that if a woman has sex knowing there is a small possibility she might get pregnant as a result. it would be her fault if she did. So if she is at fault, and fails to take neccessary precautions. Why should an unborn child have to be killed? That is rather savage and brutal don't you think? Thus she should take responsibility for her action and her choice, in the same way that i would have to take responsibility for killing with a penny?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    So the fact the line is blurred shows that you could indeed be wrong, and that you could be advocating the murder of people and human beings, millions of tiny children terminated.

    If my position is wrong, then it means that the rights of a large number of women have been violated for 9 months. If your position is wrong, then it means that millions of unborn children, human beings, people have been murdered in the name of convenience and selfishness.

    Neither of us could ever be 'right', because 'human being' and 'person' are subjective terms. That's like saying 'what if it turns out I was right about cabbage tasting horrible'. Nobody ever has the definitive answer with terms that are as subjective as 'human being' or 'person'.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    S
    I was finding it hard to take you seriously beforehand, but now it is pretty much impossible. What do you think the declaration of human rights is based on? Where do you think the idea and concept of human rights comes from. :facepalm2: ffs.
    I'm sorry, I know that those philosophers have very interesting and significant things to say, but philosophy isn't fact, almost by definition it is debate. You can't say 'drink driving is a right because some philosophers say so', just as I can't say 'God exists because some philosophers make a convincing argument'.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Why not exactly?
    Because it meets hardly any of the criteria I outlined for being a person.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No it doesn't. There are varying levels and understanding of what consent is and how consent should and can be applied. But to be honest you have admitted above that you haven't even read slightly into the various philosophies concerning it, yet are still adamant you are right. So me trying to discuss this with you is going to be like talking to brick wall.
    If you're so well informed about the 'various philosophies' concerning consent, you're not very good at showing it. Please enlighten me. As it is, I'm perfectly happy with the dictionary definition.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    So you agree that if a woman has sex knowing there is a small possibility she might get pregnant as a result. it would be her fault if she did. So if she is at fault, and fails to take neccessary precautions. Why should an unborn child have to be killed? That is rather savage and brutal don't you think? Thus she should take responsibility for her action and her choice, in the same way that i would have to take responsibility for killing with a penny?
    No, I don't agree. This was an analogy regarding consent. Apart from the issue of consent, I don't think the situations are comparable. A better analogy would be the one of leaving a window open and being robbed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Neither of us could ever be 'right', because 'human being' and 'person' are subjective terms. That's like saying 'what if it turns out I was right about cabbage tasting horrible'. Nobody ever has the definitive answer with terms that are as subjective as 'human being' or 'person'.

    So you are implying that the Nazi's are not wrong when they say that Jews aren't people?

    After all if nobody can be right, then you must accept that when the KKK say blacks aren't people, they are not wrong.



    I'm sorry, I know that those philosophers have very interesting and significant things to say, but philosophy isn't fact, almost by definition it is debate. You can't say 'drink driving is a right because some philosophers say so', just as I can't say 'God exists because some philosophers make a convincing argument'.
    Ok then so what constitutes fact? There is no proof for anything really if you are talking metaphysically. There is no proof that we exist, there is no proof that what we think is existence is existance at all. So how do we know what is and what isn't fact according to you?

    I can't believe how off topic this is going because you are so immaturely incapable of conceding a point. Individual rights are something generally agreed upon in the western world, and laid down in the US constitution and the declaration of human rights. Just because you do not accept them doesn't mean they do not exist. Thats like saying because a murderer refuses to accept the concept of individual rights, he is justified in murdering another person. Your argument is absolutely ridiculous.


    Because it meets hardly any of the criteria I outlined for being a person.
    So you feel we are justified in doing anything to a coma patient? I could kill him or stick needles in his eyes, or eat him? After all he isn't a person according to you.

    If you're so well informed about the 'various philosophies' concerning consent, you're not very good at showing it. Please enlighten me. As it is, I'm perfectly happy with the dictionary definition.
    You sound like a person who likes to keep things as simple as they can possibly be.


    No, I don't agree. This was an analogy regarding consent. Apart from the issue of consent, I don't think the situations are comparable.

    No, why do you not think they are comparable exactly? You are just avoiding my analogy, so that again you do not have to concede a point. You cannot merely brush it aside without detracting hugely from the quality of your own argument.

    Why are those two situations not comparable exactly?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Gosh, you're getting very worked up, aren't you? Try to stay composed and civil, please, instead of ranting. It's just a debate, no need to froth at the mouth. Calling me and my arguments ridicuous/'immaturely incapable' only reflects badly on you. If you're getting that upset over this I suggest you leave. Otherwise, don't be rude.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    So you are implying that the Nazi's are not wrong when they say that Jews aren't people?

    After all if nobody can be right, then you must accept that when the KKK say blacks aren't people, they are not wrong.
    They're not 'wrong' as such, but they have very little basis for their claims which are clearly just fuelled by hate and prejudice.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Ok then so what constitutes fact? There is no proof for anything really if you are talking metaphysically. There is no proof that we exist, there is no proof that what we think is existence is existance at all. So how do we know what is and what isn't fact according to you?
    A term that is purely subjective can never be a fact. That's just logic. As to your ramblings about the existence of the world- we determine facts by the evidence we have. When it comes to subjectivity, there's no such thing as evidence. It's like saying 'it's a fact that this skirt is ugly'.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I can't believe how off topic this is going because you are so immaturely incapable of conceding a point. Individual rights are something generally agreed upon in the western world, and laid down in the US constitution and the declaration of human rights. Just because you do not accept them doesn't mean they do not exist. Thats like saying because a murderer refuses to accept the concept of individual rights, he is justified in murdering another person. Your argument is absolutely ridiculous.
    Your original point was about drink driving, right? And you were saying that someone should be allowed to drink drive because of individual rights? And now you're saying most of the western world has individual rights? Well, drink driving is prohibited all over the western world. Are you saying that the countries that prohibit drink driving are impinging on individual rights? Or that by stopping someone murdering someone else, you're breaching their rights?



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    So you feel we are justified in doing anything to a coma patient? I could kill him or stick needles in his eyes, or eat him? After all he isn't a person according to you.
    Except I never claimed that you could kick/eat/torture anything that isn't a person. Don't get hysterical.

    You sound like a person who likes to keep things as simple as they can possibly be.
    I'll take that as a 'no, I don't know anything about the philosophy of consent really, I just said that to look like I knew what I was taking about, so I can't explain the philosophies of consent to you when you ask me, so I'll just insult you instead'. If you're going to make wide claims about the 'philosophies of consent' then you should show you know what you're talking about. If not, we'd better stick to the dictionary definition, hmm?

    No, why do you not think they are comparable exactly? You are just avoiding my analogy, so that again you do not have to concede a point. You cannot merely brush it aside without detracting hugely from the quality of your own argument.

    Why are those two situations not comparable exactly?
    Er, because by getting pregnant you're not killing or harming anyone, for one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Gosh, you're getting very worked up, aren't you? Try to stay composed and civil, please, instead of ranting. It's just a debate, no need to froth at the mouth. Calling me and my arguments ridicuous/'immaturely incapable' only reflects badly on you. If you're getting that upset over this I suggest you leave. Otherwise, don't be rude.

    No, i will be rude at my pleasure. Your arguments really are ridiculous. A sentiment expressed by two other users in the 'rightss of the mother father' abortion thread.

    They're not 'wrong' as such, but they have very little basis for their claims which are clearly just fuelled by hate and prejudice.
    So if it is a question of basis. Why do you not feel that the concept of self ownership and individual sovreignity has any substantial basis. Bearing in mind it is the basis of western democracy and individual rights. Again, you are just backing yourself into a corner because you are incapable of ceding an obvious point.

    A term that is purely subjective can never be a fact. That's just logic. As to your ramblings about the existence of the world- we determine facts by the evidence we have. When it comes to subjectivity, there's no such thing as evidence. It's like saying 'it's a fact that this skirt is ugly'.

    So how can you say with any certainity that we do not own ourselves?


    Your original point was about drink driving, right? And you were saying that someone should be allowed to drink drive because of individual rights?

    :facepalm2: Give me strength... I said that it is an individual right to choose whether you drink and drive. Which it quite obviously is. Otherwise you are saying that human beings do not ahve power over their own choices.

    ]And now you're saying most of the western world has individual rights? Well, drink driving is prohibited all over the western world.

    :banghead: Yes, but that does not mean the choice is removed. It simply means that there is a punishment for doing so. I can still choose to drink drive if i want to, because i own my body. But there are consequences for doing this prohibited act, i will be punished. but that doesn't mean i cannot choose to do it.



    Are you saying that the countries that prohibit drink driving are impinging on individual rights? Or that by stopping someone murdering someone else, you're breaching their rights?

    No, becasue rights end where anothers begin. That is Mills harm principle. You may excersize your rights in any way you see fit, as long as, in doing so you do not violate the rights of others.

    But that doesn't mean we do not have te ability to choose wrongly initially. A murderer can still choose to murder someone. His punishment will be a consequence of that action. We do not have thought police, we do not control the thoughts of others. Choice, individual rights, individual responsibity is the staple and foundation of western democracy.


    Except I never claimed that you could kick/eat/torture anything that isn't a person. Don't get hysterical.
    But you claimed that because a fetus apparently isn't a person we can kill it and suck it up with a hoover. So why can't we do the same to coma patients?


    I'll take that as a 'no, I don't know anything about the philosophy of consent really, I just said that to look like I knew what I was taking about, so I can't explain the philosophies of consent to you when you ask me, so I'll just insult you instead'. If you're going to make wide claims about the 'philosophies of consent' then you should show you know what you're talking about. If not, we'd better stick to the dictionary definition, hmm?
    I am going to answer this by quoting the brilliant reply of the poster in the other thread. Who completely obliterated your simple assertion of what consent is:

    (Original post by Hy~)
    I'll humour you. My patience, however, has worn thin; it's become quite obvious that you won't answer my question, so this will be my last post.

    First of all, consent has nothing to do with what want or don't want. I consent to pay tax when I buy something, but I'd rather not pay the tax. It is simply to do with permission. If I buy something that is taxed, my implicit consent is given to pay the tax; otherwise, I wouldn't buy said thing. Replace "consent" with "permit" or some such word in the following paragraph if this is so difficult for you.

    When a woman and man have consensual sexual intercourse, there is an implicit consent given to the man's fluids to be inside of you. If this consent isn't implied, then using contraception will solve this. Otherwise, it is implied. Once a man's fluids are inside of you, and since you have consented to them being there, it logically follows that you consent to whatever they become while they are inside there; i.e. a foetus.

    In your absurd little examples, if you were to invite a burglar through your window or to take your mobile phone, that would be consent. You are inviting the man INTO your body when you have intercourse. To say otherwise would be to say you've been raped, a situation I've already commented upon.

    If you haven't the intellectual capacity to see how your analogies are completely different and hence meaningless, I really doubt I'll get any answer out of you. So I'll no longer try. Have a nice day.


    Er, because by getting pregnant you're not killing or harming anyone, for one.


    Except the unborn child. But again you are trying to avoid the issue here.

    You said: With the penny example- if you dropped a penny off the empire state building and it killed someone, it would be your fault.


    Forget about the death, that is just a strawman you are using in order to avoid ceding a point. :rolleyes:


    Why if i drop a penny from the empire state building, even though the chance of it hiting someone is remote. Would it be my fault if it did. But if a woman has sex and gets pregnant it wouldn't be her fault becasue the chances of her getting pregant when she had sex were so remote?


    Don't you see your hypocrisy and ridiculous double standards?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No, i will be rude at my pleasure. Your arguments really are ridiculous. A sentiment expressed by two other users in the 'rightss of the mother father' abortion thread.



    So if it is a question of basis. Why do you not feel that the concept of self ownership and individual sovreignity has any substantial basis. Bearing in mind it is the basis of western democracy and individual rights. Again, you are just backing yourself into a corner because you are incapable of ceding an obvious point.




    So how can you say with any certainity that we do not own ourselves?





    :facepalm2: Give me strength... I said that it is an individual right to choose whether you drink and drive. Which it quite obviously is. Otherwise you are saying that human beings do not ahve power over their own choices.




    :banghead: Yes, but that does not mean the choice is removed. It simply means that there is a punishment for doing so. I can still choose to drink drive if i want to, because i own my body. But there are consequences for doing this prohibited act, i will be punished. but that doesn't mean i cannot choose to do it.






    No, becasue rights end where anothers begin. That is Mills harm principle. You may excersize your rights in any way you see fit, as long as, in doing so you do not violate the rights of others.

    But that doesn't mean we do not have te ability to choose wrongly initially. A murderer can still choose to murder someone. His punishment will be a consequence of that action. We do not have thought police, we do not control the thoughts of others. Choice, individual rights, individual responsibity is the staple and foundation of western democracy.




    But you claimed that because a fetus apparently isn't a person we can kill it and suck it up with a hoover. So why can't we do the same to coma patients?




    I am going to answer this by quoting the brilliant reply of the poster in the other thread. Who completely obliterated your simple assertion of what consent is:









    Except the unborn child. But again you are trying to avoid the issue here.

    You said: With the penny example- if you dropped a penny off the empire state building and it killed someone, it would be your fault.


    Forget about the death, that is just a strawman you are using in order to avoid ceding a point. :rolleyes:


    Why if i drop a penny from the empire state building, even though the chance of it hiting someone is remote. Would it be my fault if it did. But if a woman has sex and gets pregnant it wouldn't be her fault becasue the chances of her getting pregant when she had sex were so remote?


    Don't you see your hypocrisy and ridiculous double standards?

    No, all I see is a slightly hysterical, aggressive boy (ooh, see, I can be rude too!) *****ing that he doesn't have power over a woman's body. You keep ranting about how frustrating I am- well, believe it or not, I'm finding you incredibly frustrating too, with your countless assumptions and illogical conclusions and in particular your childishness when it comes to debating. After your refusal to be civil at my request, there's no way I'm going to respond to your post. If you want to keep debating then confirm you'll do it civilly, if not then, well, if you can't be polite that reflects much, much worse on you than on me
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    No, all I see is a slightly hysterical, aggressive boy (ooh, see, I can be rude too!) *****ing that he doesn't have power over a woman's body.

    Once again i find myself debating with an ignoramus who cannot get past the 'womens rights' issue. You are just as bad as the chauvinisitic, patriarchal men who are your counterpart. You forget about the innocent, defenceless child who is at the centre of this, all you do is make it about your selves. It is selfish and frankly quite disgusting.

    I am arguing for the rights of the human being inside the womb, the unborn child who has done nothing wrong, yet is blamed and hated for being there, who is called a parasite and an appendix, who can be killed legally up until he or she is 24 weeks old for no other reason than the selfish ***** carrying him doesn't want to get fat for 9 months.


    You keep ranting about how frustrating I am- well, believe it or not, I'm finding you incredibly frustrating too,
    Well if the arguments were too complex, i am sure you could have asked one of your smarter friends to help you understand.

    After your refusal to be civil at my request, there's no way I'm going to respond to your post. If you want to keep debating then confirm you'll do it civilly, if not then, well, if you can't be polite that reflects much, much worse on you than on me
    :shh: Dont worry, i understand. You want to save face. I'll cover for you. :yy:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But your cat isn't human.





    Hijacking?? :rofl:

    That woman excersized her right to self ownership by having sex. Individual rights mean individual responsibility. Pregnancy is a risk every woman must accept if she wants to have sex.

    As for the difference between the child being inside and outside of the womb. Are you seriously saying that you would rather kill a child than have the woman inconvenienced for just 9 months before giving it up to the state?


    Also, your attempts to dehumanise the child with words such as hijack and the inevitable 'parasite' etc.. Are rather distastefull. After all, those who have sought to kill have used the exact same tactics in the past.
    :ditto: True, true, true.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Once again i find myself debating with an ignoramus who cannot get past the 'womens rights' issue. You are just as bad as the chauvinisitic, patriarchal men who are your counterpart. You forget about the innocent, defenceless child who is at the centre of this, all you do is make it about your selves. It is selfish and frankly quite disgusting.

    I am arguing for the rights of the human being inside the womb, the unborn child who has done nothing wrong, yet is blamed and hated for being there, who is called a parasite and an appendix, who can be killed legally up until he or she is 24 weeks old for no other reason than the selfish ***** carrying him doesn't want to get fat for 9 months.




    Well if the arguments were too complex, i am sure you could have asked one of your smarter friends to help you understand.



    :shh: Dont worry, i understand. You want to save face. I'll cover for you. :yy:
    This may surprise you since it's obviously not the case for you, but I don't debate issues like this- especially online- just because I want to be 'proved right'- especially when it's an issue like this where nobody can be proved right. I debate it because it's interesting to examine points with someone else, and to see things through a new perspective, and to engage. I'm sure you can now see why I have no interest in someone as aggressive and arrogant as you.

    Feel free to continue 'insulting' me, but rest assured, you're not making anyone look ridiculous but yourself, and making more and more sure that you're not going to be taken seriously in the debate. Who's going to pay attention to someone who verbally attacks anyone disagreeing with them?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    This may surprise you since it's obviously not the case for you, but I don't debate issues like this- especially online- just because I want to be 'proved right'
    Which is probably why you never are.

    I debate it because it's interesting to examine points with someone else, and to see things through a new perspective, and to engage. I'm sure you can now see why I have no interest in someone as aggressive and arrogant as you.

    How convenient. :yy:

    You know, for someone who doesn't debate to prove herself right. You have been trying pretty hard to do exactly that for the last day or so, in three different threads about abortion. :holmes:

    Feel free to continue 'insulting' me, but rest assured, you're not making anyone look ridiculous but yourself, and making more and more sure that you're not going to be taken seriously in the debate.
    The messages and rep i have received concerning this debate from other users suggest otherwise but ok. :beard:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    Exaggeration much? More like <15%. We don't choose between lives we always try to save both. If they put their life in danger that their own fault.
    I don't think I exaggerated. Almost all of my friends who I've talked to about this have said if abortions is illegal then they'd abort illegally.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.