Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libtolu)
    What rights?

    As far as i see rights are just words written on paper, like laws easy to break and not so easy to be caught.

    You have the right to live as does any living thing(including feotus if you count it as being alive whilst being symbiotic) if you can protect yourself and those you wish to keep alive, if someone comes at you with a knife and you can't defend yourself it's your own fault if you die.

    Feotus can only rely on the compassion of the mother and surrounding people for life if she wishes to take it ,questionable, life then she can.
    Rights are just our morals expressed as a set of rules. That's true. Your post is all truthful. What I question you is; which r word does a mother have upon her newly born child? Right or responsibility. I don't think you'd agree that we are supposed to be allowed to kill our children no? Or that it is moral and acceptable to do so? Imho NOBODY has the right on ANYBODY's life. A mother has responsibility over her children but not the right over their lives. So does imho a pregnant mother.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GottaLovePhysics! :))
    I didnt take offence, I was taken aback by the misconception. But were not here for for a debate about god so ill go straight back to the question.

    Would you not agree that it is harming for a child to be brought into a family that wanted to abort it? I would feel this is a thousend times cruler than aborting x numer of cells.
    True. Though taking for granted that life begins at fertilisation (because otherwise we wouldn't agree on the value of the cells), I believe life is the most sacred thing for us as people and it should be protected at all costs. I hope you agree with the previous statement.

    Again taking life to being at fertilisation I don't agree that life should be killed for not suffering. But since your argument is truthful indeed I believe that the responsibility of the mother would in the society's hand to find the child a home and a new life in the same way that we don't kill orphan children but try to introduce them to foster families to provide them with what nature neglected them, parenthood.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hay.hay)
    If there was a definate home for each and every baby that was in these artificial wombs then fair enough. Having 100,000 unwanted children a year doesn't help anyone though.
    True but life is life. It should be protected at all costs. I think we'd find some solution to that. So families would willing accept another child and others wouldn't dare refute the state privileges such a child could yield.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fortysixandtwo)
    If you can tell me absolutely, categorically without a doubt, when 'life' begins then you may be able to argue a case for an anti-abortion stance.

    As none of us are able to do this, in my opinion, the pro-life camp have no case.
    Actually it's the other way round. What would you do if there was a button that could by a chance of 50% result in your death but by a chance of 50% you could get a million sterling? Are we going to risk millions of lives with a definite answer to this question? I don't see how that's reasonable or moral by anyone who wouldn't shoot a 10 year old at blank point?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    True. Though taking for granted that life begins at fertilisation (because otherwise we wouldn't agree on the value of the cells), I believe life is the most sacred thing for us as people and it should be protected at all costs. I hope you agree with the previous statement.

    Again taking life to being at fertilisation I don't agree that life should be killed for not suffering. But since your argument is truthful indeed I believe that the responsibility of the mother would in the society's hand to find the child a home and a new life in the same way that we don't kill orphan children but try to introduce them to foster families to provide them with what nature neglected them, parenthood.
    Im afraid I dont agree that life begns at conception. I belive in a later date before the fetous can feel pain.
    This alows time for an abortion for those who defently know that having a baby is a bad choice - but not so much that the baby has devloped to a level where it has a consiose mind.
    This is because of they insuffienct sytems put in place for adoption of babys. Many children who grow up in childrens homes lead a horrible life.
    Also for situations as - Poor family conditions - Lack of money - single parents with no help - rape - etc.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    True but life is life. It should be protected at all costs. I think we'd find some solution to that. So families would willing accept another child and others wouldn't dare refute the state privileges such a child could yield.

    I wouldn't like to think that I had no choice in whether I wanted to have my child or not and that not only would the choice be taken away from me but that the baby would be sent to someone who only wants it for the state benefits.

    I think all of the pro-life supporters need to realise that the majority of people who have abortions do make make the choice lightly and many do so because they cannot support a child to the best of their capabilities. This idea of an artificial womb is just wrong in my opinion. You cannot force a woman to have a child that she cannot keep herself to just be given away to anyone who wants a bit more cash. There are more factors to abortion than just not wanting the child. In many cases I'm sure you'll find that if the woman thought she could give the baby the best life and chance she could, she'd keep it.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by theBOON)
    Actually it's the other way round. What would you do if there was a button that could by a chance of 50% result in your death but by a chance of 50% you could get a million sterling? Are we going to risk millions of lives with a definite answer to this question? I don't see how that's reasonable or moral by anyone who wouldn't shoot a 10 year old at blank point?
    I've no idea what you're on about here.

    I think this is the intellectual equivalent of running away.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I especially like the bit about it being a "mother's choice" to either pay to bring it up herself or pay to have it brought up for her. Some choice (btw, takes two to tango does it not?)

    Thank **** that most people with any kind of power are prepared to think of the woman's rights rather than an unborn bunch of cells'.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    I especially like the bit about it being a "mother's choice" to either pay to bring it up herself or pay to have it brought up for her. Some choice (btw, takes two to tango does it not?)

    Thank **** that most people with any kind of power are prepared to think of the woman's rights rather than an unborn bunch of cells'.
    But aren't we all a bunch of cells?

    And doesn't the foetus start to react to things after a certain point?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by + polarity -)
    But aren't we all a bunch of cells?

    And doesn't the foetus start to react to things after a certain point?
    I don't really give a **** to be honest. It can't survive outside of the womb and is totally dependant on the woman, I don't think women should be forced to undergo all the changes pregnancy has on their bodies if they don't want to. It's not born, it's not a child it has no rights. And I especially don't think women should be forced to pay for something they don't even want like the OP stated (notice how men have no compulsion but I'm fairly sure a man would have been involved somewhere....).


    Anyway don't bother replying, or if you do don't expect a reply because this is a debate I've had too many times and frankly I can't be ****** with it again. Especially as it was simply the OP's sexism (re: paying for it) I wished to highlight. I notice it's 95% of the time men making these demands clearly while having no idea whatsoever of the impact of pregnancy on a woman's psyche and body. Seen this too many times, do not care. :yawn:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hay.hay)
    I wouldn't like to think that I had no choice in whether I wanted to have my child or not and that not only would the choice be taken away from me but that the baby would be sent to someone who only wants it for the state benefits.

    I think all of the pro-life supporters need to realise that the majority of people who have abortions do make make the choice lightly and many do so because they cannot support a child to the best of their capabilities. This idea of an artificial womb is just wrong in my opinion. You cannot force a woman to have a child that she cannot keep herself to just be given away to anyone who wants a bit more cash. There are more factors to abortion than just not wanting the child. In many cases I'm sure you'll find that if the woman thought she could give the baby the best life and chance she could, she'd keep it.
    Not all situations in life a desirable. If you break you neck, after hitting the pavement, at a -pi/2radians angle while landing on the ground with a deceleration of -50m/s^2 10m from the point a car hit you (I'm working the mechanics module), that's not desirable and couldn't necessarily be avoided. That though doesn't mean that we should sentence who ever run you over to death given he didn't do it on purpose. We can't do a bad thing just because a bad thing happened to us. That's life.

    I don't agree with you saying that we can't force a woman to have a baby against her will. It's the same a saying we can't stop a woman to kill her children if she could gain from doing so.

    Then again there is one right above them all. That's the right to live. Live and let live. That comes above everything else. All other thoughts and worries are not applicable if this right isn't conserved. Following your logic we could just as well nuke the slums of Bombay. Those people are living in torture compared to us. Besides, life is not pleasant, neither for me nor for you and neither for the unwanted child. I'm sure though, that he/she'd like to have lived once, even perhaps if his/her early childhood wasn't pleasant. He/she still could grow up to have a wonderful life.

    To name one my grandfather was an orphan of WW2. At age 6 he was working 10 hours a day on a cruise liner Malta-UK-Australia. He lived without parents for all his early childhood. A crew of sailors were his only fatherhood and he didn't have a motherhood. Nevertheless, he got adopted at age 11 and to got into school at age 12 and got his A-level equivalent certifications by age 19. He got into a University and had a brilliant career as a teacher for 40 years. At the time he was born many abortions occurred give it was WW2 but his mother chose to respect his right to live. I glad of that.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    OP I see your point. But the foetus can't exactly communicate or make it's own decisions, can it? Therefore, it's only right for the mother to decide what happens.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    I especially like the bit about it being a "mother's choice" to either pay to bring it up herself or pay to have it brought up for her. Some choice (btw, takes two to tango does it not?)

    Thank **** that most people with any kind of power are prepared to think of the woman's rights rather than an unborn bunch of cells'.
    She'd pay half because the father whom I doubt they'll ever find him would have long disappeared into thin air I guess. If not he'd pay half. I think I'd prefer you when you were a smaller bunch of cells. Guess what your a bunch of cells now too!!! In playing with the fire one should be prepared to get burned and frankly speaking please don't compare a woman's figure to a life. In fact don't compare anything to a human life. Not even pain.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherryCherryBoomBoom)
    OP I see your point. But the foetus can't exactly communicate or make it's own decisions, can it? Therefore, it's only right for the mother to decide what happens.
    I was about to edit my OP on this argument. In response neither can a newly born child. Besides we don't make morals. The morals are already circulating our society and they dictate, it's wrong to kill. That doesn't mean that a mentally ill individual who isn't aware of this right could be killed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    Not all situations in life a desirable. If you break you neck, after hitting the pavement, at a -pi/2radians angle while landing on the ground with a deceleration of -50m/s^2 10m from the point a car hit you (I'm working the mechanics module), that's not desirable and couldn't necessarily be avoided. That though doesn't mean that we should sentence who ever run you over to death given he didn't do it on purpose. We can't do a bad thing just because a bad thing happened to us. That's life.

    I don't agree with you saying that we can't force a woman to have a baby against her will. It's the same a saying we can't stop a woman to kill her children if she could gain from doing so.

    Then again there is one right above them all. That's the right to live. Live and let live. That comes above everything else. All other thoughts and worries are not applicable if this right isn't conserved. Following your logic we could just as well nuke the slums of Bombay. Those people are living in torture compared to us. Besides, life is not pleasant, neither for me nor for you and neither for the unwanted child. I'm sure though, that he/she'd like to have lived once, even perhaps if his/her early childhood wasn't pleasant. He/she still could grow up to have a wonderful life.

    To name one my grandfather was an orphan of WW2. At age 6 he was working 10 hours a day on a cruise liner Malta-UK-Australia. He lived without parents for all his early childhood. A crew of sailors were his only fatherhood and he didn't have a motherhood. Nevertheless, he got adopted at age 11 and to got into school at age 12 and got his A-level equivalent certifications by age 19. He got into a University and had a brilliant career as a teacher for 40 years. At the time he was born many abortions occurred give it was WW2 but his mother chose to respect his right to live. I glad of that.

    I'm going to just ignore your first paragraph thanks.

    I think comparing making the choice to not have a child because you cannot support it and nuking people in Bombay is ridiculous and I do not see your link if I'm honest.

    A mother killing a child is murder, yes. That child has thoughts, feelings & actions of its own and would be quite able to exist on its own. An unborn child cannot exist on its own. It is a group of cells growing inside of the body. I don't mean to sound cold, but essentially that it was it is. You cannot tell me when 'life' begins for that child, so when does it become taking 'life' away? Murder in other words. When does it stop simply becoming a group of cells? It is not a person. It cannot be murdered.

    My feelings on 'life' and 'living' consist of being able to do more than have a beating heart. Are we commiting murder by usuing a condom and so stopping life that way? No. Is the morning after pill murder? No. I'm sure all of the little sperms wanted to be given the chance too.

    Life may not be pleasant, so why make it any harder than it already is?

    Oh, and you have a very warped view of abortion if you think anything is gained.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fortysixandtwo)
    I've no idea what you're on about here.

    I think this is the intellectual equivalent of running away.
    No I don't use your static. It's you who is pretending not to understand but if you really aren't then again:

    We don't know if life begins at A or at B. Would it be morally right then to risk killing millions of unborn lives if we later discovered that life beings at A by aborting them in a time interval A-B?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hay.hay)
    Oh, and you have a very warped view of abortion if you think anything is gained.
    I was referring to the reason for such a decision.

    On the other topics I feel we don't give life the same value and obviously we don't concur on the beginning of life. Nothing lost nothing gained.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    I was about to edit my OP on this argument. In response neither can a newly born child. Besides we don't make morals. The morals are already circulating our society and they dictate, it's wrong to kill. That doesn't mean that a mentally ill individual who isn't aware of this right could be killed.
    I see what you are saying. I myself am kind of against abortion, I just don't really like the idea of voluntarily killing a person, which I think of it as. But remember not everyone shares the same morals and opinions on abortion. To others, a foetus is just a bunch of cells before a certain point. I don't mind abortion so much for reasons such as rape, illness and disability, but whatever the reason it can only be up to the mother to use her own morals and opinions to decide what is the best thing to do.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    How about if I don't kill it, I just remove it from my uterus?
    Removing the foetus from the uterus will still kill it so it's effectively the same thing. The pilot removing the passengers in the plane in mid air will still kill the passengers.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GottaLovePhysics! :))
    You have sperm or eggs. Hurry up and fertalise them then!

    I belive there is way too much hype over a few cells. The human brain dosnt even begin to develope untill the end of the first month!

    But im not expecting a scientific debate with a person who, in thier sig, completly misconcepts athiesm.
    So what are fully grown humans made of?
 
 
 
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.