Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    You could argue along the same lines that it's irresponsible for every person who's reached sexual maturity not to be trying to have children every month...this month I chose to have a period instead of having a child...surely early abortions are pretty much the same thing...just more complicated...I could have found a man and tried to have a child...but I chose not to use that egg to have a baby :dontknow:
    Later in development the cells turn into a baby...I don't have enough medical knowledge to know when that is, but I think that's the point when aborting a pregnancy turns from just not wanting to have a child into purposefully ending a life and responsibility should be taken...but there are so many situations when it's a lot more responsible for a woman to have an abortion, or beneficial for her (and any future child's) well being, or for medical reasons...it's just not an simple matter...and with 6.6billion+ people on the planet...many of which aren't living in good conditions, surely we should work more on ensuring the well-being of those who are already alive, the right to life is one matter...but the right to a good life is something different entirely, and is possibly more important
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fortysixandtwo)
    But we're never going to find out, are we? None of us can remember being born or being inside the womb.

    Do these bunch of cells inside the womb contain conscious living beings as you or I would describe ourselves? I don't know and neither does anyone else. And we're never going to know.

    Therefore you have no right to decide what another person should do with their body. It's causing no harm to you.



    Of course it's alive - all respiring cells are deemed to be alive. The unfertilised egg is alive, as is the sperm cell.
    So why were you saying previously that 'no one knows' when life begins? All cells are alive including the fertilised egg, as you've agreed and if that fertilised egg is determined to be a human, then it must be not only a life, but a human life. The scientific definition of a human is an entity that has the human genetic code that is unique to humans. The fertilised zygote is the only cell that has the human genetic code and is therefore a unique individual, so it must therefore be a human life. And this is proven because ALL healthy human zygotes in the right conditions ALWAYS develop into a fully grown humans. This genetic code is unique and therefore denotes a unique individual and every zygote that has ever been formed is unique. All other cells in the body divide by mitosis which make them identical. Differentiation of cells are what give cells different functions e.g. some cells differentiate into lung cells, some to brain cells etc. All humans are essentially a bunch of differentiated cells. From the moment of conception how the cells will differentiate to visually form this unique individual is set already and all that happens in the uterus is essentially cell division. A fertilised egg cell doesn't magically become a human at the stroke of midnight at 24 weeks old - it is ALREADY a human being.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skipp)
    You could argue along the same lines that it's irresponsible for every person who's reached sexual maturity not to be trying to have children every month...this month I chose to have a period instead of having a child...surely early abortions are pretty much the same thing...just more complicated...I could have found a man and tried to have a child...but I chose not to use that egg to have a baby :dontknow:
    Later in development the cells turn into a baby...I don't have enough medical knowledge to know when that is, but I think that's the point when aborting a pregnancy turns from just not wanting to have a child into purposefully ending a life and responsibility should be taken...but there are so many situations when it's a lot more responsible for a woman to have an abortion, or beneficial for her (and any future child's) well being, or for medical reasons...it's just not an simple matter...
    Read my post above this one

    Your point on choosing a period over a baby doesn't exactly match the abortion debate because all you lose by having your period is your eggs - which when unfertilised, are not human lives.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toxic Tears)
    So if a childless couple would to care for and love the child a mother couldn't financially or emotionally care for (and otherwise would have been aborted) and the baby was kept in an artificial womb - would you disagree with this?
    That is assuming that there was a childless couple for every unwanted baby, which is not always the case. Some babies end up in care, bouncing from one foster family to another, some children can be adopted and then returned to care, you can't predict a successful outcome in every case.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Toxic Tears)
    Read my post above this one

    Your point on choosing a period over a baby doesn't exactly match the abortion debate because all you lose by having your period is your eggs - which when unfertilised, are not human lives.
    Ok your previous post is correct, I have learnt something new and theoretically yes you win that argument, plus my analogy did kinda suck :p:
    But it hasn't really changed my view point I don't think I'll ever be able to equate a foetus with a grown human...or ever wish that the human reproduction system wasn't so effective (however cruel that sounds, I can't really phrase it better...there are quite a lot of problems caused by the number of people in the world...)

    Maybe continued wishes for the growing effectiveness and access to birth control would be best :yep:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AutVinceriAutMori)
    That is assuming that there was a childless couple for every unwanted baby, which is not always the case. Some babies end up in care, bouncing from one foster family to another, some children can be adopted and then returned to care, you can't predict a successful outcome in every case.

    Conquer or die (username) ----> With your enthusiasm we might?:p:


    But seriously, I believe every time the outcome will be successful; 100%. A class of pupils are about to enter university but the university will not offer every student an offer, on the excuse that they'll have to work really hard to succeed, so those unfortunate pupils will have to work odd jobs, all their lives, for minimum wages. Is it fair for them that a University dictates their life? No. They could have had your enthusiasm (nice username :lol:) and succeeded in getting an office job. However now I realise this isn't a good analogy given the pupils have less chance of getting past University than an parent less child has of living a nice life. Life is unpleasant for everybody but lets forget the first 20 years of his life. By then he'd be on par with the rest of his generation. What about his life from then till his death?
    Offline

    1
    Believing that every baby born this way will 100% have a good life when currently so many who were not aborted don't is just plain naive.
    Offline

    2
    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.
    What would you say in the case of rape?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toxic Tears)
    So what are fully grown humans made of?
    In the state I was making was about a developing fetous, one who has not even developed specilised cells, one without any brain cells, no consiouse thought.

    Fully grown humans have emotions, free thought and nerve endings.
    A fetus has none of these untill the second month and will not delevope free thought until five months in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This all depends on when you believe life begins. If human life begins at conceptive, then yes, it is taking away the right to live.

    But many people don't believe that life begins at conception and you can't make that asumption.

    Some believe life begins at birth, many Muslim scholars believe life begins at 120 days (when the foetus is ensouled). I personally believe that life begins are viability.

    So, in my opinion, no, by having an abortion before the foetus could viably live outside the womb (and have a decent quality of life), I don't believe that women has a responsibility to grant the feotus a right to live, as the foetus is not alive in a human sense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    *ahem* kill the little *******

    comparing a pilot flying a plane killing his passengers is mistaken because his passengers are sentient

    It would be more like a farmer eating one of his vegetables before it got to market.

    We do not give rights to non-conscious, non-sentient beings who rely on being parasitic on their mothers.

    Until the baby is born, in my opinion it should have as much rights as its peers, namely plants. The existence of the foetus is the same as the plants until the moment of conciousness.

    However, at like 21 weeks if the baby is born it can survive, unlike before then, so that would be my legal limit. Also you should never have to leave it that late anyway.

    Fun fact: around 6/7 pregnancies are aborted naturally, it's like God wants them dead
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I have a question for the pro-lifers:

    Imagine, hypothetically (as we all know its not going to happen) that abortion is re-criminalised. Then let's estimate around 75% of the women who currently have legal, safe abortions will have unsafe illegal abortions at home. Some of them die.

    Which would you prefer? Because in the real world you're never going to achieve a state of affairs where women do not abort foetuses. Which is more important? The womens' lives, or the foetuses?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IchiCC)
    What would you say in the case of rape?


    I have no problem with abortion during the stages when the child has not developed past a cell. It is when the child attains sentience, or the ability to feel, that i have a problem with. The mmorning after pill etc.. is fine.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    Continuing with the other discussion on General Discussion this evening; what do you think about the rights of the foetus?

    Today's society takes it for granted that because the baby is inside the womb it's the mothers right, but I say, it her responsibility. Just because she's caring for it doesn't mean that she has the right to kill it. The pilot doesn't have the right to kill his passengers even though just as the mother, they are completely dependant on him. In a similar way a mother doesn't have the right to murder her newborn son just because he's completely dependant on her or because he's not welcomed; and rightfully so that's illegal. So why do we let this happen for unborn lives? Just like the mother of the newly born baby the pregnant mother too has the responsibility of her offspring but not the right over him.

    EDIT: Some posters need a bit of incite on abortion v.s. contraception. They are not the same thing! Contraception is reducing the possibility of conceiving a life while abortion is killing one. And by life here I intend proper human life not life as in a living cell. Possibility of life isn't life and it isn't the same thing. It's almost like temptation and sin (I know i should compare the miracle of life to sin but I can't think of anything else at the moment ); temptation is thing wrong while sin is doing wrong. They both are wrong because your contemplating doing a wrong thing or actually doing a wrong thing but no one will be prosecuted for the desire to strangle his room-mate who's getting laid and is purposely make it clear throughout the whole hall, while he's trying to study for his annuals, tomorrow.

    Question answered, It's not technically alive. It's own organ systems will not be able to support itself too close to conception. That's why there is a legal time limit on abortion of a foetus.

    Another note. It's a foetus, not a living human. The word unborn makes this clear. To technically be alive you must first be born.

    I know i have a harsh view on abortion but it is justifiable with modern medicine practices and biology.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HyperGiant)
    *ahem* kill the little *******

    comparing a pilot flying a plane killing his passengers is mistaken because his passengers are sentient

    So is the child in the womb at an early stage.

    We do not give rights to non-conscious, non-sentient beings who rely on being parasitic on their mothers.

    But the foetus is sentient, and more important human. Do we not give rights to mentally disabled human beings or coma patients? I don't see mass culling of these non concious beings, and they are just as sentient as a child in the womb past a certain stage.

    Although i can think of a certain reich which carried out culling on the mentally disabled (apologies Godwin) In fact, they sought to dehumanise these individuals wiith the same language you use above. 'Parasite' etc...

    Until the baby is born, in my opinion it should have as much rights as its peers, namely plants. The existence of the foetus is the same as the plants until the moment of conciousness.
    I suggest you do some reading about the child in the womb, because you clearly know close to nothing about it. The fact you would compare it to a plant goes to show just how ill informed you are.

    (Also i like to see how you are dehumanising the child again with words like'plant' etc.. Again, it's what your favourite regime did to the Jewish/disabled/gypsies etc..

    Fun fact: around 6/7 pregnancies are aborted naturally, it's like God wants them dead

    God doesn't exist.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    So is the child in the womb at an early stage.




    But the foetus is sentient, and more important human. Do we not give rights to mentally disabled human beings or coma patients? I don't see mass culling of these non concious beings, and they are just as sentient as a child in the womb past a certain stage.

    Although i can think of a certain reich which carried out culling on the mentally disabled (apologies Godwin) In fact, they sought to dehumanise these individuals wiith the same language you use above. 'Parasite' etc...



    I suggest you do some reading about the child in the womb, because you clearly know close to nothing about it. The fact you would compare it to a plant goes to show just how ill informed you are.

    (Also i like to see how you are dehumanising the child again with words like'plant' etc.. Again, it's what your favourite regime did to the Jewish/disabled/gypsies etc..




    God doesn't exist.

    Wow alot of Hitler references.
    And also, Prove God does not exist.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    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.
    And its oh so very easy for you to say that, isnt it. Its easy to undermine pregnancy and giving birth and the decision to abort when its never, ever, ever going to be something you will face.

    And yes, I'd rather kill it. And if abortion were illegal, I'd rip it out myself.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blinkbelle)
    I have a question for the pro-lifers:

    Imagine, hypothetically (as we all know its not going to happen) that abortion is re-criminalised. Then let's estimate around 75% of the women who currently have legal, safe abortions will have unsafe illegal abortions at home. Some of them die.

    Which would you prefer? Because in the real world you're never going to achieve a state of affairs where women do not abort foetuses. Which is more important? The womens' lives, or the foetuses?
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    And its oh so very easy for you to say that, isnt it. Its easy to undermine pregnancy and giving birth and the decision to abort when its never, ever, ever going to be something you will face.

    No it isn't, and i apologise if it appears chauvanistic, but it is reality i am afraid. You can't go on about your own rights while ignoring the rights of another. That is hypocrisy of the nth degree.


    And yes, I'd rather kill it. And if abortion were illegal, I'd rip it out myself.

    So you are ok with murdering innocent children. Good to know :yy: It's strange because i see you around the forum taking the moral high ground with topics such as murder, rape etc....
    Offline

    12
    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 couldnt be happier that the men in the House of Commons dont think like you.

    Its their own fault? And you wonder why you have no say in abortion? :rolleyes:
 
 
 
  • 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.