Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MetalheadA7X)
    Wow alot of Hitler references.
    And also, Prove God does not exist.


    :rolleyes: Prove Yoda does not exist, prove the matrix does not exist.



    If you are going to use that line of reasoning then you must accept God is on the same level of probability as his fictional counterparts.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    :rolleyes: Prove Yoda does not exist, prove the matrix does not exist.



    If you are going to use that line of reasoning then you must accept God is on the same level of probability as his fictional counterparts.

    I don't believe in God. I just thought that last point of your post seemed rather interesting.

    Your reasoning is questionable but I will agree.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    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.





    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....
    You seem to keep forgetting that the foetus doesnt have any rights. I cant ignore the "rights" of another if it doesnt have any.

    And secondly, with regards to murdering children - that all depends on what you think murder is and what you think a child is.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    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:
    And you'll rip the foetus out of the womb and you have a say in abortion. How's it not their own fault? They had sex! Therefore risked pregnancy! They had an illegal abortion! Therefore risked death! They are risking their lives to do something illegal/immoral.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    You seem to keep forgetting that the foetus doesnt have any rights. I cant ignore the "rights" of another if it doesnt have any.
    Why doesn't it have any rights according to yourself? What exactly qualifies a human being for it's rights?

    And secondly, with regards to murdering children - that all depends on what you think murder is and what you think a child is.

    Well, either way you are intentionally killing a living and very innocent human being with a beating heart. That is undeniable
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just depends on the person who's pregnant tbh. Not every woman would have an abortion, everyone has different views and it's no ones place to tell them what to do, they can outline the risks of course..I'm sure anyone having an abortion knows what they're doing - well I hope they do!
    Offline

    16
    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.
    If the foetus is a person for being able to feel pleasure and pain, then my cat is a person, yes.

    Her right to her body just doesn't end at having sex. You can't say- well, she had that right, so now everyone can tell her what she can and can't do with her body.

    As far as I'm concerned the foetus is not a 'child', and so yeah, I think the woman has every right to abort the foetus rather than have to go through pregnancy. Even if the foetus was an unconscious child, she would still have that right. Nobody has any right to your body except for you, which means if you want to kill a foetus rather than have it live inside you, that's a choice you should have.

    You find my use of words distasteful? I find it pretty distasteful how you're dismissing pregnancy as an 'inconvenience' and laughing at the notion that it could be anything more. Some women in this country would be thrown out of their family and school and would be ostracised for getting pregnant. Even if you think this doesn't excuse abortion, don't trivialise it.
    Offline

    0
    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.
    Okay stop right there a second. Where are you getting the impression that foetus' are sentient. They cannot feel pain until there third trimester (thats 28 weeks). here is my source: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/8/947
    where is yours?

    The difference between mentally disabled beings and coma patients is, as I pointed out is that they are sentient (mentally ill patients) and conscious, and the coma patient is unconscious as opposed to non-conscious, as in never having consciousness. big difference. Thats why plants don't have the same rights as "vegetables".

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    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 am not de-humanising, I am just pushing the fact that they aren't people like you or me.They are the beginnings of what could be people. You don't call an egg a chicken.

    (Original post by Aeolus)

    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.
    No it is just how I am trying to get my point across. You could be mistaken for someone who thought foetus' had thoughts and feelings and hopes and dreams.

    (Original post by Aeolus)

    (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..
    lol honestly, I do not like Hitler. Damn vegetarians. :P
    Please stop making out like me and him go way back.

    (Original post by Aeolus)

    God doesn't exist.
    I know, I think we've spoken on Ath-soc. It's just a term I use to personify nature. Lighten up.

    But yeah, get back to me with your evidence of foetus's feeling pleasure and pain "at an early stage." btw if you define an early stage as 28 weeks then I agree with you.
    Check out my link, you could learn a thing or two.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    If the foetus is a person for being able to feel pleasure and pain, then my cat is a person, yes.
    No, becuase your cat is not a human being. Are you denying that a foetus is a human being?

    Her right to her body just doesn't end at having sex. You can't say- well, she had that right, so now everyone can tell her what she can and can't do with her body.

    If i was to excersize my rights to self ownership by driving a car after drinking, i hit sombody and kill them. Would you say that i shouldn't have to face up to the responsibility of my actions?

    As far as I'm concerned the foetus is not a 'child', and so yeah, I think the woman has every right to abort the foetus rather than have to go through pregnancy.
    It is a human being though. It has a heart which is beating and blood which is pumping. That is undeniable. You are still advocating the killing of a very innocent human.

    Even if the foetus was an unconscious child, she would still have that right. Nobody has any right to your body except for you, which means if you want to kill a foetus rather than have it live inside you, that's a choice you should have.
    No, that child is a consequence of the females actions. It did not suddenly appear inside her. She consented to the intercourse knowing the risks. She excersized her right to self ownership, as she should have done. She had a chance to terminate the fertilised egg, but again she didn't. Just because she didn't take responsibility for her actions, as all free individuals should. It doesn't mean she should be allowed to kill another human life. That is something disgusting which shouldn't happen in civilised society.

    Unless of course you are advocating our having rights with no responsibilities. In which case i can drive a car drunk without fear of consequence.


    You find my use of words distasteful? I find it pretty distasteful how you're dismissing pregnancy as an 'inconvenience' and laughing at the notion that it could be anything more. Some women in this country would be thrown out of their family and school and would be ostracised for getting pregnant. Even if you think this doesn't excuse abortion, don't trivialise it.

    They shouldn't have ahd sex then should they? Or if they did have sex then they should have takenn responsibility for their actions.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Why doesn't it have any rights according to yourself? What exactly qualifies a human being for it's rights?
    It doesnt have any rights, because if it did, it would cancel out the rights of the woman. And in the eyes of the law and the medical profession, the woman comes first.
    Think of it like this, if at some stage of the pregnancy the woman falls gravely ill as a result, who are the doctors going to save? The woman, not the foetus. If the foetus had rights, that would surely blur the line concerning who to save?

    This is why it pisses me off so much when guys just refer to pregnancy as an "inconvenience". Globally, a woman will die every minute from giving birth or as a result of a pregnancy. Before medicine made huge progress after the Victorian era, dying during pregnancy and childbirth was as common as the flu. My own mother nearly died after miscarrying and having a massive haemorrhage losing pints of blood (does that mean, as her body rejected the foetus, that its manslaughter? :rolleyes: ).

    Either way, you know as well as I do, that if abortion were to be criminalised again, we would be risking the lives of countless women. Actually, no, women will die.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    In fact I'm rightfully hoping science will be able to simulate an artificial womb for any unwanted pregnancies to be transferred to. If the life survives and develops well than that would be a much better solution for abortion and perhaps made law.
    This would literally be the worst thing that could happen to society.

    Have you read a brave new world?

    Creating an artificial womb? So you wouldn't even need parents to have a baby. Just get an egg and some sperm from a donation centre and you have your own child?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sayitjustsayit)
    This would literally be the worst thing that could happen to society.

    Have you read a brave new world?

    Creating an artificial womb? So you wouldn't even need parents to have a baby. Just get an egg and some sperm from a donation centre and you have your own child?
    Yes a read Brave New World. What I'm said is related to abortion. It's like when Alfred Nobel invented the dynamite. It can be used both for good and for bad.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HyperGiant)
    Okay stop right there a second. Where are you getting the impression that foetus' are sentient. They cannot feel pain until there third trimester (thats 28 weeks). here is my source: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/8/947
    where is yours?

    Wrong. At 8 weeks the neuro-anatomic structures are present in the foetus. Which in order to feel pain needs a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present at 8 weeks. The pain impulse goes to the thalamus. It sends a signal down the motor nerves to pull away from the hurt.

    Source: http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_...?%20Show%20me!

    The difference between mentally disabled beings and coma patients is, as I pointed out is that they are sentient (mentally ill patients)

    So are 8 week old children. So what is the difference?

    I am not de-humanising, I am just pushing the fact that they aren't people like you or me.They are the beginnings of what could be people. You don't call an egg a chicken.
    They have hearts and are alive, they are human in all respects. Are you trying to say that they are not human genetically?



    lol honestly, I do not like Hitler. Damn vegetarians. :P
    Please stop making out like me and him go way back.
    Well stop trying to dehumanise something which is human and alive. If anything it just detracts from the quality of your argument. I am not describing the child/foetus as a bouncing and bubbly baby boy. Or a rosy cheeked little scamp.

    But yeah, get back to me with your evidence of foetus's feeling pleasure and pain "at an early stage." btw if you define an early stage as 28 weeks then I agree with you.
    Check out my link, you could learn a thing or two.

    :rolleyes: Ditto.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    It doesnt have any rights, because if it did, it would cancel out the rights of the woman. And in the eyes of the law and the medical profession, the woman comes first.
    No, that child is a consequence of the females actions. It did not suddenly appear inside her. She consented to the intercourse knowing the risks. She excersized her right to self ownership, as she should have done. She had a chance to terminate the fertilised egg, but again she didn't. Just because she didn't take responsibility for her actions, as all free individuals should. It doesn't mean she should be allowed to kill another human life.

    You say that the woman comes first, i would say the womans physical health comes first. But not her lifestyle or looks or ego. If the woman is in mortal danger because of the child, then action of course should be taken, the child would die anyway. That doesn't suddenly give the mother the right to kill her child for no substantial reason.

    This is why it pisses me off so much when guys just refer to pregnancy as an "inconvenience". Globally, a woman will die every minute from giving birth or as a result of a pregnancy. Before medicine made huge progress after the Victorian era, dying during pregnancy and childbirth was as common as the flu.
    And, this isn't the victorian era, and this isn't the third world. This is western society, in which advanced medicine is commonplace and well developed.

    Either way, you know as well as I do, that if abortion were to be criminalised again, we would be risking the lives of countless women. Actually, no, women will die.
    Why is that any worse than the countless human life which willl be terminated if abortion was to be fully legalised. I know more than a dozen women who have had abortions for no other reason than it would ruin their looks, or their plans for the future. I can't think of anything more savage or selfish than that. Individual choice and the responsibility which comes with it is a staple of free society. You are suggesting we rid ourselves of consequence and responsibility. Why should i fear the consequences of drink driving? Why don't my rights come before those on the road?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Wrong. At 8 weeks the neuro-anatomic structures are present in the foetus. Which in order to feel pain needs a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present at 8 weeks. The pain impulse goes to the thalamus. It sends a signal down the motor nerves to pull away from the hurt.

    Source: http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_...?%20Show%20me!

    8 weeks???? are you serious?? this is like the only guy in the world who thinks 8 weeks. I have looked around the internet and I've only found him on pro-life family values right wing American websites, nothing scientific. Just because these structures are in place btw doesn't mean that they can experience pain.

    this article explains it:
    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7060/797

    And also here are a few articles from reputable news organisations which show that even the pro-life groups don't go down to 8 weeks

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...566772,00.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-MPs-told.html
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4905892.stm

    Your source shows a very rare argument which I think you will find my source has picked apart. The fact that the pro-life people don't even use that argument I think says a lot about its credibility.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    They have hearts and are alive, they are human in all respects. Are you trying to say that they are not human genetically?
    They maybe human but they can't even breath or survive outside of the womb by themselves! how on earth is that human in all respects? they aren't even awake?? this is just ridiculous. I think your all respects is way to broad.

    Of course they are genetically human, it is a natural part of our development.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Well stop trying to dehumanise something which is human and alive. If anything it just detracts from the quality of your argument. I am not describing the child/foetus as a bouncing and bubbly baby boy. Or a rosy cheeked little scamp.
    I am not dehumanising, I am de-personifying it, because it is not a person.



    Check your sources. Check what legit pro-life groups say. Don't just use some bible belt married couple that go around giving talks with little affiliation I can find to any sort of academic establishment.
    Your argument holds no water, and the pro-life groups seem to agree with me.

    EDIT: btw this may seem sly and underhand but I would actually have a lot of respect for you if you were to change your mind in line with existing evidence. Don't let any sort of pride stop you from learning. Sorry if that sounds really arrogant, I mean well by it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You know what, you can argue to the death with these people. The law says we are right and abortion isn't murder. It always will say that. Get over it.

    Do you think these laws did not take everything you have said into account? They have decided, with people who have a lot more knowledge than you think you have, when a fetus becomes a viable human being. They didn't just pick a cut off date from their heads. It was thought about, the rights of the fetus will have been thought about vs the rights of the mother. There would have been a moral issue about when life begins.

    At the end of the day, these people know a hell of a lot more about the science than you pro-lifers arguing on here. Your copied and pasted biology isn't wowing anyone . I'm pretty sure it was all taken into account when the laws where passed.

    In the eyes of the law, it isn't murder. So who are you to pass judgement?

    Oh, and comparing someone to Hitler was just pathetic.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No, that child is a consequence of the females actions. It did not suddenly appear inside her. She consented to the intercourse knowing the risks. She excersized her right to self ownership, as she should have done. She had a chance to terminate the fertilised egg, but again she didn't. Just because she didn't take responsibility for her actions, as all free individuals should. It doesn't mean she should be allowed to kill another human life.
    I'll analyse the rest of your post in a second, but firstly I have to say, a pregnancy takes two people to happen. It is a consequence of the male and the female's actions. It is not a one-way street. You mentioned that you know roughly a dozen women who have had abortions for whatever reasons they had. Well what were their sexual partners doing? Why didn't they take some of that responsibility you speak of and use condoms if they didnt want children?

    Correct me if I have misinterpreted, but you seem to be of the notion that women have something of a duty to have babies. We dont.
    I have sex, but I use the pill and condoms. So I am not consenting to have a baby.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hay.hay)
    You know what, you can argue to the death with these people. The law says we are right and abortion isn't murder. It always will say that. Get over it.

    Do you think these laws did not take everything you have said into account? They have decided, with people who have a lot more knowledge than you think you have, when a fetus becomes a viable human being. They didn't just pick a cut off date from their heads. It was thought about, the rights of the fetus will have been thought about vs the rights of the mother. There would have been a moral issue about when life begins.

    At the end of the day, these people know a hell of a lot more about the science than you pro-lifers arguing on here. Your copied and pasted biology isn't wowing anyone . I'm pretty sure it was all taken into account when the laws where passed.

    In the eyes of the law, it isn't murder. So who are you to pass judgement?

    Oh, and comparing someone to Hitler was just pathetic.
    Ethics > Law, not Law > Ethics, sorry. You are an annoying self-righteous twerp, and your views are actually very dangerous. "Oh, well, that's the law, and the people who made it are more educated than you." Do you not see how utterly retarded this line of thinking is?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    I'll analyse the rest of your post in a second, but firstly I have to say, a pregnancy takes two people to happen. It is a consequence of the male and the female's actions. It is not a one-way street. You mentioned that you know roughly a dozen women who have had abortions for whatever reasons they had. Well what were their sexual partners doing? Why didn't they take some of that responsibility you speak of and use condoms if they didnt want children?

    Correct me if I have misinterpreted, but you seem to be of the notion that women have something of a duty to have babies. We dont.
    I have sex, but I use the pill and condoms. So I am not consenting to have a baby.
    I'm not really sure that's true, though. If you have sex you are consenting to the possibility you may become pregnant (And yes, the duty is on both male & female, as you point out, but ultimately the woman is the one who decides as she actually bears the child). That's it. The use of contraception is a non-ethical, non-consentual issue, it's purely a pragmatic one which reduces the aforementioned possibility. Ethically speaking, anyway (ethics is sometimes detached from real life.)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Ethics > Law, not Law > Ethics, sorry. You are an annoying self-righteous twerp, and your views are actually very dangerous. "Oh, well, that's the law, and the people who made it are more educated than you." Do you not see how utterly retarded this line of thinking is?
    What I was saying was that all of the things are being said will have been taken into account when the law was passed. All of the arguments that are going on now are about cells. What I was pointing out was that people who have a lot more medical expertise than the people posting on here have given a time limit to when the fetus becomes a viable human being. The abortion cut off time doesn't exist for no reason. People are saying it is wrong and murder, when technically it is not. The law says that. Ethics aside, the law says it is not murder.

    So, no I'm not saying that they are right because they are more educated. I am saying that people who have more knowledge in this area have looked into this scientifically, about the processes the fetus goes through to make the decision. People are arguing about the physiological side of a growing fetus. That was what my point on people being more educated was about.

    I think the talk of women being forced to have children, or even worse have them taken and grown in a machine, is a lot more dangerous than me saying the right to choose is there and it is a law for a reason.

    It's fair enough if the people who are pro-life wouldn't have an abortion. I just wanted to know why, if the law does not judge for it, then what gives you the right?
 
 
 

2,589

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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.