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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Apologies for being hasty previously. I think I misjudged the meaning of your post.

    (Original post by hay.hay)
    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.
    Just to get a side a point, what has been debated here is whether the law is right or not. Factually speaking its obviously correct to say that an abortion is illegal; but this thread is not a solicitor-client conversation, it's a debate/discussion/argument over what the law should be. Well, this is the crux, really. What you are saying is that what only matters is what the law says as to whether someone commits murder or not. The corollary of this is that if murder were to be legalised then you're saying that "Ethics aside, killing people is not murder."

    Law and Ethics are inseperable. Unethical acts are wrong and should be illegal and ethical acts are right and should be legal. That ought to be the basis of law, although sadly its not. You have to recognise though that Parliamentarians make law based on the desires of their constituents. We don't have absolutism in our Parliament because we are a democracy; we have a compromise in laws. The abortion cut off limit exists because some people want abortion to be banned and some people want it to be illegal and to make it either would annoy the other so much that it would cost political capital to do so. That's why we have abortion cut off rules, as a compromise, not because of morals or ethics. That's the nature of our democracy, sadly.

    (Original post by hay.hay)
    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?
    Because if something is wrong, it oguht to be judged as wrong, regardless of what the law says. Aeolus for instance judges abortion as wrong and condemns it so, regardless of whatever the law says. I don't want to use Hitler, but Hitler's actions were perfectly legal. The Nuremburg Trials were a gross violation of every principle of Western law but deemed to be necessary anyway. On the other hand, they were wrong and so we condemn the Nazis for what they did, regardless of what the law says. As I said, its annoying to have to keep referring to this, but the principle sticks: right and wrong are above the law, not the other way round. In ethical principle, anyway. Practicalities somewhat change the situation.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    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.)
    Sometimes contraception can be an ethical issue though - as least to those who will refuse to use it. I recall one TSR user, Meus, who stated that he wasnt going to have sex until he wanted to have a baby. In his own opinion, he felt sex was purely reproduction and little else.
    Whilst that may work for him, it is a scenario that is heavily based on ideals that, if widely accepted, just wouldnt work in today's society.

    But you are absolutely right - it is the woman who faces bearing the child and surrendering her body to whatever pregnancy and giving birth does to it. Which is why I view Aeolus' opinions with some contempt. He can say that a woman's life is worth no more that a foetus' because he never risks dying or serious health complications as result of a backstreet abortion, pregnancy or giving birth. He doesnt risk legislation dictating what he can and cant do to his own body. He doesnt risk facing a stigma. Nor will he ever have to make such a decision himself.

    Its very easy for a man to be pro-life.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    Sometimes contraception can be an ethical issue though - as least to those who will refuse to use it. I recall one TSR user, Meus, who stated that he wasnt going to have sex until he wanted to have a baby. In his own opinion, he felt sex was purely reproduction and little else.
    Whilst that may work for him, it is a scenario that is heavily based on ideals that, if widely accepted, just wouldnt work in today's society.
    Ah yes, I know Meus, we have... clashed, before. I guess you're right: I had totally forgotten there were fundies who think that contraception is lolevil. But in terms of consent, I don't think using contraception means you aren't consenting to have a child if you have sex. It's a practical consideration you take into account because you don't want to become pregnant. I'm going to go ahead and make an analogy which might not be successful: if you drive a car, you consent that you may at some point crash and hurt yourself (assuming its just you involved.) Wearing a seatbelt doesn't remove that consent, you just do it to reduce the harm from crashing. Again, I know you smoke (or did you manage to quit?) so, if you smoke you consent to the health risks, but for practical reasons you may smoke less cigarettes, or you may excercise, or you may smoke light cigarettes, as a practical reason to reduce the risk of harm, but it nonetheless doesn't remove the consent.

    (Original post by Antonia87)
    But you are absolutely right - it is the woman who faces bearing the child and surrendering her body to whatever pregnancy and giving birth does to it. Which is why I view Aeolus' opinions with some contempt. He can say that a woman's life is worth no more that a foetus' because he never risks dying or serious health complications as result of a backstreet abortion, pregnancy or giving birth. He doesnt risk legislation dictating what he can and cant do to his own body. He doesnt risk facing a stigma. Nor will he ever have to make such a decision himself.

    Its very easy for a man to be pro-life.
    While I can sympathise (or can I? maybe, according to you, I can't), this is a bit appeal to emotiony, don't you think? I mean there's nothing wrong with that in formulating policy but in determining ethics it's totally irrelevant. You could say "It's very easy for a white person to be against affirmative action" or something similar but, it's not necessarily always relevant.

    I don't normally get into abortion debates as I don't know the science and I tend to accidentally offend people, but, I hopped in here only because of the ethical issues I've already discussed, namely law (with hay.hay) and consent (with you) which I find to be much more interesting than abortion itself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Apologies for being hasty previously. I think I misjudged the meaning of your post.

    Just to get a side a point, what has been debated here is whether the law is right or not. Factually speaking its obviously correct to say that an abortion is illegal; but this thread is not a solicitor-client conversation, it's a debate/discussion/argument over what the law should be. Well, this is the crux, really. What you are saying is that what only matters is what the law says as to whether someone commits murder or not. The corollary of this is that if murder were to be legalised then you're saying that "Ethics aside, killing people is not murder."

    Law and Ethics are inseperable. Unethical acts are wrong and should be illegal and ethical acts are right and should be legal. That ought to be the basis of law, although sadly its not. You have to recognise though that Parliamentarians make law based on the desires of their constituents. We don't have absolutism in our Parliament because we are a democracy; we have a compromise in laws. The abortion cut off limit exists because some people want abortion to be banned and some people want it to be illegal and to make it either would annoy the other so much that it would cost political capital to do so. That's why we have abortion cut off rules, as a compromise, not because of morals or ethics. That's the nature of our democracy, sadly.

    Because if something is wrong, it oguht to be judged as wrong, regardless of what the law says. Aeolus for instance judges abortion as wrong and condemns it so, regardless of whatever the law says. I don't want to use Hitler, but Hitler's actions were perfectly legal. The Nuremburg Trials were a gross violation of every principle of Western law but deemed to be necessary anyway. On the other hand, they were wrong and so we condemn the Nazis for what they did, regardless of what the law says. As I said, its annoying to have to keep referring to this, but the principle sticks: right and wrong are above the law, not the other way round. In ethical principle, anyway. Practicalities somewhat change the situation.
    I'm glad someone else actually gets the legality of something does not dictate the morality of it, and whether people can judge accordingly. What kind of a country do we live in? Are we all passive idiots who look to the state to guide us in how we live our rights, and how we feel about issues? Or do we use our own rationality to work things out for ourselves regardless of what we are told?

    Almost every pro-choicer has invoked the 'it's legal therefore stfu' argument on me, and my question to them is always: 'so you would have been against abortion before it was legal', or 'so homosexuality was actually wrong when the state told us so'. Bloody idiots.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Apologies for being hasty previously. I think I misjudged the meaning of your post.

    Just to get a side a point, what has been debated here is whether the law is right or not. Factually speaking its obviously correct to say that an abortion is illegal; but this thread is not a solicitor-client conversation, it's a debate/discussion/argument over what the law should be. Well, this is the crux, really. What you are saying is that what only matters is what the law says as to whether someone commits murder or not. The corollary of this is that if murder were to be legalised then you're saying that "Ethics aside, killing people is not murder."

    Law and Ethics are inseperable. Unethical acts are wrong and should be illegal and ethical acts are right and should be legal. That ought to be the basis of law, although sadly its not. You have to recognise though that Parliamentarians make law based on the desires of their constituents. We don't have absolutism in our Parliament because we are a democracy; we have a compromise in laws. The abortion cut off limit exists because some people want abortion to be banned and some people want it to be illegal and to make it either would annoy the other so much that it would cost political capital to do so. That's why we have abortion cut off rules, as a compromise, not because of morals or ethics. That's the nature of our democracy, sadly.

    Because if something is wrong, it oguht to be judged as wrong, regardless of what the law says. Aeolus for instance judges abortion as wrong and condemns it so, regardless of whatever the law says. I don't want to use Hitler, but Hitler's actions were perfectly legal. The Nuremburg Trials were a gross violation of every principle of Western law but deemed to be necessary anyway. On the other hand, they were wrong and so we condemn the Nazis for what they did, regardless of what the law says. As I said, its annoying to have to keep referring to this, but the principle sticks: right and wrong are above the law, not the other way round. In ethical principle, anyway. Practicalities somewhat change the situation.

    I understand what you are saying with ethics vs law. The original post you replied to wasn't great in the attitude it started with, I admit. I know that the law isn't always 'right'. For example, I don't believe you should be convicted of murder for killing to protect your family in the same way as you should for just out right killing someone. (Just as example of something currently in the news)

    I do respect that people think abortion is wrong. That is personal opinion and that's fine. But, that doesn't make it right. You're saying that if something is wrong, then it should be judged as being wrong. Obviously not everyone thinks it is wrong though. People shouldn't be judged for a decision that is their own to make. The thing that has annoyed me about this thread is that there has been no acceptance of a women judging herself, because she will. At the end of the day, she is the only person allowed to make that judgement on herself. It is a very difficult decision for a women to make and noone wants to acknowledge that fact. She will not just make this decision and live care free forever. But, if she is making a decision, within the law, then she shouldn't have to be burdened with people who are telling her she is wrong, a murderer and pointing out how 'ethically wrong' it is.

    I suppose what I am trying to say is, you keep saying that ethics is above law, yet ethics is a debate. What you find ethically wrong, I do not. I do not find it ethically wrong to have an abortion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    Sometimes contraception can be an ethical issue though - as least to those who will refuse to use it. I recall one TSR user, Meus, who stated that he wasnt going to have sex until he wanted to have a baby. In his own opinion, he felt sex was purely reproduction and little else.
    Whilst that may work for him, it is a scenario that is heavily based on ideals that, if widely accepted, just wouldnt work in today's society.

    But you are absolutely right - it is the woman who faces bearing the child and surrendering her body to whatever pregnancy and giving birth does to it. Which is why I view Aeolus' opinions with some contempt. He can say that a woman's life is worth no more that a foetus' because he never risks dying or serious health complications as result of a backstreet abortion, pregnancy or giving birth. He doesnt risk legislation dictating what he can and cant do to his own body. He doesnt risk facing a stigma. Nor will he ever have to make such a decision himself.

    Its very easy for a man to be pro-life.
    Men suffer the decision almost equally to women, and often have the ability of the woman to decide used against them as a weapon, so I think they do deserve a say. The 6 months when a woman can actually tell that the foetus is inside her hardly dictate that she has the right to make the choice over the next 18 odd years. The idea that it is the carrying of the child that is making women abort is laughable; the vast majority go onto have a baby with 5 years of aborting their last baby, which proves well enough that it was never carrying and pushing out the child that was bothering them. This leaves 2 reasons as to why they could be having an abortion; they judge they cannot provide an appropriate quality of life for the child and/or they don't want to ruin their own life. If they judge they cannot provide appropriately and abort, then they have to justify why they didn't proceed and put the child up for adoption - and this innevitably comes down to selfishness. Therefore 9/10 abortion is an entirely selfish act.

    Furthermore the fallacy that it being illegal meant more deaths due to abortions is laughable. Yes legal abortion is twice as safe, but one hundred times more abortions are carried out, meaning it is fifty times more deadly.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Men suffer the decision almost equally to women, and often have the ability of the woman to decide used against them as a weapon, so I think they do deserve a say. The 6 months when a woman can actually tell that the foetus is inside her hardly dictate that she has the right to make the choice over the next 18 odd years. The idea that it is the carrying of the child that is making women abort is laughable; the vast majority go onto have a baby with 5 years of aborting their last baby, which proves well enough that it was never carrying and pushing out the child that was bothering them. This leaves 2 reasons as to why they could be having an abortion; they judge they cannot provide an appropriate quality of life for the child and/or they don't want to ruin their own life. If they judge they cannot provide appropriately and abort, then they have to justify why they didn't proceed and put the child up for adoption - and this innevitably comes down to selfishness. Therefore 9/10 abortion is an entirely selfish act.

    Furthermore the fallacy that it being illegal meant more deaths due to abortions is laughable. Yes legal abortion is twice as safe, but one hundred times more abortions are carried out, meaning it is fifty times more deadly.
    No, its not "laughable". Its very, very valid. Not many women are willing to go through pregnancy and the physical trauma of giving birth - only to give the child away. I realise that most of you blokes view pregnancy as nothing more than an "inconvenience" and a bit of weight gain, but that just speaks volumes of how little you know about it. Pregnancy has a massive effect on the female body and comes with a wealth of risks. High blood pressure, anaemia, haemorrhaging, blood clots, morning sickness, severe mood swings (or depression), joint immobility, abdominal cramps, yeast infections, back pain, nausea and pelvic floor disorder are just some of what a woman could expect during pregnancy.

    So no, it isnt a laugh and a stroll in the park.
    Offline

    0
    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?

    Oh i couldn't agree more with you. The responsibility is with both consenting individuals. The man must take responsibility for his actions as much as the woman.

    However, the woman is the one who will ultimately bear the child, therefore, in the end it is down to her. Unfair? Yes of course, and i do not envy any female for the risk she must accept every time she wishes to have sex. But it is an ever present risk nevertheless, sex is an indulgence when pursued in the interests of pleasure, as are drugs or extreme sports, we should not be stopped from doing these things of course, we own our bodies, we decide what to do with them. But i repeat my position that rights mean responsibility, you cannot truly have one without the other,a fact of life which defeats the womens rights argument. Like i have said before, i have no issue with contraception or the morning after pill. But there is a stage when this collection of cells becomes a child, and a human being. This talk of sentience, although important is largely irellevent to this point. Sentience determines what is humane and ethical. There is no doubt a fetus is human. A child does not simply become so when it emerges from the womb that is an absurd line of reasoning. It becomes so while inside the female.

    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.
    When did i ever say that you do? In fact i am firmly against this psotition. I consider myself if anything a feminist, or at the very least a strong advocate of womans rights.

    Which incidently is something which i think (in the USA at least) has twisted this debate and argument out of all proportion. The abortion debate now is largely a clash of stereotypes; Patriarchal religious right wing versus liberal and femenist left, you are forced to pick one side the strong opressive male side, or the independant female, and stick with it. It is a tragedy that the child or life itself is largely forgotten.

    I am in no respect whatsoever, religious, but i am pro life. I believe in essential liberty and individual rights, and therefore individual and sociall responsibility. A value innate of the former.


    I have sex, but I use the pill and condoms. So I am not consenting to have a baby.
    Well, you are really. You are fully aware i am sure that there is the smallest chance they will fail. In the same way when i ride a rollercoaster i accept there is the smallest risk i may be killed or suffer an injury or consequence i did not intend.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    No, its not "laughable". Its very, very valid. Not many women are willing to go through pregnancy and the physical trauma of giving birth - only to give the child away. I realise that most of you blokes view pregnancy as nothing more than an "inconvenience" and a bit of weight gain, but that just speaks volumes of how little you know about it. Pregnancy has a massive effect on the female body and comes with a wealth of risks. High blood pressure, anaemia, haemorrhaging, blood clots, morning sickness, severe mood swings (or depression), joint immobility, abdominal cramps, yeast infections, back pain, nausea and pelvic floor disorder are just some of what a woman could expect during pregnancy.

    So no, it isnt a laugh and a stroll in the park.
    I don't doubt that pregnancy is difficult, but it's not like you get pregnant from sitting on toilet seats is it? If you can't handle it then don't have sex. You don't need sex like you need food and water. Furthermore, as I said already, most women go onto have a child within 5 years anyway. So clearly it's not a case of being worried or unable to carry the child; it is pure selfishness. Fair enough if you feel you can't care for the child when it comes out, give it to someone who can, but to say that it's not worth going through for just the childs behalf is exactly what I said it is; selfishness. As if men shouldn't have a say because the child affects her life 10% more than a mans...

    I find it funny you say men and women should both be responsible for contraception when for all intents and purposes the child belongs to the woman as far as your concerned.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Toxic Tears)
    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.
    We're getting confused in our terms.

    A cell that respires is deemed to be alive. What we're talking about is when human life begins.

    That is, actual conscious life. The fertilised egg has the potential to form into a human being. My point is that we're never going to know when that actual moment is.

    When does a bunch of cells become conscious? I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows.

    We can, of course, guess, but to build an argument against the right to abortion you need more than guesswork.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fortysixandtwo)
    We're getting confused in our terms.

    A cell that respires is deemed to be alive. What we're talking about is when human life begins.

    That is, actual conscious life. The fertilised egg has the potential to form into a human being. My point is that we're never going to know when that actual moment is.

    When does a bunch of cells become conscious? I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows.

    We can, of course, guess, but to build an argument against the right to abortion you need more than guesswork.
    So given we don't know, shouldn't we remain on the safe side instead of risking to kill millions of people (billions considering the number of abortions in the far east (China)).
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by theBOON)
    So given we don't know, shouldn't we stay out of other peoples personal affairs?
    Yes we should, well said.

    I'm sure each of us have enough to worry about for ourselves.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fortysixandtwo)
    Yes we should, well said.

    I'm sure each of us have enough to worry about for ourselves.
    No one has answered that question. Don't you pro-choice have anything to say in regard?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)




    I cede the point on the scientific aspects of sentience. However, i do not believe that detracts from the argument on what is human and what is not. A human fetus is exactly that. Human. It has a beating heart and fast developing body.

    Sentience rules what is humane and what isn't. Not what is human and what isn't.
    Yeah no doubt a foetus is human, I would consider something human if it has human DNA.

    My point was I think sentience is really important to give it's existence value.
    I do not think foetus', humans or not are entitled to the right to life. Sentient beings have little value, and if the mother doesn't value them then it is within her right to get rid of it. Until I would say it becomes sentient.

    I hope you are more open to the possibility that sentience starts at at least 21 weeks, not 8 as you said earlier.

    I wouldn't give human life any innate value, therefore I think killing foetus' is fine so long as it is not sentient. ^_^
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    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.
    But a baby in the womb isn't a life in its own right, it is merely an appendix to the mother much like my arm is alive but if i want to cut it off am i not allowed?

    If it cannot exist seperate from the mothers body it is not alive imho and thus she can do what she wants.


    Again i only believe people have the right to live if they can personally defend that right or have others willing to defend it for them, if you can't stop someone killing you you do not have the right to life and as such you should strive to have the skills necessary to survive whether that be gab or physical.

    Again feotus isn't alive in a sentient sense and thus doesn't warrant the "right" To live.
    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 willn pose one fundamental question to you.

    Why do people have a right to live?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why do people have a right to live?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HyperGiant)
    Yeah no doubt a foetus is human, I would consider something human if it has human DNA.

    My point was I think sentience is really important to give it's existence value.
    I do not think foetus', humans or not are entitled to the right to life. Sentient beings have little value,
    You speak as if they are permanently non-sentient, in only a matter of weeks they will have attained this value which you feel justifies existence.

    Why do you think it is any better to terminate the life, if it is garunteed to attain this all important state of being?

    I hope you are more open to the possibility that sentience starts at at least 21 weeks, not 8 as you said earlier.
    I am open to this yes, but again, i do not believe a temporary lack of a value which is garunteed justifies terminating that life.

    I wouldn't give human life any innate value, therefore I think killing foetus' is fine so long as it is not sentient. ^_^

    I would indeed give it an innate value after a certain stage, i cede that at a cellular level it has as much value as the seperate sperm and egg, which is not alot. Once the fetus begins developing past that stage however i do not believe it should be terminated.

    I stand by the fact that individual rights have the innate value of individual responsibility. You cannot truly have one without the other. Therefore if the womens right argument is to be effective and workable the womens responsibility argument must be given equal weight. Otherwise each becomes a hypocritical position to take. If a woman consents to intercourse without protection and ignores the responsibility which she has to ensure she has not become impregnated then i don't see how any moral position can justify her terminating a human being. that is rights without responsibilities.

    Life has proven to be something incredibly rare, especially life of such a complex level as humanity. For all we know we are flushing out a future einstein or Hawking. I think justifications for killing future life must be better than 9 months of inconvenience for a certain female.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libtolu)
    But a baby in the womb isn't a life in its own right, it is merely an appendix to the mother much like my arm is alive but if i want to cut it off am i not allowed?

    If it cannot exist seperate from the mothers body it is not alive imho and thus she can do what she wants.


    Again i only believe people have the right to live if they can personally defend that right or have others willing to defend it for them, if you can't stop someone killing you you do not have the right to life and as such you should strive to have the skills necessary to survive whether that be gab or physical.

    Again feotus isn't alive in a sentient sense and thus doesn't warrant the "right" To live.
    I don't agree with any of your opinions. Nobody has the right to mess with human life. That's my stance. Whatever happens live and let live. An unwanted pregnancy is merely another sad incident of life. That doesn't mean that you're allowed to kill because it happened.

    Then you'll argue that an embryo is not a human life.....etc Since there is no scientific evidence indicating the beginning of a human life we should rightly so put the limit at the time interval when uncertinity beings or otherwise we'll be risking lives.

    Besides this argument in itself doesn't make sense to mean. The value of a human life and the reason for abortion aren't on par with each other.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libtolu)
    I willn pose one fundamental question to you.

    Why do people have a right to live?
    People have no right over life. Nobody has a right over life. Rights are part of a society. Our morally says that every individual in our society has a right to live. Every individual want to live and it's the most valuable thing for everybody; therefore it's seen as a right of every individual.

    I hope you agree with that if you want to live in a society.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
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.