Turn on thread page Beta

Not religious but against abortion watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midpikyrozziy)
    Well, I know for a fact that they're not living at the end of the process.
    Yeah you're right, clusters of cells with no consciousness or anything to define them as human stop existing. Boo hoo.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thegaffer91)
    My mum used to be a nurse and assisted on a few abortions. one was a late term one, with these they induce birth and the baby shouldn't be developed enough to survive the birth.

    One time, one did, the baby came out alive, and the doctor killed it. I think that is a pretty decent argument about abortion, or at least the abortion law in its current state
    That's really more a case of murder by the sounds of it. That's really ****** up. Still, I don't think it's specifically against abortion, more about proper medical conduct. That was the real problem there.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trigger)
    Yes i do understand the ethics.
    How do you feel about making it legal to abort 8 months into the pregnancy or a week before the baby is due?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trigger)
    You have no idea do you?
    oh, prepare yourselves for the horrors of being cared for.
    what do you think street urchins elsewhere would say to you, denouncing being cared for on grounds that it would not ne pleasant for you, and your acquired tastes
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Boney King of Nowhere)
    Yeah you're right, clusters of cells with no consciousness or anything to define them as human stop existing. Boo hoo.
    It's only regarded as a cluster of cells when it is in the embryonic stage, after that it is a foetus (and stays that way until birth) and is no longer simply a cluster of cells.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CondensedMilk)
    That's really more a case of murder by the sounds of it. That's really ****** up. Still, I don't think it's specifically against abortion, more about proper medical conduct. That was the real problem there.
    The motivation behind it was that if they didnt kill it there and then, it wud have lived for about 2 hours in massive amounts of pain.

    Would you agree that, although not against abortion, it is against the abortion laws in its current form?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trigger)
    You have no idea do you?
    Well you are the one is suggesting that a baby raised in care is worse off then one who doesn't have the right to a chance at life. And all because, in many cases, the woman simply doesn't feel it's the right time to have a baby.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CombineHarvester)
    That's a presumption of course. Aren't abortion rates measuring the number of legal abortions carried out anyway? I don't know how they'd get the stats on illegal ones.
    I'm going by the sourced mention in wikipedia about abortion rates being unaffected:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20085681
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20451196

    Rates measured and estimated by the WHO, among others, so it seems legit.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Boney King of Nowhere)
    Yeah you're right, clusters of cells with no consciousness or anything to define them as human stop existing. Boo hoo.
    you don't have a consciousness either, you cluster of cells.
    you have been taught how to say "I", and remember it with the cerebral faculties that come to all such clusters of cells, and utter the word upon your spectation of a mirror or reflection. suddenly you have consciousness. bah to you and your metaphysics
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CombineHarvester)
    It's only regarded as a cluster of cells when it is in the embryonic stage, after that it is a foetus (and stays that way until birth) and is no longer simply a cluster of cells.
    Until that foetus can feel pain or have any kind of consciousness, it isn't human.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WrigglyMammoth)
    you don't have a consciousness either, you cluster of cells.
    you have been taught how to say "I", and remember it with the cerebral faculties that come to all such clusters of cells, and utter the word upon your spectation of a mirror or reflection. suddenly you have consciousness. bah to you and your metaphysics
    Whatever mate, I understand philosophy of mind perfectly well. My sense of self may merely be a bundle of different thoughts brought about by the firings of neurons in my brain but at least those thoughts are occuring. Unlike in a foetus.

    So bah to your lame attempt at being clever.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thegaffer91)
    The motivation behind it was that if they didnt kill it there and then, it wud have lived for about 2 hours in massive amounts of pain.

    Would you agree that, although not against abortion, it is against the abortion laws in its current form?
    I really don't know enough about the case. From what you're saying it's a discussion about euthanasia rather than abortion. Abortions are allowed past the normal limit in special circumstances, but that's really the doctor's judgement governing that. I have no way of telling if the problem is the doctors judgement, abortion laws, or even if there was no problem at all and this was a necessary, but regrettable, course of action. If the problem is the abortion laws (although I can't see how that is here) then I'm all for change. Whatever it takes to make it better.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CondensedMilk)
    People's lives shouldn't be ruined for the sake of saving an unthinking ball of cells.
    Infanticide is cool with you then? There is essentially no difference between a 8- or 9-month old foetus and a newborn baby, but you'd never say it's okay to kill a baby because it's "an unthinking ball of cells". EDIT: Didn't see someone else had raised this and you said we need a limit. New question: when should the limit be? When does a foetus suddenly acquire the right to live? If there is doubt over whether the foetus has that right should we risk killing something which has a right to life or should we give it the benefit of the doubt?

    I'm okay with abortion if it is necessary to save the woman's life. I don't think she should have to face death for her child if she doesn't want to. However I am against abortion in all other circumstances. As someone else said, adoption exists for a reason. There is also evidence on the psychological scarring which can result from abortion: http://theunchoice.com/psychological.htm. I am a Catholic, but I am not a particularly fervent one, and my strong pro-life convictions are separate from my religion - I was pro-life before I even knew what the Church's stance on abortion was and if it was pro-choice that wouldn't change my beliefs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Boney King of Nowhere)
    Whatever mate, I understand philosophy of mind perfectly well. My sense of self may merely be a bundle of different thoughts brought about by the firings of neurons in my brain but at least those thoughts are occuring. Unlike in a foetus.

    So bah to your lame attempt at being clever.
    What I said is as close to the truth as you can hope to grasp.

    By all means take the abortion, but don't try to justify it or yourself to a higher moral or intellectually developed standard.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CondensedMilk)
    I'm going by the sourced mention in wikipedia about abortion rates being unaffected:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20085681
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20451196

    Rates measured and estimated by the WHO, among others, so it seems legit.
    Those sorts of studies have been heavily criticised:

    http://blackadderiv.wordpress.com/20...abortion-rate/
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Boney King of Nowhere)
    Until that foetus can feel pain or have any kind of consciousness, it isn't human.
    I suggest you read this:

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...566772,00.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If it could survive outside the womb I believe abortion is wrong, if it couldn't then it's fine.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CondensedMilk)
    I really don't know enough about the case. From what you're saying it's a discussion about euthanasia rather than abortion. Abortions are allowed past the normal limit in special circumstances, but that's really the doctor's judgement governing that. I have no way of telling if the problem is the doctors judgement, abortion laws, or even if there was no problem at all and this was a necessary, but regrettable, course of action. If the problem is the abortion laws (although I can't see how that is here) then I'm all for change. Whatever it takes to make it better.
    This is why my stance would be to reduce the limit for abortion to 16 weeks, apart from in extreme circumstances. 99% of people will know if they are pregnant within this time period, if not more. If they decide later that they don't want a kid, they can put it up for adoption and allow a couple who can't have children (rather than don't want to) to be able to experience the joy of being a parent
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Boney King of Nowhere)
    Yeah you're right, clusters of cells with no consciousness or anything to define them as human stop existing. Boo hoo.
    I will have to take issue with you saying they have nothing to define them as human. They have their own unique DNA, which identifies them as part of the human species in an early stage of development, and also makes them separate from the mother.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by derangedyoshi)
    Infanticide is cool with you then? There is essentially no difference between a 8- or 9-month old foetus and a newborn baby, but you'd never say it's okay to kill a baby because it's "an unthinking ball of cells". EDIT: Didn't see someone else had raised this and you said we need a limit. New question: when should the limit be? When does a foetus suddenly acquire the right to live? If there is doubt over whether the foetus has that right should we risk killing something which has a right to life or should we give it the benefit of the doubt?
    A lot of time and effort has gone into deciding the limits for abortion, and it certainly isn't a decision taken lightly. I would think they go for the safe end of the range of possible time limits, and if not I'd have a problem with that. I trust they've taken this seriously though, and I trust their competence. I won't pretend I've pored over the ins and outs of setting these limits, and I honestly don't have a good understanding of them (neither do you, I suspect - no offence, 99% of people probably don't), but the professionals do.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

939

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.