This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Messed up in terms of timing + info in A-Level History AQA, how will this affect me?
- Good enough for drama school??
- Baby
- Panicking a LOT - Any luck in appealing for me?
- Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The Guardian
- Shouldn't Euthanasia be made freely available to all sick old people now? because
- Thoughts on Abortion?
- next step with him
- Is a 23% Turnitin Score Bad?
- Is it better to get a Training contract (TC) before or after the SQE?
- SQE help - ULaw or BPP
- Safest place to live in Liverpool for second year students
- Going to a good University for law with low GCSE but Great A-levels
- Suicides at Oxford
- Economics 2023 macro
- xxx
- Can sometime rate my cv please?
- Is it worth applying to Trinity?
- Industrial economics UoN vs economics UEA
- | snake park +971525077671 | abortion pills for sale in fujairah
Brits Concerned Over High Abortion Rates
Scroll to see replies
NDGAARONDI
I have read that many feminists complain about the nature of the wedding in terms of procedure when the father of the bride 'passes her over to the soon-to-be-wed husband' claiming it is treating them like mere property such as a pen rather than a person. The same could be argued over their view on abortion. It's just what you could argue. 
Yes, pro-lifers do indeed treat pregnant women like property rather than a person by suggesting that they should have less rights than non-pregnant people and that they should be forced against thier will to live as incubators for nine months.
Yes and scientists also told us that the iguanadon walked on all fours didn't they? Plenty of examples of scientists getting it wrong out there.
And I'm sure you know more about fetal pain than most scientists? What are your qualifications?
Would there be fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions if our public morality held that it is stupid and irresponsible to fall pregnant/impregnate a girl unintentionally, and that to end a develpoing life is shameful?
Even leaving aside whether these views are correct -I think they are- would it reduce the amount of unnecessary suffering if we just considered them "useful beliefs" to try and hold, true or no, and attempted to influence the next generation to hold them?
~What happens to a culture which struggles to maintain any clear and broadly accepted morality? We're trying something new here in the West, since the sixties roughly, where we think it's more objectionable to condemn a belief as wrong, than we do to indulge in almost any self and socially destructive behaviour. It can't last.
Even leaving aside whether these views are correct -I think they are- would it reduce the amount of unnecessary suffering if we just considered them "useful beliefs" to try and hold, true or no, and attempted to influence the next generation to hold them?
~What happens to a culture which struggles to maintain any clear and broadly accepted morality? We're trying something new here in the West, since the sixties roughly, where we think it's more objectionable to condemn a belief as wrong, than we do to indulge in almost any self and socially destructive behaviour. It can't last.
Yes, we should tell girls that making choices about their own body is shameful!!!!! That's the kind of message young girls should be growing up with! Let them know that their body is property of the state!
ArthurOliver
Would there be fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions if our public morality held that it is stupid and irresponsible to fall pregnant/impregnate a girl unintentionally, and that to end a develpoing life is shameful?
Even leaving aside whether these views are correct -I think they are- would it reduce the amount of unnecessary suffering if we just considered them "useful beliefs" to try and hold, true or no, and attempted to influence the next generation to hold them?
~What happens to a culture which struggles to maintain any clear and broadly accepted morality? We're trying something new here in the West, since the sixties roughly, where we think it's more objectionable to condemn a belief as wrong, than we do to indulge in almost any self and socially destructive behaviour. It can't last.
Even leaving aside whether these views are correct -I think they are- would it reduce the amount of unnecessary suffering if we just considered them "useful beliefs" to try and hold, true or no, and attempted to influence the next generation to hold them?
~What happens to a culture which struggles to maintain any clear and broadly accepted morality? We're trying something new here in the West, since the sixties roughly, where we think it's more objectionable to condemn a belief as wrong, than we do to indulge in almost any self and socially destructive behaviour. It can't last.
Society always goes in cycles, ArthurOliver.
We are now reaching the turning point again, where what once was acceptable without question, is now being subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
The signals are clear - abortion is becoming anathema to more and more people.
yawn
Society always goes in cycles, ArthurOliver.
We are now reaching the turning point again, where what once was acceptable without question, is now being subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
The signals are clear - abortion is becoming anathema to more and more people.
We are now reaching the turning point again, where what once was acceptable without question, is now being subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
The signals are clear - abortion is becoming anathema to more and more people.
--------------
morningtheft
Yes, we should tell girls that making choices about their own body is shameful!!!!! That's the kind of message young girls should be growing up with! Let them know that their body is property of the state!
I wouldn't make it illegal to kill yer kid--I'd just want you to feel ashamed about it.
You mean making choices that YOU PERSONALLY DON'T AGREE WITH is shameful.
I like how you think that you should be the one who determines what a "good" and a "bad" choice are for everyone. Because obviously nobody else is able to determine what is right for them. Only you are qualified to make that judgement.
I like how you think that you should be the one who determines what a "good" and a "bad" choice are for everyone. Because obviously nobody else is able to determine what is right for them. Only you are qualified to make that judgement.
morningtheft
And I'm sure you know more about fetal pain than most scientists? What are your qualifications?
PhD in neurology.
I'll bear your logic in mind. If you ever comment on anything constitutional I'll ask you for your qualifications too then.What makes you think that your personal subjective opinion about fetal pain is more accurate than actual research that some scientists have spent their entire careers on?
I'm just asking. I'm sure you must have a better reason than "I think fetuses feel pain because it suits my argument to say they do." I'm just wondering what it is.
I'm just asking. I'm sure you must have a better reason than "I think fetuses feel pain because it suits my argument to say they do." I'm just wondering what it is.
NDGAARONDI
Yes there are many reasons why the Law is slow and it's annoying for me since I'm in that field. Also, many lawyers are slow in updating themselves over scienfitic and technological advances - when I was at a research lecture last week at the Institute of Advanced Legal Study one of the speakers looked like he didn't know how to use a floppy disk and to find its corresponding drive on the laptop. I guess it's back to the quill! 
The thing is, the law doesn't need to adjust. There's very little that standard rules created in precedent or from the institutional writers cannot be applied to. The law as it was in days of old created a unifying philosophy, all these 'updates' are nothing more than vandalism in my opinion.
morningtheft
Yes, pro-lifers do indeed treat pregnant women like property rather than a person by suggesting that they should have less rights than non-pregnant people and that they should be forced against thier will to live as incubators for nine months.
Property of whom? If you're going to spout nonsense at least back it up with some grounding in reality.
A pregnant woman has no less rights than a normal person. They are not getting forced into anything, they are being PREVENTED from taking an action that could harm another person - it's the exact same philosophical ground as culpable homicide (or manslaughter, I believe you lot call it).
And I'm sure you know more about fetal pain than most scientists? What are your qualifications?
Erring on the side of not killing humans is really the best approach to all this.
ArthurOliver
Would there be fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions if our public morality held that it is stupid and irresponsible to fall pregnant/impregnate a girl unintentionally, and that to end a develpoing life is shameful?
I was under the illusion that was already the state of public morality. However chavs and the sort who get knocked up at 16 don't really have much time for such things.
morningtheft
Yes, we should tell girls that making choices about their own body is shameful!!!!! That's the kind of message young girls should be growing up with! Let them know that their body is property of the state!
Isn't it quite funny how you have the socialists (ie, statists) on your side and most of the Libertarians, myself included, are against abortion?
Maybe that might indicate to a normal person that they are talking nonsense.
And can you please cut down the faux-outrage, it's bloody annoying.
morningtheft
You mean making choices that YOU PERSONALLY DON'T AGREE WITH is shameful.
I like how you think that you should be the one who determines what a "good" and a "bad" choice are for everyone. Because obviously nobody else is able to determine what is right for them. Only you are qualified to make that judgement.
I like how you think that you should be the one who determines what a "good" and a "bad" choice are for everyone. Because obviously nobody else is able to determine what is right for them. Only you are qualified to make that judgement.
Well it makes sense. He is considering the public good and the end results and the protection of people who cannot protect themselves. You are, however, out for your own interests.
He really is more the sort of person who should be making the law even if his opinions do not fully reflect my own. You are the sort of person who should be getting bundled into the back of a police van shouting 'I 'ave rights!'.
Society dictates morality. I'd happily tell someone who didn't use contraception and "fell pregnant"/knocked up his girlfriend who went on to have an abortion that he was a bloody idiot and that they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. They don't have to listen, and fair enough if they don't, however this is a separate matter altogether from what should be legal.
Because quite lot of scientists have got their research completely wrong in the past even if they spent their entire career on it - history and science are two prime examples. There is nothing to stop that happening here. And the fact that not all scientists agree on this topic means something doesn't it?
You're telling me you have never had a subjective view on matters such as life after death, the universe and so on?
--------------
Aren't our bodies propwerty of the state anyway?
You're telling me you have never had a subjective view on matters such as life after death, the universe and so on?
--------------
Aren't our bodies propwerty of the state anyway?
NDGAARONDI
Because quite lot of scientists have got their research completely wrong in the past even if they spent their entire career on it - history and science are two prime examples. There is nothing to stop that happening here. And the fact that not all scientists agree on this topic means something doesn't it?
You're telling me you have never had a subjective view on matters such as life after death, the universe and so on?
--------------
Aren't our bodies propwerty of the state anyway?
You're telling me you have never had a subjective view on matters such as life after death, the universe and so on?
--------------
Aren't our bodies propwerty of the state anyway?
Sigh. But what reason do I have to believe that YOU are more correct than THEY are?
I would trust a scientist who tells me "Fetuses under a certain age do not feel pain because they have not developed these particular structures that are required to feel pain. And here is my evidence." rather than a random person on the internet who tells me "Fetuses feel pain because scientists have the potential to be wrong!!" Tell my WHY fetuses feel pain - not that scientists might be wrong.
Proving that someone has the potential to be wrong is not the same as proving yourself right. It's the same as the old "Creationism is true, because evolution hasn't been 100% proven!" argument. The fact that another person might be wrong does not prove that you are correct. Especially when you haven't offfered any evidence or justification for your position and the other side has.
morningtheft
Sigh. But what reason do I have to believe that YOU are more correct than THEY are?
I would trust a scientist who tells me "Fetuses under a certain age do not feel pain because they have not developed these particular structures that are required to feel pain. And here is my evidence." rather than a random person on the internet who tells me "Fetuses feel pain because scientists have the potential to be wrong!!" Tell my WHY fetuses feel pain - not that scientists might be wrong.
Proving that someone has the potential to be wrong is not the same as proving yourself right. It's the same as the old "Creationism is true, because evolution hasn't been 100% proven!" argument. The fact that another person might be wrong does not prove that you are correct. Especially when you haven't offfered any evidence or justification for your position and the other side has.
I would trust a scientist who tells me "Fetuses under a certain age do not feel pain because they have not developed these particular structures that are required to feel pain. And here is my evidence." rather than a random person on the internet who tells me "Fetuses feel pain because scientists have the potential to be wrong!!" Tell my WHY fetuses feel pain - not that scientists might be wrong.
Proving that someone has the potential to be wrong is not the same as proving yourself right. It's the same as the old "Creationism is true, because evolution hasn't been 100% proven!" argument. The fact that another person might be wrong does not prove that you are correct. Especially when you haven't offfered any evidence or justification for your position and the other side has.
All the above applies equally to the differing opinion.
spk
Evidence, please.
From the libertarian party platform, on their website:
Women's Rights and Abortion
The Issue: Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.
The Principle: We hold that individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements and/or home births.
Solutions: We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice and private property or to widen tyranny through reverse discrimination.
Transitional Action: We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women, such as protective labor laws and marriage or divorce laws which deny the full rights of men and women.
The Issue: Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.
The Principle: We hold that individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements and/or home births.
Solutions: We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice and private property or to widen tyranny through reverse discrimination.
Transitional Action: We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women, such as protective labor laws and marriage or divorce laws which deny the full rights of men and women.
How curious!
--------------
yawn
All the above applies equally to the differing opinion.
Obviously, but if one person says "I believe x is true because of these reasons: ___,___,___ and here is the results of the research I've done, and these are my qualifications" and another person says "I believe Y is true just because my opponent has the potential to be wrong," whose argument are you going to find more convincing?
--------------
Well it makes sense. He is considering the public good and the end results and the protection of people who cannot protect themselves. You are, however, out for your own interests.
I am out for the interests of 50% of the human race. I am also out for the interests of children who are born to parents who did not want them and only had them because they were forced to. I am out to improve quality of life for children, not quantity. The "public" does not benefit from women being forced to bear children. The women are hurt and the children are hurt. The only people who benefit are righteous pro-life men who like to impose their morals on the rest of society.
How am I out for my own interests?
morningtheft
Obviously, but if one person says "I believe x is true because of these reasons: ___,___,___ and here is the results of the research I've done, and these are my qualifications" and another person says "I believe Y is true just because my opponent has the potential to be wrong," whose argument are you going to find more convincing?
Obviously, but if one person says "I believe x is true because of these reasons: ___,___,___ and here is the results of the research I've done, and these are my qualifications" and another person says "I believe Y is true just because my opponent has the potential to be wrong," whose argument are you going to find more convincing?
That's the interesting thing about research - the results are only as good as the next piece of research which finds flaws in the first.
So in answer, the one that suits my own instincts. As it does you.
LibertineNorth
I was under the illusion that was already the state of public morality. However chavs and the sort who get knocked up at 16 don't really have much time for such things.
edit: Dr.Dalrymple in Birmingham:
A hundred yards from where I write this, 12-year-old prostitutes often stand under street lamps on the corner at night, waiting for customers. The chief of the local police has said that he will not remove them, because he considers that they are sufficiently victimized already, and he is not prepared to victimize them further (his job, apparently, being to empathize rather than to enforce the law). The local health authorities send a van round several times at night to distribute condoms to the girls, the main official concern being to ensure that the sex in which the girls take part is safe, from the bacteriological and virological point of view. It is the authorities' proud boast that 100 percent of local prostitutes now routinely use condoms, at a cost to the city's taxpayers of $135,000 a year, soon to be increased by the employment of a further outreach worker, whose main qualification, according to the recent job advertisement in the local press, will be "an ability to work non-judgmentally"—that is, to have no moral qualms about aiding and abetting child prostitution.
The abortion issue is just a part of a deep moral failure.
morningtheft
Yes because only men are pro-life aren't they?
morningtheft
And? I get pro-abortionists imposing their morals on other scenarios such as incest.
morningtheft
I would trust a scientist who tells me "Fetuses under a certain age do not feel pain because they have not developed these particular structures that are required to feel pain. And here is my evidence." rather than a random person on the internet who tells me "Fetuses feel pain because scientists have the potential to be wrong!!" Tell my WHY fetuses feel pain - not that scientists might be wrong.
Proving that someone has the potential to be wrong is not the same as proving yourself right. It's the same as the old "Creationism is true, because evolution hasn't been 100% proven!" argument. The fact that another person might be wrong does not prove that you are correct. Especially when you haven't offfered any evidence or justification for your position and the other side has.
Proving that someone has the potential to be wrong is not the same as proving yourself right. It's the same as the old "Creationism is true, because evolution hasn't been 100% proven!" argument. The fact that another person might be wrong does not prove that you are correct. Especially when you haven't offfered any evidence or justification for your position and the other side has.
Again, erring on the side of not harming or killing. It's a pretty straightforward position.
Incidently, I seriously doubt you understand many of the theories these scientists are putting forward unless you have a biology Ph.D. So in reality, you're just trusting people instead of actually having a valid view on the subject. I on the other hand have a stance that I can completely justify.
morningtheft
From the libertarian party platform, on their website
There is no Libertarian Party registered with the Electoral Commission.
I am out for the interests of 50% of the human race. I am also out for the interests of children who are born to parents who did not want them and only had them because they were forced to. I am out to improve quality of life for children, not quantity. The "public" does not benefit from women being forced to bear children. The women are hurt and the children are hurt. The only people who benefit are righteous pro-life men who like to impose their morals on the rest of society.
How am I out for my own interests?
How am I out for my own interests?
You want to kill people out of sympathy? Lovely.
Being righteous is not a virtue in your eyes? Well, I suppose not...
You are out for your own interests because you are throwing a tantrum when someone tells you that you can't do something.
spk
Evidence, please.
What do you bloody want? Me to read every post on the various abortion threads aloud to you and then to give a character reference for each individual poster? Use your own faculties.
You are out for your own interests because you are throwing a tantrum when someone tells you that you can't do something.
And you're throwing a tantrum when you're told you can't control what other people do with their bodies.
Obviously you're the one out for your own interests: your interest in controlling other people.
You're using an argument that can just as well be used against you, since you are throwing a tantrum since you're being told you can't do something.
You want to kill people out of sympathy? Lovely.
There are worse things that can happen to someone than never having existed in the first place.
morningtheft
. I am also out for the interests of children who are born to parents who did not want them and only had them because they were forced to. I am out to improve quality of life for children, not quantity. The "public" does not benefit from women being forced to bear children. The women are hurt and the children are hurt.
Well its nice to know that you have the best of intentions. I think that in all of this arguing we do tend to forget that people on the other side mean the for the best as much we do.
Related discussions
- Messed up in terms of timing + info in A-Level History AQA, how will this affect me?
- Good enough for drama school??
- Baby
- Panicking a LOT - Any luck in appealing for me?
- Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The Guardian
- Shouldn't Euthanasia be made freely available to all sick old people now? because
- Thoughts on Abortion?
- next step with him
- Is a 23% Turnitin Score Bad?
- Is it better to get a Training contract (TC) before or after the SQE?
- SQE help - ULaw or BPP
- Safest place to live in Liverpool for second year students
- Going to a good University for law with low GCSE but Great A-levels
- Suicides at Oxford
- Economics 2023 macro
- xxx
- Can sometime rate my cv please?
- Is it worth applying to Trinity?
- Industrial economics UoN vs economics UEA
- | snake park +971525077671 | abortion pills for sale in fujairah
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
