This discussion is closed.
Mysticmin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#21
Report 15 years ago
#21
(Original post by calumc)
I think it was the patronising tone of "I think you'll find it is part of her body dear, pre-birth." which bugged me, due to it being in my opinion totally wrong.

Rape is a totally different scenario, and something of an antonym to the 'pro-choice' idea - since it removes any initial element of choice - which is why it puzzles me that people who take the 'pro-choice' view always mention it. Each case should be taken on it's individual merits, but I think you'll find that the majority of women who have abortions do so for lifestyle reasons - they don't think a baby would "suit them", it would be an "inconvenience". In my opinion this is totally wrong.
Ah ok, well in that case it is wrong, they shouldn't be doing that at all. Sorry about the patronising 'dear'.
0
TheWolf
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#22
Report 15 years ago
#22
(Original post by calumc)
I think you'll find that the majority of women who have abortions do so for lifestyle reasons - they don't think a baby would "suit them", it would be an "inconvenience". In my opinion this is totally wrong.
are you a woman?
0
yawn1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 15 years ago
#23
(Original post by TheWolf)
are you a woman?
Is it relevant whether he'she is or isn't?

There are many people who are active in the pro-life movement who are women - does that surprise you?

We have already done the 'what about rape' scenario to death on this thread.

So once again, for those who haven't taken the time to trawl through all the posts but just jumped in when they want to make a point - Rape must be an appallingly traumatic event in a female's life. However, if the rape results in a pregnancy, an abortion will not mean that the rape did not happen.
The abortion does not 'fix' the problem but rather compounds it. There is a high risk of overwhelming guilt, sometimes not apparent for many years, after the abortion.
You may say 'but at least she won't have a constant reminder of the rape'. She will always be reminded of the rape whether she did not become pregnant or did, and had an abortion.
The female can no more forget the abortion than the rape.
Personally, I think that if the perpetrators of rape are caught they should be castrated - at least this will cut down the numbers of 'animals' who would resort to rape - eventually. The thought of the 'chop' might even dissuade a would-be rapist.
0
superman663j7
Badges: 0
#24
Report 15 years ago
#24
I've said this a million times I'm not for but I'm not against. How isn't it murder?? what is then SPORT?? I mean come on it is your killing a living thing, its just a legal form of it, just like hunting orsquishying a bug. And a cell is a living thing. :confused:
0
rIcHrD
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 15 years ago
#25
Referring to the original statement - those believing abortion to be murder are right in this country, as (in general,) abortion is illegal killing (murder) in the UK.

The problem is far from unique and I think a blanket answer is a bit pointless given how the 'rightness' of abortion is nothing more than a question of majority opinion.

I think related issues help to highlight exactly why the question of abortion poses such a great variety of answers. Some say it's always wrong, some that it is right before birth, others define a certain physiological developmental stage at which it's sentience is significant enough to be of value. Yet, such discussions are less commonly had about the appropriateness of termination of the lives of pets (something seemingly inconceivable to consider doing to humans). And the proposition of using the same rationale about sentience and applying it to certain levels of mental disability seems to increase ethical objection.

There is no consensus answer because people are arguing from different start-points. It is a question of interacting values for which the answer is almost invariably the one of greatest individual convenience.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#26
Report 15 years ago
#26
Murder? My ass.

:rolleyes:
0
superman663j7
Badges: 0
#27
Report 15 years ago
#27
if abortion is made illegal, as it is a type of murder, then they should make killing anything in this world illegal aka hunting animals, sqishing a bug, putting animals asleep. abortion is no differnt than any of these things, except this involves human beings a egg and a sperm thats it.
0
Ronnie Raygun
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#28
Report 15 years ago
#28
Has it been proven that an unborn child isn't a life?
0
hitchhiker_13
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#29
Report 15 years ago
#29
(Original post by Ronnie Raygun)
Has it been proven that an unborn child isn't a life?

I'm not sure that there is anyway to prove it. It is a very subjective question.
0
Linda
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#30
Report 15 years ago
#30
(Original post by calumc)
I don't understand it either, and I don't see how it's any different to killing anyone else just because their existance would be some kind of 'inconvenience' to you.
The huge difference is that the fertilised cell is not human. It may be alive, yes, but thats irrelevant. Plants are alive as well, but we dont care when peopel kill them because they are not conscious and they are not human. A fertilised cell is nto human either, of course, I do recognise that it has a closer tie to humanity than, say an apple, but that doesnt mean it is a human on teh same level as a human child.

About the protests against abortion, prehaps 90% of these are based on religion. In fact, close to all countries in which abortion is prohibited are very non-secular. Also, these people I DO beleive when they say they think abortion is murder (Doesnt eman that I disagree any less with them though). I do, however, not beleive the people who sit here saying they think abortion and murder is the same thing without reacting in practice.

As far as I can see, all arguments against aborton are based on principles or definitions. You define the fertilised cell as being human, and therefore regard abortion as murder per definition, the reality is however that a fertilised cell is far from the same thing as a human being. The only difference between a fertilised eggcell and the embryonal stem cells is how many they are. Noone would care if you killed one single cell of an embryo, because that is no worse than shawing, or eating a pepper with salt on it. However, when one of these cells are alone in the womb it is suddenly murder to remove it? The cell may have the potential to become a human, but that doesnt mean that it is the same thing as a human. Arguments against abortion are based on the assumptions that this single fertilised cell should be defined as a human being, because of some semantics, that are really irrelevant. A stem cell and a human is not the same thing!
0
Harry Potter
Badges:
#31
Report 15 years ago
#31
(Original post by Linda)
The huge difference is that the fertilised cell is not human. It may be alive, yes, but thats irrelevant. Plants are alive as well, but we dont care when peopel kill them because they are not conscious and they are not human. A fertilised cell is nto human either, of course, I do recognise that it has a closer tie to humanity than, say an apple, but that doesnt mean it is a human on teh same level as a human child.

About the protests against abortion, prehaps 90% of these are based on religion. In fact, close to all countries in which abortion is prohibited are very non-secular. Also, these people I DO beleive when they say they think abortion is murder (Doesnt eman that I disagree any less with them though). I do, however, not beleive the people who sit here saying they think abortion and murder is the same thing without reacting in practice.

As far as I can see, all arguments against aborton are based on principles or definitions. You define the fertilised cell as being human, and therefore regard abortion as murder per definition, the reality is however that a fertilised cell is far from the same thing as a human being. The only difference between a fertilised eggcell and the embryonal stem cells is how many they are. Noone would care if you killed one single cell of an embryo, because that is no worse than shawing, or eating a pepper with salt on it. However, when one of these cells are alone in the womb it is suddenly murder to remove it? The cell may have the potential to become a human, but that doesnt mean that it is the same thing as a human. Arguments against abortion are based on the assumptions that this single fertilised cell should be defined as a human being, because of some semantics, that are really irrelevant. A stem cell and a human is not the same thing!
I think the trouble with that argument is that killing a baby is considered to be just as serious and, by many, even more serious than killing an adult, even though it is at a lesser stage of development with less intelligence, feelings etc. Why shouldn't a foetus, which is just at a slightly earlier stage of development, have the same rights?

Also, where do you draw the line as to when the foetus becomes human? Biologically, there is no difference between a baby that has just been born and a baby that is about to be born, so it would seem slightly ridiculous to claim that it suddenly becomes human as it does so.
0
DivideByZero
Badges: 0
#32
Report 15 years ago
#32
(Original post by Harry Potter)
I think the trouble with that argument is that killing a baby is considered to be just as serious and, by many, even more serious than killing an adult, even though it is at a lesser stage of development with less intelligence, feelings etc. Why shouldn't a foetus, which is just at a slightly earlier stage of development, have the same rights?

Also, where do you draw the line as to when the foetus becomes human? Biologically, there is no difference between a baby that has just been born and a baby that is about to be born, so it would seem slightly ridiculous to claim that it suddenly becomes human as it does so.
Where do you draw the line as to when a sperm and ovum fuse to become 'human'? Biologically, there is no difference between a sperm and ovum and a fertilized ovum, so it would seem ridiculous to claim that it suddenly becomes human as it does so. Why shouldn't sperm and ovum, which is just at a slightly earlier stage of developement, have the same rights?

Please tell me you're againt the condom. Then at least your argument will sound somewhat more consistant.
0
yawn1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 15 years ago
#33
This is to be my last post on this subject, as we are going around in circles, saying the same things and not coming to any agreement as each side is entrenched in their position for whatever reason.

My final observation on the validity of human life is this:-

When we wish to stop an irritation, inconvenience, nuisance etc. (and I use these words in the widest possible context) we find ways of minimising their importance to allow us to cope emotionally with the ramifications of the action.

We have done this with abortion, we will do it with euthanasia. We are ceasing to be concerned with the sanctity of life in our quest for 'self'. How will having this child affect me? How will the continuence of this - old, or mentally incapable or physically disabled person affect me? Don't quote the old cherry about what if the person wants to die - they only want to die because they feel a burden on you. Self, self, self.

Look at the work of people in hospices. They manage to make the last few days or weeks of a terminally ill person both meaningful and peaceful. How? By giving of themselves and making the person feel like an important and unique human being - we are losing these compassionate skills because of our obsession with ourselves.
0
Emma18
Badges: 0
#34
Report 15 years ago
#34
seeing as this thread is coming to an end, i will make my short little comment and leave it at that!
personally i am pro-choice (the womans choice, if she wants her partner to be involved its up to her) but i feel that, as long as the pro-lifers protest peacefully, ie, not slashing the tyres of the nurses etc that work in abortion clinics, not sending threatening letters to patients and not guilting vulnerable women looking for real help into keeping their babies with promises of post birth aid etc they can have their beliefs alongside the rest of us!
however, the pro-lifers are not going to be there when the woman cant get the baby to sleep, when she needs childcare so she can get back to work?? it seems that they are so desperate simply to prevent the abortion, that whatever happens to the baby afterwards, doesnt matter?? they got their birth!
0
Amb1
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#35
Report 15 years ago
#35
(Original post by llama boy)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/51722.stm
This is absolutely ridiculous!! Demonstrating that you disagree with 'murder' by trying to kill people.:rolleyes: Can't see the logic in that at all.
I would also like to say that the decision to have an abortion isn't taken lightly, it's not a case of 'I don't feel like having a baby at the mo so I'll just have an abortion'. Some of the pro-lifers seem to think that its selfish and convenient (that it's an easy thing to do), when in actual fact it's a very difficult decision that takes a lot of responsibility to make. It's not an easy option and does greatly alter the individuals life forever.
0
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#36
Report 15 years ago
#36
(Original post by yawn1)
We have done this with abortion, we will do it with euthanasia. We are ceasing to be concerned with the sanctity of life in our quest for 'self'. How will having this child affect me? How will the continuence of this - old, or mentally incapable or physically disabled person affect me? Don't quote the old cherry about what if the person wants to die - they only want to die because they feel a burden on you. Self, self, self.

Look at the work of people in hospices. They manage to make the last few days or weeks of a terminally ill person both meaningful and peaceful. How? By giving of themselves and making the person feel like an important and unique human being - we are losing these compassionate skills because of our obsession with ourselves.
I am sorry but your view on euthanasia seems a bit off to me. The reason that people who want to die want to dies isn't just because they feel like and inconvinience. Maybe it is true for some people, but more people want to die because of the pain that they are in. Look at the case of Dian pretty she had I think motor neurone disease and she wanted he husband to help her kill herself but the courts didn't allow it. She died in exactly the way she always feared choking in her own vomit. My mother has MS and she has told us that there maybe a point one day where she wants to kill herself not because she feels and inconvienience but because she feels that her quality of life would be too low. I don't think we should stop people like this who want to die to elieviate suffering from doing so.

Not all abortions are for the convieniance of the Mother. What about cases where it is done because the mother will die in pregnacy due to heart problems in these cases the baby will normally die to. Surely the mother not wanting to die is not just for convinience it is necessity. Also in cases where the baby will die on birth slowly and painfull it is better to have an abortion than to let the baby be born and suffer painfully for a couple of days and die.

In response to the earlier thread about when a feotus becomes a human in my view it is at about 5 months into the pregnancy. At this point there is a chance the the baby could survive if born (my cousin was born at 24 weeks and survived). I think that the first trimester abortions are the choice of the mother because I don't consider the feotus a human at the point because it can't survive inderpendant of the mother.
0
Harry Potter
Badges:
#37
Report 15 years ago
#37
(Original post by DivideByZero)
Biologically, there is no difference between a sperm and ovum and a fertilized ovum, so it would seem ridiculous to claim that it suddenly becomes human as it does so.
There clearly is a difference.

(Original post by DivideByZero)
Please tell me you're againt the condom. Then at least your argument will sound somewhat more consistant.
I'm not against abortion or contraception.
0
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#38
Report 15 years ago
#38
(Original post by yawn1)
My final observation on the validity of human life is this:-

When we wish to stop an irritation, inconvenience, nuisance etc. (and I use these words in the widest possible context) we find ways of minimising their importance to allow us to cope emotionally with the ramifications of the action.

We have done this with abortion, we will do it with euthanasia. We are ceasing to be concerned with the sanctity of life in our quest for 'self'. How will having this child affect me? How will the continuence of this - old, or mentally incapable or physically disabled person affect me? Don't quote the old cherry about what if the person wants to die - they only want to die because they feel a burden on you. Self, self, self.

Look at the work of people in hospices. They manage to make the last few days or weeks of a terminally ill person both meaningful and peaceful. How? By giving of themselves and making the person feel like an important and unique human being - we are losing these compassionate skills because of our obsession with ourselves.
I don't think abortion is morally analogous with euthanasia, I'm afraid.

As you point out, euthanasia often involves a sentient being with the capacity for emotion etc. Abortion doesn't.

I agree that abortion is often based on a self self self attitude, but I don't agree that that in itself makes it morally wrong. For that, you need a further premise that the foetus deserves moral consideration.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#39
Report 15 years ago
#39
(Original post by llama boy)
For that, you need a further premise that the foetus deserves moral consideration.
Trust you to come out with that! Good point though.
0
yawn1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#40
Report 15 years ago
#40
(Original post by llama boy)
I don't think abortion is morally analogous with euthanasia, I'm afraid.

As you point out, euthanasia often involves a sentient being with the capacity for emotion etc. Abortion doesn't.

I agree that abortion is often based on a self self self attitude, but I don't agree that that in itself makes it morally wrong. For that, you need a further premise that the foetus deserves moral consideration.

Damn - I really didn't want to post on this subject anymore because I'm all 'wrung out' but I had to reply to you, llama boy, as much out of respect and admiration for you as anything else!

My further premise supporting the moral consideration due to the 'foetus' or child is that I believe (as I have said time and time again) that the child 'in utero' is as entitled to life as anyone else simply because he/she is a member of the human race.

The only time that I would say that abortion could be countenanced is if there was irrefutable evidence that allowing the child to go to full-term would result in the death of the mother. Then, and only then, the decision has to be made on who has the greater claim on life, and it must come down to the mother, imo.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Which party will you be voting for in the General Election?

Conservatives (197)
18.67%
Labour (546)
51.75%
Liberal Democrats (141)
13.36%
Green Party (58)
5.5%
Brexit Party (15)
1.42%
Independent Group for Change (Change UK) (4)
0.38%
SNP (17)
1.61%
Plaid Cymru (5)
0.47%
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) (0)
0%
Sinn Fein (7)
0.66%
SDLP (1)
0.09%
Ulster Unionist (4)
0.38%
UKIP (11)
1.04%
Other (11)
1.04%
None (38)
3.6%

Watched Threads

View All