This discussion is closed.
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#41
Report 15 years ago
#41
(Original post by yawn1)

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.
Why not the child?
0
yawn1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#42
Report 15 years ago
#42
(Original post by Howard)
Why not the child?
Because it has now become an 'either or' life threatening choice.

Whenever a decision has to be made and there will be two very definite and different outcomes, it must be a 'weighted' decision.

Here we have a mother, who is possibly a mother already to other dependent children. She has a productive life with other people relying on her for support and succour - and responsibility for rearing the next generation. Even if she does not have a familly she will have relatives-friends etc with whom she has existing relationships.

If we take the example of two patients, both with a life-threatening acute illness who require intensive care and there is no possibility of availability of two beds, we have to decide which one gets the intensive treatment. It will be the one who has more to offer or a better long-term prognosis on recovery.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#43
Report 15 years ago
#43
[QUOTE=yawn1]Because it has now become an 'either or' life threatening choice.

Whenever a decision has to be made and there will be two very definite and different outcomes, it must be a 'weighted' decision.

Here we have a mother, who is possibly a mother already to other dependent children. She has a productive life with other people relying on her for support and succour - and responsibility for rearing the next generation. Even if she does not have a familly she will have relatives-friends etc with whom she has existing relationships.

You're assuming a lot about this mother. What if she was otherwise childless, unmarried, without family, and living an unproductive life as a drug addict supporting her habit by crime.

Would you still chose mother?
0
GH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#44
Report 15 years ago
#44
Are we assuming the role of the Doctor? if so, then allowing the child to survive will mean that it will be brought up as an orphan.

We also have to make assumptions about the conditions under which the birth is given in, eg what country, any dependants, any other family members (what are their conditions) etc etc any other factors have to be assumed.
0
DivideByZero
Badges: 0
#45
Report 15 years ago
#45
Sorry, I misunderstood your post.

(Original post by Harry Potter)
There clearly is a difference.
How so? Clearly there is a physical difference but is there any 'rights' difference (don't know how else to describe it - lol)? Do the sperm and ovum really have different rights set down by the universe?
0
GH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#46
Report 15 years ago
#46
(Original post by DivideByZero)
Sorry, I misunderstood your post.


How so? Clearly there is a physical difference but is there any 'rights' difference (don't know how else to describe it - lol)? Do the sperm and ovum really have different rights set down by the universe?
Another question: Does the ovum + sperm have rights full stop
0
DivideByZero
Badges: 0
#47
Report 15 years ago
#47
(Original post by 2776)
Another question: Does the ovum + sperm have rights full stop
My point exactly.
0
Amazing
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report 15 years ago
#48
(Original post by DivideByZero)
How so? Clearly there is a physical difference but is there any 'rights' difference (don't know how else to describe it - lol)? Do the sperm and ovum really have different rights set down by the universe?
A fertilized ovum is (at least biologically) alive, where as an individual sperm or ovum is not. Whether that is of much significance or not is your own choice, but it's pretty stupid to state there's little or no difference.

Surely the fact that something is going to become a sentient being is of more importance than its sentience is at the time? After all, there are some severely mentally disabled humans who have a mental capacity less than that of some animals, yet we'd have much more problem killing the human than the more intelligent beast.

People in a coma don't suddenly have their life support machines turned off if we're reasonably sure they're going to wake up in a while, yet at that time they only have the "potential" to exhibit sentient behaviour. Seen as you've said that being sentient is the only thing important, then we can assume that the physical state (ie. one being much less bodily developed) of the person is irrelevant - in which case, what is the difference between the coma victim and the physically undeveloped fetus? Neither of them are thinking, neither of them have passions or desires or wants or emotions, but both will acquire them soon enough. The only thing differentiating between the two is that the coma victim has been concious before, and the fetus hasn't. But why should a being’s past effect the way it is treated in the present?
0
yawn1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#49
Report 15 years ago
#49
(Original post by Amazing)
A fertilized ovum is (at least biologically) alive, where as an individual sperm or ovum is not. Whether that is of much significance or not is your own choice, but it's pretty stupid to state there's little or no difference.

Surely the fact that something is going to become a sentient being is of more importance than its sentience is at the time? After all, there are some severely mentally disabled humans who have a mental capacity less than that of some animals, yet we'd have much more problem killing the human than the more intelligent beast.

People in a coma don't suddenly have their life support machines turned off if we're reasonably sure they're going to wake up in a while, yet at that time they only have the "potential" to exhibit sentient behaviour. Seen as you've said that being sentient is the only thing important, then we can assume that the physical state (ie. one being much less bodily developed) of the person is irrelevant - in which case, what is the difference between the coma victim and the physically undeveloped fetus? Neither of them are thinking, neither of them have passions or desires or wants or emotions, but both will acquire them soon enough. The only thing differentiating between the two is that the coma victim has been conscience before, and the fetus hasn't. But why should a being’s past effect the way it is treated in the present?
That post's amazing Amazing!

Succinct and extremely relevant. Much better than anything I could have said to express the same thinking. I am impressed - go to the top of the class!
0
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#50
Report 15 years ago
#50
(Original post by Amazing)
A fertilized ovum is (at least biologically) alive, where as an individual sperm or ovum is not. Whether that is of much significance or not is your own choice, but it's pretty stupid to state there's little or no difference.
I have two points to make
1) The sperm and the egg are both hapliod cell and the fetilised ovum is a diplod cell which means that it has a full set of 46 (I think) chromosomes. Biologically this is the difference imediately on fetilisation before any cellular division has taken place. This in my view make the fetilised ovum no more "alive" than the egg and the sperm. It has the same number of chromosomes as a skin cell or a liver cell and I don't think that anyone would complain if you killed a skin cell which is "alive" in the same sense. Garenteed that when the fertilised ovum starts to divide there is a difference but initially there really isn't apart from the number of chromosomes.

2) Are you against the morning after pill because if you classify the fertilised ovum before it has implanted alive surely that would be murder too.

I don't know what other people think but that was my understanding of fertilisation from a biological point of view anyway. People may have different deffinitions of alive but I think that the fertilised ovum has the potential to be alive but isn't yet seeing as it hasn't even implanted yet and only 1 in 4 will actually do so.
0
Amb1
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#51
Report 15 years ago
#51
There's a lot more to being pregnant and having a baby(or not) than the physicalities. You can't ignore the emotional/ financial/ moral/ practical/ mental/ logical/ psychological issues, which a lot of the 'pro-lifers' seem to be doing here.

NB - I think 'pro-life' is a bad choice of words, just because someone has an abortion it doesn't mean they are 'anti-life', it means that they feel having a baby wouldn't be the best thing to do at that particular time in their life.
0
hitchhiker_13
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#52
Report 15 years ago
#52
(Original post by randdom)
I have two points to make
1) The sperm and the egg are both hapliod cell and the fetilised ovum is a diplod cell which means that it has a full set of 46 (I think) chromosomes. Biologically this is the difference imediately on fetilisation before any cellular division has taken place. This in my view make the fetilised ovum no more "alive" than the egg and the sperm. It has the same number of chromosomes as a skin cell or a liver cell and I don't think that anyone would complain if you killed a skin cell which is "alive" in the same sense. Garenteed that when the fertilised ovum starts to divide there is a difference but initially there really isn't apart from the number of chromosomes.
I can see the point you're making there, but when do you classify the embryo as being alive then? After implantation?
0
riffraff
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#53
Report 15 years ago
#53
(Original post by Amb1)
There's a lot more to being pregnant and having a baby(or not) than the physicalities. You can't ignore the emotional/ financial/ moral/ practical/ mental/ logical/ psychological issues, which a lot of the 'pro-lifers' seem to be doing here.
*agrees*
0
yawn1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#54
Report 15 years ago
#54
(Original post by Amb1)
There's a lot more to being pregnant and having a baby(or not) than the physicalities. You can't ignore the emotional/ financial/ moral/ practical/ mental/ logical/ psychological issues, which a lot of the 'pro-lifers' seem to be doing here.

NB - I think 'pro-life' is a bad choice of words, just because someone has an abortion it doesn't mean they are 'anti-life', it means that they feel having a baby wouldn't be the best thing to do at that particular time in their life.
Did you know that pro-life organisations offer ongoing, long term help on all the aspects of pregnancy you mentioned above? In fact they offer much much more that 'pregnancy advisory clinics' whose advice is overwhelmingly restricted to pointing the woman in the direction of an abortion clinic.

Your comment about pro-life being a bad descriptor is erroneous because that is what it is all about.

We have done the 'having a baby wouldn't be the best thing to do at that particular time of their life' to death on this thread! We are talking about the life of a very vulnerable human being here - come on! :rolleyes:
0
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#55
Report 15 years ago
#55
(Original post by hitchhiker_13)
I can see the point you're making there, but when do you classify the embryo as being alive then? After implantation?
After implantation it still isn't quite developed enough in my eyes anyway. I would probably say when it has a heart beat it is alive but that doesn't mean that I don't think abortion should be allowed when there is a detectable heartbeat because I think that it would still die if born and therefore cannot survive without the mother. I don't think abortions should be allowed after the first trimester really but that is only my oppinion
0
riffraff
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#56
Report 15 years ago
#56
(Original post by yawn1)
Did you know that pro-life organisations offer ongoing, long term help on all the aspects of pregnancy you mentioned above? In fact they offer much much more that 'pregnancy advisory clinics' whose advice is overwhelmingly restricted to pointing the woman in the direction of an abortion clinic.
www.abortion-help.co.uk
0
yawn1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report 15 years ago
#57
(Original post by riffraff)
www.abortion-help.co.uk
Thanks for the link - this backs up my premise precisely!
0
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#58
Report 15 years ago
#58
(Original post by yawn1)
Did you know that pro-life organisations offer ongoing, long term help on all the aspects of pregnancy you mentioned above? In fact they offer much much more that 'pregnancy advisory clinics' whose advice is overwhelmingly restricted to pointing the woman in the direction of an abortion clinic.
You aren't always advised to have an abortion at pregnancy advisory clinincs they will give you all your options. I know this because I have helped two of my friends with unplanned pregnancy one who had and abortion and one who gave the baby up for adoption.
You can't use that link as proof that they push you towards abortion because they are a company who provides abortion. Generally you will find that if you contact Maire Stopes you have already decided that abortion is a viable option.

http://www.bpas.org/

Here on the what to do page abortion is actually third. This is the british pregnancy advisory service and therefore a more accurate example than a company who provide abortion privately
0
Amazing
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#59
Report 15 years ago
#59
(Original post by randdom)
that doesn't mean that I don't think abortion should be allowed when there is a detectable heartbeat because I think that it would still die if born and therefore cannot survive without the mother.
I hate to have to bother to point this out every time there's another crappy abortion topic, but babies aren't suddenly able to survive on their own once they're born you know. They still rely on the mother to feed them, to look after them, and sustain their being. A new born baby will quickly perish if it's mother abandons it, as will most children under the age of 2. But funnily enough, infanticide is illegal in this country, and I fail to see how a woman (or society) can somehow gain the obligation to keep something alive just because it's passed through the birth canal. The responsibility should be there from conception, or not at all - and seen as we don't allow mothers to kill their 16 year old sons (as much as my mom would love to!) then it's a fairly safe bet than we can go with the former.


Changing the subject, many pro-choicers often disregard pro-lifers argument for just giving the baby up for adoption, dismissing it given that very few abandoned children actually get adopted and end up living in care. Now personally I find Britain's adoption system to be a shambles - the amount of conditions needed to adopt a child is ridiculous; natural parents don't have to meet such tests to keep their children - but, if we had a perfect adoption system, and there would always be people willing to adopt, would you then not think that abortion is wrong in those situations? (assuming there's no risk to the mother's health, she wasn't raped, the baby won't be born retarded, etc...)

As it happens I dismiss most arguments for abortion because the child would have an unhappy life, seen as we simply don't know that and it's not very unlikely at all. Why are you automatically deemed to suffer a bad life because you're bought up in care? It may not always be very nice for some, but most will just lead normal lives and they certainly don't feel they'd be better off dead. Unless the child is going to be born with a severe disability, or is going to die very young anyway, then getting an abortion for your own reasons whilst hiding behind unfounded and fallacious concerns over the child's future welfare is ridiculous, insensitive, stupid and wrong.

Why do people equate allowing something to live with forcing it to endure hypothetical future suffering?
0
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#60
Report 15 years ago
#60
(Original post by Amazing)
I hate to have to bother to point this out every time there's another crappy abortion topic, but babies aren't suddenly able to survive on their own once they're born you know. They still rely on the mother to feed them, to look after them, and sustain their being. A new born baby will quickly perish if it's mother abandons it, as will most children under the age of 2.
What I was trying to say was that I don't believe that the baby can still be classified as only part of the mother once it passes the stage when it could survive (with assistance) if born now. That is only my oppinion when asked when I thought the baby becomes alive.
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

Did you vote in the 2019 general election?

Yes (255)
48.48%
No (58)
11.03%
I'm not old enough (213)
40.49%

Watched Threads

View All