This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Abortion

Reply 1880

15

If it was a case later on in pregnancy, at a point where the foetus could survive without the mother, and something tragic had happened meaning that you had to save one or the other, which would you elect to save then?

(Whichever you saved would live and the other would die)

Reply 1881

Kinkerz

15

But I - having literally studied this in quite alot of depth over the past month - agree with it. As do all my textbooks.

But this isn't about the foetus. It's about the mother. The foetus may be innocent, but it's also completely unaware of its own existence and can't survive on its own.

Reply 1882

Rhadamanthus

17

Kinkerz

If it was a case later on in pregnancy, at a point where the foetus could survive without the mother, and something tragic had happened meaning that you had to save one or the other, which would you elect to save then?

(Whichever you saved would live and the other would die)

At that point I would do nothing. If an act of aggression against the foetus would produce the same outcome as doing nothing (one living and one dying), then the aggression is not justified.

Reply 1883

Lord Hysteria

18

... therefore, the conclusion is self-consciousness has no part to play in taking a person’s life … ergo, the legal/moral system would fall into disrepute.

Reply 1884

Kinkerz

15

I should've added: if you did nothing, both would die. Essentially you had to make a decision.

Reply 1885

Rhadamanthus

17

Kinkerz

But this isn't about the foetus. It's about the mother. The foetus may be innocent, but it's also completely unaware of its own existence and can't survive on its own.

I'll quote from Dr Willke of the Life Institute - "she has been the victim of one violent act. Should we now ask her to be a party to a second violent act -that of abortion? Unquestionably, many would return the violence of killing an innocent baby for the violence of rape. But, before making this decision, remember that most of the trauma has already occurred. She has been raped. That trauma will live with her all her life. Furthermore, this girl did not report for help, but kept this to herself. For several weeks or months, she has thought of little else. Now, she has finally asked for help, has shared her upset, and should be in a supportive situation."

Whether or not it is unaware of its own existence or cannot survive on its own, it has been created as a developing human and there need be no other act of creation for this development to continue.

Reply 1886

Rhadamanthus

17

Kinkerz

I should've added: if you did nothing, both would die. Essentially you had to make a decision.

Oh, then it would depend on the individual case - i.e. economic/health status of the mother, what would happen to the child etc. etc.

Reply 1887

Moe Lester

15

Well it is partly, if you scroll to the top of this page you will see that I said it was part wikipedia, part AS biology. The source of the information is irrelevant, it has been proven correct by a med student.

I am interested in how you reconcile your belief in the maximisation of liberty with the statist approach of a blanket ban not just to abortion, but to morning after pills. I find it fascinating you deny basic social welfare to people, yet feel the state should intervene in this case.

Reply 1888

Rhadamanthus

17

Lord Hysteria

ergo, the legal/moral system would fall into disrepute

.

Just as it would if abortion were legalised entirely. :wink:

Although there are many countries in which it is - where self-consciousness doesn't play apart at all - and their legal systems are fine.

Reply 1889

Rhadamanthus

17

Moe Lester

Well it is partly, if you scroll to the top of this page you will see that I said it was part wikipedia, part AS biology. The source of the information is irrelevant, it has been proven correct by a med student.

Fair enough then.

I am interested in how you reconcile your belief in the maximisation of liberty with the statist approach of a blanket ban not just to abortion, but to morning after pills. I find it fascinating you deny basic social welfare to people, yet feel the state should intervene in this case.

The ban is to uphold the right to life. I do not deny basic welfare to people - I just think private companies can provide it much better instead of with a system of whole-scale monopolistic intervention funded by legalised theft. However this is not the place for that argument.

Anyway I said a few posts back I'm not continuing this just now - I have an exam in two days and revision calls...

Reply 1890

Kinkerz

15

And that supportive situation shouldn't be: 'abortion is wrong; it's a second act of atrocity, with the first being your rape; don't abort this foetus'. It should be: 'here are your options, talk it over with whoever you feel appropriate and make an informed, considered decision'.

Imagine bringing a child up with the father as the man who raped you. Being reminded every day of that event (an event that, unless you're doubly unfortunate, would be the most traumatic and unpleasant of your life).

So even when it comes down to that, consciousness etc. don't produce any leverage with you. Quite an interesting view point.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 1891

tinytinygirl

I think everyone should agree to disagree. This will never be solved.

Reply 1892

Kinkerz

15

tinytinygirl

I think everyone should agree to disagree. This will never be solved.

No, it probably won't. But the whole point of a discussion is to actually talk about it, rather than just stopping as soon as a difference of opinion arises.

Reply 1893

ROTF

9

I believe that in certain circumstances abortion should be allowed. Think about it, if a woman was raped, and she knew that she couldn't love that baby properly, why have a baby only to give it 10% effort because you can't love it properly? Surely that baby is likey to grow up messed up, because they feel unloved, and cause more harm than good in the world.
The pros and cons must be weighed out.
Also, I think there is a point beyond which abortions should not take place.

Reply 1894

tinytinygirl

Kinkerz

No, it probably won't. But the whole point of a discussion is to actually talk about it, rather than just stopping as soon as a difference of opinion arises.

I believe this thread has been going since 2007. That is not 'as soon'.

Reply 1895

Kinkerz

15

tinytinygirl

I believe this thread has been going since 2007. That is not 'as soon'.

So your post was in response to the entire thread?

I thought it was about this more recent discussion between a select few people.

Reply 1896

Giggsy's Girl

8

It's always the same people giving the same opinions over and over again. Meh.

I myself support abortion on demand. :yep:

I can't imagine anything less than absolute autonomy over my own body. It's such a personal issue, it doesn't matter how many academic quotes, statistics, numbers you throw at people, you can't expect anybody to suddenly change their minds about a topic as sensitive as this.

Reply 1897

NDGAARONDI

16

The only issue I have are those who claim ultimate bodily sovereignty but chuck it ouf the window when they see something they don't like, like illicit drug usage, consenting incest, consenting torture for sexual gratification etc. You can even whack off to cartoon child porn for all I care. Its illegality just creates another law that judges on comfortability with living each other, instead of really protecting the public.

Reply 1898

NDGAARONDI

16

ROTF

I believe that in certain circumstances abortion should be allowed. Think about it, if a woman was raped, and she knew that she couldn't love that baby properly, why have a baby only to give it 10% effort because you can't love it properly? Surely that baby is likey to grow up messed up, because they feel unloved, and cause more harm than good in the world.
The pros and cons must be weighed out.
Also, I think there is a point beyond which abortions should not take place.

That was the law before the 1967 Abortion Act anyway. Not sure why this issue gets so much currency, we don't even have figures, as far as I know, of how many pregnancies that result from such a vile situation.

Reply 1899

NDGAARONDI

16

Lord Hysteria

This all comes down to ONE question. What defines a human being?

1) You either think, like me, that a human being must have developed a brain (and therefore, have self-awareness) and, even more importantly, have the capacity to live independently from the mother. Therefore, a human being is defined the moment the umbilical cord has been cut and the baby has a life independently of the mother.

What is self-awareness? If it's based on development and being a satient being then I could easily use this argument advocated by pro-choice individuals for human vivisection. You know in certain areas in Brazil twins are judged not to be human and so get killed?

Abortion

Related discussions

Articles for you

How The Student Room is moderated