On the fence about abortion, and I have some moral questions for both sides

Watch
Ragman75
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
1. Does a foetus have any rights or value?
2. On what moral grounds does the mother alone decide a foetus's worth?
3. In instances like a woman aborting a girl because she wanted a boy, or aborting a gay baby because she wanted a straight one is this any less moral that aborting a child simply because you didn't want one, and if so would you ban it?
0
reply
Ed's Balls
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
I've never heard of foetuses being screened as gay before :rofl:
0
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by Ed's Balls)
I've never heard of foetuses being screened as gay before :rofl:
its hypothetical question, just assume we are at the stage when we can predict it
0
reply
minor bun engine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
From a pro-choice standpoint:

1) No, since it isn't considered an independent human being until it is viable and can survive independently of its mother's womb. After this point, yes it would have rights.
2) Because up until the point of viability, the fetus is considered a part of the mother's body.
3) I think it would be very hypocritical of a pro-choicer to condemn or attempt to restrict abortion when it is done based on characteristics. The fetus is either just a collection of cells, in which case it can be aborted for any reason whatsoever, or it is an individual person with rights, in which case it cannot. Permitting or restricting abortion based on the personal reasoning behind the mother's choices, completely contradicts all the arguments that pro-choicers make in terms of justifying abortion. You may question the character of a person who aborts a baby because it's a girl, or because its gay, but that wouldn't justify banning them from doing so.
1
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by minor bun engine)
From a pro-choice standpoint:

1) No, since it isn't considered an independent human being until it is viable and can survive independently of its mother's womb. After this point, yes it would have rights.
2) Because up until the point of viability, the fetus is considered a part of the mother's body.
3) I think it would be very hypocritical of a pro-choicer to condemn or attempt to restrict abortion when it is done based on characteristics. The fetus is either just a collection of cells, in which case it can be aborted for any reason whatsoever, or it is an individual person with rights, in which case it cannot. Permitting or restricting abortion based on the personal reasoning behind the mother's choices, completely contradicts all the arguments that pro-choicers make in terms of justifying abortion. You may question the character of a person who aborts a baby because it's a girl, or because its gay, but that wouldn't justify banning them from doing so.
But animals aren't humans and we cant kill them whenever we want to

But the foetus isn't apart of the mothers body, it is inside it

So you would be completely ok with a religious family aborting a child that could be gay?
0
reply
Nadja92
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by josh75)
But animals aren't humans and we cant kill them whenever we want to

But the foetus isn't apart of the mothers body, it is inside it

So you would be completely ok with a religious family aborting a child that could be gay?
The foetus is a part of the mother, they are connected.

What religious group is pro abortion but is homophobic?
0
reply
minor bun engine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by josh75)
But animals aren't humans and we cant kill them whenever we want to

But the foetus isn't apart of the mothers body, it is inside it

So you would be completely ok with a religious family aborting a child that could be gay?
It's not a question of human life or animal life, it's a question of independent life versus being a part of the mother's body. At that stage, by all reasonable definitions in my view, it is a part of the mother's body and would be nothing whatsoever without its mother's body, hence giving the choice to the woman. Only when it can actually survive as an independent organism can it be afforded the same rights that a human being would.

I would certainly take issue with them, but not because of the abortion itself, but because of their bigoted views of gay people. So I would not ban them from getting the abortion in such a case, but I obviously would not approve of their reasons for getting it. I think some pro-choice people would suggest it be banned, but that would imply they view the fetus in such a case as a person, which contradicts their position. It either is a person, or it isn't.
0
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by Nadja92)
The foetus is a part of the mother, they are connected.

What religious group is pro abortion but is homophobic?
so does that mean a surrogate has the right to abort a another couples foetus, also does that mean if i remove your finger and surgically attach it to me is it mine?

I think its more about life and less about the homosexuality, so would you be in favour of giving people the option to abort gay, transgender or female babies?
0
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by minor bun engine)
It's not a question of human life or animal life, it's a question of independent life versus being a part of the mother's body. At that stage, by all reasonable definitions in my view, it is a part of the mother's body and would be nothing whatsoever without its mother's body, hence giving the choice to the woman. Only when it can actually survive as an independent organism can it be afforded the same rights that a human being would.

I would certainly take issue with them, but not because of the abortion itself, but because of their bigoted views of gay people. So I would not ban them from getting the abortion in such a case, but I obviously would not approve of their reasons for getting it. I think some pro-choice people would suggest it be banned, but that would imply they view the fetus in such a case as a person, which contradicts their position. It either is a person, or it isn't.
So your argument is even though a foetus is still human life because they are connected by flesh to the mother the right to life of the foetus is superseded by the mothers choice?

Fair enough
0
reply
troubadour.
Badges: 18
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by josh75)
so does that mean a surrogate has the right to abort a another couples foetus, also does that mean if i remove your finger and surgically attach it to me is it mine?

I think its more about life and less about the homosexuality, so would you be in favour of giving people the option to abort gay, transgender or female babies?
I think the point is that, until the point of viability (which I think should be lowered slightly to maybe 22 weeks since there have been some instances of babies being born just under 24 weeks and surviving), the foetus is, to put it crudely, little more than a parasite and, as such, is as liable to be evicted as any other parasite.

Although you've aimed the question at somebody else, yes, I would. If it was me personally who had to make the decision, I wouldn't abort on any of those grounds but I think a lot of pro-choice people I know seem unable to take the pro-choice view to its full logical conclusion when they say that a woman has the right to decide what happens to her body but only in circumstances x, y, and z. If she has the right, and I think she does, then she has the right to do it for whatever reason, whether anybody approves or not.

Sorry for hijacking your conversation. xD Just feel strongly about it.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by minor bun engine)
3) I think it would be very hypocritical of a pro-choicer to condemn or attempt to restrict abortion when it is done based on characteristics. The fetus is either just a collection of cells, in which case it can be aborted for any reason whatsoever, or it is an individual person with rights, in which case it cannot. Permitting or restricting abortion based on the personal reasoning behind the mother's choices, completely contradicts all the arguments that pro-choicers make in terms of justifying abortion. You may question the character of a person who aborts a baby because it's a girl, or because its gay, but that wouldn't justify banning them from doing so.
Perhaps a pro-choicer would condemn selective abortion, not because they think it is a violation of anybody's rights or morally wrong on a fundamental level, but rather because of the potential impact it might have upon society. For example in India, gender selective abortion is banned in order to avoid a huge gender imbalance in society, because as a result of cultural factors, many people prefer to have sons rather than daughters.
0
reply
Imperion
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by josh75)
1. Does a foetus have any rights or value?
2. On what moral grounds does the mother alone decide a foetus's worth?
3. In instances like a woman aborting a girl because she wanted a boy, or aborting a gay baby because she wanted a straight one is this any less moral that aborting a child simply because you didn't want one, and if so would you ban it?
1. I don't see why something that hasn't been brought into the world yet should have a right.... value.. to the parent?
2. She's nursing the foetus in her womb. She does have the right. The father can have a say too.
3. WTF how would you know a child's sexual orientation before they're born? Well, aborting because of the gender is shifty, I wouldn't ban it.
0
reply
Rubgish
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
I think that you can remain pro-choice and still condemn people for aborting for what would (generally) be considered unethical reasons, e.g. gender, sexuality, eye colour etc.

What I definitely think you can say, is that you can be pro-choice, but be against any kind of test on a foetus that is for a non-health concern. E.g. I don't think you should be able to test for sexuality, hair colour, eye colour etc within the time period where abortion is legal.
1
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by Imperion)
1. I don't see why something that hasn't been brought into the world yet should have a right.... value.. to the parent?
2. She's nursing the foetus in her womb. She does have the right. The father can have a say too.
3. WTF how would you know a child's sexual orientation before they're born? Well, aborting because of the gender is shifty, I wouldn't ban it.
but a foetus is human life, and even if its not a full developed human all complex life on this planet has rights why is it that foetus does not

so you think its moral that a beings right to life can be taken away when it is dependant on something else?

Lets say you have siamease twins and one didn't develop a mouth so it is reliant on the other to consume food, would you consider it murder if the more developed one got the less developed one removed and killed?
0
reply
Imperion
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by josh75)
but a foetus is human life, and even if its not a full developed human all complex life on this planet has rights why is it that foetus does not

so you think its moral that a beings right to life can be taken away when it is dependant on something else?

Lets say you have siamease twins and one didn't develop a mouth so it is reliant on the other to consume food, would you consider it murder if the more developed one got the less developed one removed and killed?
Tell that to the animals being slaughtered right now.

:lol: I'm not the most moral person out there but yes, especially if they're significantly connected.

Not really. I'd have saved them loads of mistreatment, prejudice and sadness.
0
reply
xylas
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by josh75)
x
You say "all complex life on this planet has rights" but that is what this whole issue is about, whether a foetus can be defined as complex life.

On another note animals do not have a 'right to life' - we kill them for slaughter and we put down horses when they are no longer fit to race, to name a few examples...
0
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Imperion)
Tell that to the animals being slaughtered right now.

:lol: I'm not the most moral person out there but yes, especially if they're significantly connected.

Not really. I'd have saved them loads of mistreatment, prejudice and sadness.
you didn't answer the first point

are you saying that the pro choice side isn't the moral side to this argument ?
0
reply
xylas
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by Imperion)
Tell that to the animals being slaughtered right now.
Haha you beat me to it
0
reply
Imperion
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by josh75)
you didn't answer the first point

are you saying that the pro choice side isn't the moral side to this argument ?
Oh, I did. You chose to ignore it but here, I'll clarify. You say all complex life has rights, no? Well, are you telling me the animals slaughtered everyday have rights? My point is; not all complex life has rights. And won't ever.

NGL, I have no clue what pro choice is.
(Original post by xylas)
Haha you beat me to it
:laugh:
0
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by xylas)
You say "all complex life on this planet has rights" but that is what this whole issue is about, whether a foetus can be defined as complex life.

On another note animals do not have a 'right to life' - we kill them for slaughter and we put down horses when they are no longer fit to race, to name a few examples...
well science defines it at conception but i personally am torn because the day after pill is not the same as an abortion or the killing of a baby so my question is where do you make the distinction and what basis do you have for it.

but we have laws against animal cruelty and they cant kill the animals in anyway they want
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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

Have you experienced financial difficulties as a student due to Covid-19?

Yes, I have really struggled financially (12)
12.9%
I have experienced some financial difficulties (21)
22.58%
I haven't experienced any financial difficulties and things have stayed the same (41)
44.09%
I have had better financial opportunities as a result of the pandemic (16)
17.2%
I've had another experience (let us know in the thread!) (3)
3.23%

Watched Threads

View All