On the fence about abortion, and I have some moral questions for both sides
Scroll to see replies
Original post by minor bun engine
Right, so having a heartbeat, a characteristic of a human being, should prevent abortion from being allowed. Human DNA, a characteristic of a human being, should also prevent abortion from being allowed. You should, by your own requirements, be pro-life.
'Heartbeat' is not an exclusive characteristic of a human being though,insects also have heartbeats yet I dont see pro-life activits complaining about them being stepped on! As I said, DNA is found everywhere, your cells have DNA, insects have DNA, living things have DNA, how is it significant that something has a DNA?
You are seriously a lost case, stop quoting me, I will not read it. GOODBYE.
Original post by driftawaay
You have serious problems if you equate someone tripping over and fracturing their wrist accidentally to someone getting pregnant by having sex. Contrary to popular myth, people do not get 'accidentally' pregnant, as I said condoms are 99% effective yet the number of women having abortions is disproportionately high. If it was only responsible people who got pregnant totally accidentally because the condom/pill happened to not work, there would be no problem with having it funded by the government, however that is not the case at all, most people could avoid having to have an abortion but they are irresponsible. We cannot know whether someone got pregnant 'accidentally' or because they didnt use a condom at all therefore everyone has to pay. We do know that someone who fractured their wrist or broke their leg during exercise got injured accidentally and also, it is a HEALTH issue, if someone has a brain injury for example you cannot just let them die if they dont have money to pay for it, being pregnant is not a health issue, you are not going to die or have other physical deformities by getting pregnant.
If you get pregnant you have about a 1 in 1000 chance of dying as a result (source). Sounds like a pretty serious health issue to me.
And while it's true that fracturing a wrist isn't the same as getting pregnant, the point remains that it's very hard to put a line, especially when there is the fact that there will be people who did everything correctly and still ended up pregnant, and you are then punishing them for other people being irresponsible.
Original post by Rubgish
If you get pregnant you have about a 1 in 1000 chance of dying as a result (source). Sounds like a pretty serious health issue to me.
And while it's true that fracturing a wrist isn't the same as getting pregnant, the point remains that it's very hard to put a line, especially when there is the fact that there will be people who did everything correctly and still ended up pregnant, and you are then punishing them for other people being irresponsible.
And while it's true that fracturing a wrist isn't the same as getting pregnant, the point remains that it's very hard to put a line, especially when there is the fact that there will be people who did everything correctly and still ended up pregnant, and you are then punishing them for other people being irresponsible.
Lol what are you even talking about? If you step out on the street you also have a high chance of dying. Walking around town is not a serious health issue. Getting into a car is not a serious health issue. 'Getting pregnant' is not a serious health issue, until you have complications in which case you should be able to have an abortion for free if it endangers you since at that point it not a question of abortion, but a health concern that endangers you.
And as I said, since most people get pregnant by their own fault, we have to have everyne pay for their own abortons. If it was the other way around and people really only got pregnant accidentally we could have it the other way around but that is simply not the case at all. And free abortions would obviously increase the number of abortions since idiots would just think 'Oh its free I'll get ****ed then go and have an abortion in 3 weeks'. That would result in a huge number of abortions and an increasing amount of money we would need to spend on irresponsible people.
(edited 8 years ago)
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/whosebody/Default.aspx
This might help streamline a logical argument for and against it.
Personally I believe that it is only acceptable to have an abortion if the foetus is not sentient and could not survive out of the womb. Which ought to give the woman enough time to make her mind up one way or the other. It's not fair to force a mother to have a child. It's not fair to force a child to have unwilling parents. Choice is the best option.
This might help streamline a logical argument for and against it.
Personally I believe that it is only acceptable to have an abortion if the foetus is not sentient and could not survive out of the womb. Which ought to give the woman enough time to make her mind up one way or the other. It's not fair to force a mother to have a child. It's not fair to force a child to have unwilling parents. Choice is the best option.
Original post by driftawaay
'Heartbeat' is not an exclusive characteristic of a human being though,insects also have heartbeats yet I dont see pro-life activits complaining about them being stepped on! As I said, DNA is found everywhere, your cells have DNA, insects have DNA, living things have DNA, how is it significant that something has a DNA?
You are seriously a lost case, stop quoting me, I will not read it. GOODBYE.
You are seriously a lost case, stop quoting me, I will not read it. GOODBYE.
I suggest staying out of abortion debates, you don't seem to grasp the basic concepts you preach!
Original post by minor bun engine
I suggest staying out of abortion debates, you don't seem to grasp the basic concepts you preach!
Women like her honestly belief they should be able to have as much unprotected sex as they like and then have the government pay to murder the children from the union, its just insane psychopathic rambling, I wouldn't bother.
Original post by Tater
Women like her honestly belief they should be able to have as much unprotected sex as they like and then have the government pay to murder the children from the union, its just insane psychopathic rambling, I wouldn't bother.
If you had actually read any of my posts, you would have realized that I was saying that the abortion limit should be lowered from 24 weeks and I was telling off people for suggesting that the government should fund abortions. The only psychopathic rambling here is what you just said, you literally just accused me of saying the exact opposite of what I said. Learn to read English before you comment.
Also, I don't need to worry about having 'as much unprotected sex as I want' since I have never and will never have sex with men so I am not some whore who is advocating free abortions for myself whenever I want, as you just suggested.
I love when pro-life people reinforce how stupid they are.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by josh75
Its not an argument its a question, what is the moral distinction between terminating the life of a new born and a foetus
Really? Killing a newborn is murder. No-one disagrees with this. A foetus can't be 'killed', it can only be terminated as you said. Termination does not necessarily equal murder (depends who you're asking). There's your distinction.
If you are for abortion do you think its morally justifiable to have any limitations what so ever
Yes. In fact there are and have always been limitations. A woman can not abort without giving a reason. Two medical practitioners have to agree that she meets one of the five criteria for having an abortion (if you are not familiar with these look it up).
Now why do you think these limitations exist?
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?
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?
I think until the fetus is viable (to my memory at around 21 weeks) I believe it doesn't have any rights- if it can't survive on it's own then there is little point to having it as our systems are overburdened already. The only value it has is sentimental as it hasn't contributed to society yet, and for people who throw ''if Albert Einstein...'' arguments- stop. We wouldn't know a world w/o him as he existed, but if he had been aborted then we wouldn't.
I personally wouldn't abort unless the child's quality of life would be affected, they would become a burden or I could not keep the child in their best interests.
I guess as the mother has to carry the foetus for 9 months, then care for it until it's 18 and take care of the costs of it she has overall rights over the child. I'm not sure I understand the Q.
I'm on the fence about this one. I personally would never abort either regardless of what I ''wanted''- if it happens, then it happens. I wouldn't care either way if my child was gay/straight or a boy/girl because it is such a tiny aspect of their character.
However sometimes more boys/girls are needed- ie in China they aborted loads of girls and now there's something like 1 woman for every 9 men so they actually need more girls. I guess in that circumstance some would then abort the male fetuses, but it becomes a slippery slope when you start messing about with the population like that.
In my opinion, if someone is dead set against having a gay baby or a girl then they should have the right to abort. How could a gay/girl child ever be treated- would they have a decent/ good quality of life if a parent never wanted that particular child?
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?
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) a foetus isn't alive - so no
2) the mother doesn't decide the foetus' worth
3) well obviously one is less moral because it is discriminating against groups, whereas the other one isn't a matter of discrimination. it doesn't mean that these kinds of abortion ought to be banned though - morality isn't always a matter of criminal law. it's immoral to lie when it will hurt people, for example, but that doesn't mean that lying should be criminalised
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?
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?
I think you've also missed out an important question of conception by rape. This is the only instance I think abortion should be justified. Pill+condom is contraception enough. You can't have abortion too.
Original post by driftawaay
Imagine the amount of idiots who would start getting abortions because it isnt the 'perfect baby' they imagine, birth rate would significantly drop
Current abortion laws and contraception (alongside a more selfish society rather than a kinship society from the days of yore) has put the birth rate at an unsustainable 1.3 average in every country in Europe. We're already at your nightmare scenario.
Original post by Mister Morality
Current abortion laws and contraception (alongside a more selfish society rather than a kinship society from the days of yore) has put the birth rate at an unsustainable 1.3 average in every country in Europe. We're already at your nightmare scenario.
Okay Sherlock.
Original post by flamboy
1) a foetus isn't alive - so no
2) the mother doesn't decide the foetus' worth
3) well obviously one is less moral because it is discriminating against groups, whereas the other one isn't a matter of discrimination. it doesn't mean that these kinds of abortion ought to be banned though - morality isn't always a matter of criminal law. it's immoral to lie when it will hurt people, for example, but that doesn't mean that lying should be criminalised
2) the mother doesn't decide the foetus' worth
3) well obviously one is less moral because it is discriminating against groups, whereas the other one isn't a matter of discrimination. it doesn't mean that these kinds of abortion ought to be banned though - morality isn't always a matter of criminal law. it's immoral to lie when it will hurt people, for example, but that doesn't mean that lying should be criminalised
biology says a foetus is alive
well if she wants it then its immoral to have an abortion and if she doesn't its totally fine so she does, and my question is why does she have that right
not asking about the law im talking about morality, since your pro choice even though you wouldn't like it you would support people's choice in wanting to abort because they are don't want a gay child?
Original post by josh75
biology says a foetus is alive
well if she wants it then its immoral to have an abortion and if she doesn't its totally fine so she does, and my question is why does she have that right
not asking about the law im talking about morality, since your pro choice even though you wouldn't like it you would support people's choice in wanting to abort because they are don't want a gay child?
well if she wants it then its immoral to have an abortion and if she doesn't its totally fine so she does, and my question is why does she have that right
not asking about the law im talking about morality, since your pro choice even though you wouldn't like it you would support people's choice in wanting to abort because they are don't want a gay child?
what do you mean "alive"? flowers are alive. cells are alive. but are they alive in a human sense?
"why does she have that right?"? because an abortion isn't murder - it's the prevention of a pregnancy being continued - a foetus isn't alive, like I said
you're*
if a mother doesn't want a gay child then that's her choice because it's her body and she's going to have to endure huge pain to give birth for it - so it's entirely up to her
Original post by flamboy
what do you mean "alive"? flowers are alive. cells are alive. but are they alive in a human sense?
"why does she have that right?"? because an abortion isn't murder - it's the prevention of a pregnancy being continued - a foetus isn't alive, like I said
you're*
if a mother doesn't want a gay child then that's her choice because it's her body and she's going to have to endure huge pain to give birth for it - so it's entirely up to her
"why does she have that right?"? because an abortion isn't murder - it's the prevention of a pregnancy being continued - a foetus isn't alive, like I said
you're*
if a mother doesn't want a gay child then that's her choice because it's her body and she's going to have to endure huge pain to give birth for it - so it's entirely up to her
what f there was an organisation going around paying people to abort LGBT babies would you vote regulate abortion then ?
Original post by josh75
what f there was an organisation going around paying people to abort LGBT babies would you vote regulate abortion then ?
NO! stop asking the same question over and over again! people are free to do what they want with their bodies so long as they don't harm or damage others, and obviously foetuses aren't in this equation because they aren't living human beings
Original post by flamboy
NO! stop asking the same question over and over again! people are free to do what they want with their bodies so long as they don't harm or damage others, and obviously foetuses aren't in this equation because they aren't living human beings
im just testing to see if you keep constant
Original post by josh75
im just testing to see if you keep constant
From what I've read so far I do think you've been disingenuous with the thread title. You're not on the fence about abortion; you're very staunchly pro-life, hence your constant 'what if' scenarios trying to find something which will allow you to pretend that you've legitimately weighed the arguments and arrived at a pro-life position.
Original post by minor bun engine
You can't start putting arbitrary restrictions on the reasoning for getting an abortion. This is where your views start to get murky and contradictory. If a fetus really just is a collection of cells with no claim to being called a human being, people should be able to abort for any reason at all. They shouldn't have to carry a fetus to term that they don't want to raise, period, even if their reasoning for doing so is bigoted in most peoples' view.
I agree that in practice you can't put restrictions on people's motives for getting abortions. But from a moral point of view you can say that in general, abortion is moral, but too much of one type of abortion (e.g. Abortion of females) might lead to population problems.
Quick Reply
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 ?
