Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why is it people think abortion is woman's issue? Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig1998)
    I'm not arguing whether the foetus growing inside the woman is living or not, yes it is living but it's a speck of existence which isn't really worth fighting over.

    What I feel more strongly about is how people who are 'pro-life' believe it is their choice as to whether a woman has an abortion or not. The final choice should be with the woman (and possibly her partner) as they are the ones whose life it would be affecting. The thing that annoys me a lot is how people who claim to be 'pro-life' in America start killing people at abortion centres because they work there. Russell Howard made a point about the fact that if they're so 'pro-life', why do they want to get rid of people's lives.

    It feels like a non-issue and it does not make sense to me how it has become one. Atleast most people are happy to allow the woman to have the abortion if she's raped, at risk of injury to herself or if her child will have an issue (e.g. Down's syndrome).


    No actually I don't believe it's my choice whether she has an abortion or not. I think it's the child's choice. A child unborn or born should have a right o say when it wants to leave this world or not when it's old enough to decide. I am a firm believer in suicide for mentally competent individuals. And you're basically saying people should be killed due to being handicapped. That's eugenics my dear. Same with situations with child who have fathers who are rapists. That doesn't mean they should be killed for their father's crime. That's why people came to this country to not be judged by what or who their father was. I wouldn't start running from that foundation now. But you're probably British so that might sound all right to you to be judgmental of other people due to who their father is or because they're handicap. I have no clue what our country was founded on.


    I'm not one of those people but I do believe in the death penalty. I think it's a good idea we don't pay for people to rot in prison all their life when their victim didn't get that chance. A baby is not a criminal nor an animal or anything not worth fighting for. It never did anything wrong. And I think it's disgusting people act like killing a baby is no big deal which you basically just admitted to saying.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig1998)
    I'm not arguing whether the foetus growing inside the woman is living or not, yes it is living but it's a speck of existence which isn't really worth fighting over.
    Think about what you're saying here.

    The foetus is living.

    The foetus is neither the mother nor the father. It's something new because it has new genes. But those genes are also human genes.


    It lives. It has human genes. It is unique.

    It is a human being.


    There's really no biological alternative. You're right it is a "speck" at the start, but humanity isn't defined by size. A baby looks very different to an elderly person, they're just different stages of being human.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't consider it women's issues too. What if the father wants to father his kid growing in the mother's womb and the "mother" decides to get an abortion?
    I think men should at least have some say in it. Majority of abortions are made by irresponsible women. The mother doesn't have to raise the kid. I do not understand what is so selfless ,merciful, and brave about a woman opening her legs and letting a doctor pull the unborn developing baby out piece by piece instead of carrying the baby full term and putting him/her for adoption. Just sayin.

    I did not understand why some people act like they can see the future, so automatically foster kids will have bad lives!
    AKA radical pro-choicers who think anyone who doesn't like abortion is a misogynist, women hater, and hates freedom.
    Abortion is the best choice instead of giving the unborn child an opportunity, the chance to breathe , walk the earth , and possibility of having a good life! Now, unborn kid can't have a chance, if ya know, they're not born yet.

    These merciful souls. They care more about unborn kids than these "evil", "fascist", and "religious", "controlling" pro-lifers who think unborn children should at least form long enough in the womb to see sunlight and breathe air. Ya know, be alive.

    Pro lifers are against abortion, they're not physically preventing women from getting abortion.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anon993)
    Neither are you sentient under anesthesia. Should the doctors have the right to kill you when you're under?
    Your reasoning is idiotic tbh, but I'm sure you know this as it wasn't difficult to understand what I meant by sentient. Nevertheless I give you that sentient is perhaps not entirely the right word as foetuses in late stages of development can perceive. They can hear what's going on outside the womb etc. The real issue here is what makes a life valuable and when an embryo can be considered "alive" - at what point do they become human? I don't think that a heart rate and ability to move constitutes it being human. In my opinion, it cannot be human until it is able to perform more sophisticated cognitive functions such as the ability to reason and communicate.


    No it is not her own body by fact and by law. She does not have two heart beats and her dna is specifically different. That is not her body. She is taking ownership due to convenience and disowning it when it comes from rape. Your rhetoric never makes sense because it goes from her body to a rapist's baby. ...
    I didn't say that the embryo was the woman's body... a pregnant woman does not take ownership because of convenience. I'm not sure how convenience comes into it; you're making me think you're a troll. I also cannot make any sense of your last sentence.

    What I think about it? It's equivalent to what the Nazis claimed with the jews.
    Why?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IFoundWonderland)
    it cannot be human until it is able to perform more sophisticated cognitive functions such as the ability to reason and communicate.
    Babies don't develop this for a looooooooooong time.


    In your excitement to write off all babies in the womb as non-human, you've pretty much written off all children under 1 as "not human."

    I think your point highlights that it is extremely difficult even as a pro-choicer to define exactly when life begins. So my question to is...why take that risk? If there's even a 10% chance that you're murdering an innocent child in there, it's not worth taking.

    SS
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Honestly I believe that women should be encouraged to have abortions if they aren't in the right mental, fiscal and prepared state to raise a child. As much as many pro-life activists talk about adoption, it's a very difficult and expensive process. There's also a narrow window of opportunity for adoption, the chances of being adopted shrink rapidly after age 5. Without that family background it leaves a lot of children at a disadvantage and the care system is oversubscribed and flawed as it stands currently. As a nation we are overpopulated, there are too many children. We can see this in primary schools that are overcrowded with the problem increasing year on year.

    Ultimately I believe that a child shouldn't be born if it's parents don't want it. A woman shouldn't be forced to carry a parastitic organism if she doesn't want to. A foetus is a parasitic organism, it lives off of the nutrients and oxygen in the mother's blood. Without the host/mother it wouldn't survive. It can only after developing to a certain point. This point is where I consider it a baby; if it can survive outside of the womb.

    Definition of parasite in English:noun - An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense.An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense.

    Pregnancy is a personal thing. Every pregnancy for every woman is different. It's not just "irresponsible" women either, accidents happen, condoms break and the pill isn't 100% guaranteed.Also some people aren't fit to be parents, they can't deal with a baby and it's needs. Their mental and physical health may be impacted and it isn't fair to inflict that damage when it could be dealt with. Rape victims and ectopic pregnancies for example.
    You may think me cruel and horrible but I believe that the mother is more important than a foetus. She has to live with the decision for the rest of her life and she can become pregnant again and give birth when she's ready.

    This is my opinion. Bottom line, we shouldn't be telling women what to do with their bodies. It's their body, it should be their choice whether they undergo pregnancy. To me bringing a child into this world is a serious matter, and the parents need to be prepared and if that means aborting a pregnancy and waiting until they are in a physically, mentally and financially stable position, I can't see why that's a bad thing. This is my opinion after all. You don't have to agree.

    I pose these questions to pro-life suporters;
    Why force women into bringing a child into the world if it's just going to go into care for it's entire child hood?
    Many women if forced to carry a child they don't want may likely do this. I've seen many pro-life campaigns that care that a child is born and it's "life" isn't taken but they don't say about what happens after. Do they really expect a woman having been forced to give birth to a child they don't want to then rear it unwillingly? In that situation realistically I think that woman would put that child into care or give it to someone else. In terms of the UK population; that's a **** ton of children uncared for.

    What do you feel should happen to the surge of unwanted children brought into the world?
    Adoption rates aren't as high as people think, in the year ending March 2015 only 5,330 children were actually adopted from care. That's out of the 69,540 children in care during that year. That's 0.07% of children in care in the UK last year.

    This is my main problem with the pro-life argument, the quality of life that the child will have isn't talked about. I have never had a conversation about this topic or read an article where the pro-life person/party has talked about supporting the mother and child afterwards or what would happen to the child. I want to know your opinions on this because this all costs time and money on the NHS and I doubt that the funding is there to support these women and their unwanted children.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...glish/parasite
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33094304
    http://corambaaf.org.uk/res/statengland#pc
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anon993)
    No actually I don't believe it's my choice whether she has an abortion or not. I think it's the child's choice. A child unborn or born should have a right o say when it wants to leave this world or not when it's old enough to decide. I am a firm believer in suicide for mentally competent individuals. And you're basically saying people should be killed due to being handicapped. That's eugenics my dear. Same with situations with child who have fathers who are rapists. That doesn't mean they should be killed for their father's crime. That's why people came to this country to not be judged by what or who their father was. I wouldn't start running from that foundation now. But you're probably British so that might sound all right to you to be judgmental of other people due to who their father is or because they're handicap. I have no clue what our country was founded on.
    Yes but it has been shown the child is unlikely to feel pain until the 7th month of pregnancy as the part of the brain that deals with pain does not function until that time. Also, on eugenics, it would be fairer on the child to have no life than to have a life of difficulty and illness, it's just plainly not fair on them or the parent if an abortion could have ended their life early on. With rapists, the woman may not have any desire to have a baby, she may be too old, too young or unfit medically, she may not want to have a baby and there has been shown to be a genetic link between crime and genetics, which could pass criminal genes onto the child, something which the mother would clearly not want.

    The question I'm posing is what do you suggest instead of abortion? Do you want the child to be born into a world where it isn't strictly wanted because the parents wanted to abort it? Surely it would just go into foster care, be left abandoned or even killed. 'Pro-lifers' really need to consider the big picture here as to what would happen if no abortion occured. Female rape victims would have to raise a possibly criminal child, a child may be deformed or have a serious genetic abnormality which requires much more care and need (and will probably be unable to get a good job/settle down), and the parent may die if she does not have a safer abortion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Macy1998)
    I don't consider it women's issues too. What if the father wants to father his kid growing in the mother's womb and the "mother" decides to get an abortion?
    I think men should at least have some say in it. Majority of abortions are made by irresponsible women. The mother doesn't have to raise the kid. I do not understand what is so selfless ,merciful, and brave about a woman opening her legs and letting a doctor pull the unborn developing baby out piece by piece instead of carrying the baby full term and putting him/her for adoption. Just sayin.

    I did not understand why some people act like they can see the future, so automatically foster kids will have bad lives!
    AKA radical pro-choicers who think anyone who doesn't like abortion is a misogynist, women hater, and hates freedom.
    Abortion is the best choice instead of giving the unborn child an opportunity, the chance to breathe , walk the earth , and possibility of having a good life! Now, unborn kid can't have a chance, if ya know, they're not born yet.

    These merciful souls. They care more about unborn kids than these "evil", "fascist", and "religious", "controlling" pro-lifers who think unborn children should at least form long enough in the womb to see sunlight and breathe air. Ya know, be alive.

    Pro lifers are against abortion, they're not physically preventing women from getting abortion.
    To me why would anyone be so "concerned" with someone else's life when they don't have to live it? And somehow come up with the conclusion to kill it? Like that makes no logical sense. You care so much about someone that you want to kill them?!

    It's a nonsensical smokescreen antichoicers come up with to downsize someone else's life so theirs seems more valuable and therefore justified. It's disgusting imo. And so obvious. I mean what annoys me more is saying I am for abortion and ignore what it sincerely does. I could respect someone saying it's murder and I support it. And everything else it is. But don't sit and pretend it isn't what it is.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IFoundWonderland)
    Your reasoning is idiotic tbh, but I'm sure you know this as it wasn't difficult to understand what I meant by sentient. Nevertheless I give you that sentient is perhaps not entirely the right word as foetuses in late stages of development can perceive. They can hear what's going on outside the womb etc. The real issue here is what makes a life valuable and when an embryo can be considered "alive" - at what point do they become human? I don't think that a heart rate and ability to move constitutes it being human. In my opinion, it cannot be human until it is able to perform more sophisticated cognitive functions such as the ability to reason and communicate.



    I didn't say that the embryo was the woman's body... a pregnant woman does not take ownership because of convenience. I'm not sure how convenience comes into it; you're making me think you're a troll. I also cannot make any sense of your last sentence.


    Why?
    You're upset lol that I destroyed one of your arguments. So you resort to name calling. Which isn't a great way to debate. It proves I'm right thank you.


    I don't care what you think is human life. That is inconsequential. Like I said she doesn't have two hearts it's not her body and it's not her life. A heartbeat is what drs look for signs of life even in embryos. You my dear are not a doctor. You could by your logic support killing the mentally disabled probably easily. And that shows how disgusting your philosophy appears to be as you are trying to support why it is ok to kill a baby.


    The antichoice (your philosophy) does switch due to convenience generally speaking.

    And we all know about how the Nazis compared the jews to the rats. Same thing you are doing. We all know how black Americans were treated during slavery like animals. You are on the their level. That's the same argument just against some other disenfranchised people. You're no different.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    Babies don't develop this for a looooooooooong time.


    In your excitement to write off all babies in the womb as non-human, you've pretty much written off all children under 1 as "not human."

    I think your point highlights that it is extremely difficult even as a pro-choicer to define exactly when life begins. So my question to is...why take that risk? If there's even a 10% chance that you're murdering an innocent child in there, it's not worth taking.

    SS
    Well yeah for prochoicers their next step is premies and infants. There's no surprise that some support killing babies as that's what they already support.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Are you religious by any chance OP?

    The flaw in your argument is you class a zygote as a life, I don't agree with late term abortions but in the first few weeks it is hardly something I can sympathise with.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anon993)
    But then again I kind of feel like it makes sense who supports it because the same people who support abortion usually support keeping murderers alive. It's so obvious their main agenda is promurderers in general. Don't get me wrong though I agree with gay marriage but hardly anything else is good coming from that end and it all falls in line. Embrace criminals embrace drugs embrace child abusers and destroy the innocent.
    HAHAHAHAHAHA.

    I love the way your argument went pro-choice = loving murderers to apparently nothing good comes from gay people to yay child abuse and drugs. I'm not sure whether you're linking this to gay people but your argument makes so huge illogical leaps it's just comical.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Look I don't really know or care how it is in your country. But adoption over is free. The family pays all the expenses. And there's no narrow window of when you can place for adoption. There was a problem actually with this because people were going en masse to drop their kids off who were in their teens. It's been down to an earlier age but no one is forced to keep their kid. And overcrowding? In America there is overcrowding but not from American children. Nor is our foster care system overcrowded. And secondly what do you think you are talking about? Puppies or rats? You're talking about this like you have an infestation and are treating human life like something that should exterminated.


    And no it isn't a parasite. It doesn't live off of her. It lives off her environment. It does not consume her. It is is as much of a parasite as she is as she is ingesting and living off the same things as the embryo does she is a parasite of her environment and is on the same level as her child. They are two human lives.


    Yeah because you only think about one life. I think about both because I believe in equality and you believe in taking other people's rights to make other people comfortable. You say she can have more children let's ignore the child that was just murdered.


    Like I said that's incorrect. It's not her body. She does not have two hearts and it's not her dna and it's not her body nor does it live off her body. And scientifically you are just that dead wrong. You have nothing to back your claim up when you say it's her body. You just make stuff and hope it flies. Why not just say you support murder and end it? Why try to hide from your own beliefs?


    And see this is what I mean why are you so judgmental of someone else's life? It's not your life to judge. No one should be murdered simply because you don't like the life that they are living. It's their life not yours. I don't judge anyone's life. And I am not against adoption. I think that is the parent's choice. And I also don't live in the UK.That's my answer. Now answer my questions please and thank you. Also while you're at it why are you so judgmental of someone's life that you think they don't deserve to live simply because you think their life isn't worth living? Why are you so judgmental?

    (Original post by NekoAngel13)
    Honestly I believe that women should be encouraged to have abortions if they aren't in the right mental, fiscal and prepared state to raise a child. As much as many pro-life activists talk about adoption, it's a very difficult and expensive process. There's also a narrow window of opportunity for adoption, the chances of being adopted shrink rapidly after age 5. Without that family background it leaves a lot of children at a disadvantage and the care system is oversubscribed and flawed as it stands currently. As a nation we are overpopulated, there are too many children. We can see this in primary schools that are overcrowded with the problem increasing year on year.

    Ultimately I believe that a child shouldn't be born if it's parents don't want it. A woman shouldn't be forced to carry a parastitic organism if she doesn't want to. A foetus is a parasitic organism, it lives off of the nutrients and oxygen in the mother's blood. Without the host/mother it wouldn't survive. It can only after developing to a certain point. This point is where I consider it a baby; if it can survive outside of the womb.

    Definition of parasite in English:noun - An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense.An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense.

    Pregnancy is a personal thing. Every pregnancy for every woman is different. It's not just "irresponsible" women either, accidents happen, condoms break and the pill isn't 100% guaranteed.Also some people aren't fit to be parents, they can't deal with a baby and it's needs. Their mental and physical health may be impacted and it isn't fair to inflict that damage when it could be dealt with. Rape victims and ectopic pregnancies for example.
    You may think me cruel and horrible but I believe that the mother is more important than a foetus. She has to live with the decision for the rest of her life and she can become pregnant again and give birth when she's ready.

    This is my opinion. Bottom line, we shouldn't be telling women what to do with their bodies. It's their body, it should be their choice whether they undergo pregnancy. To me bringing a child into this world is a serious matter, and the parents need to be prepared and if that means aborting a pregnancy and waiting until they are in a physically, mentally and financially stable position, I can't see why that's a bad thing. This is my opinion after all. You don't have to agree.

    I pose these questions to pro-life suporters;
    Why force women into bringing a child into the world if it's just going to go into care for it's entire child hood?
    Many women if forced to carry a child they don't want may likely do this. I've seen many pro-life campaigns that care that a child is born and it's "life" isn't taken but they don't say about what happens after. Do they really expect a woman having been forced to give birth to a child they don't want to then rear it unwillingly? In that situation realistically I think that woman would put that child into care or give it to someone else. In terms of the UK population; that's a **** ton of children uncared for.

    What do you feel should happen to the surge of unwanted children brought into the world?
    Adoption rates aren't as high as people think, in the year ending March 2015 only 5,330 children were actually adopted from care. That's out of the 69,540 children in care during that year. That's 0.07% of children in care in the UK last year.

    This is my main problem with the pro-life argument, the quality of life that the child will have isn't talked about. I have never had a conversation about this topic or read an article where the pro-life person/party has talked about supporting the mother and child afterwards or what would happen to the child. I want to know your opinions on this because this all costs time and money on the NHS and I doubt that the funding is there to support these women and their unwanted children.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...glish/parasite
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33094304
    http://corambaaf.org.uk/res/statengland#pc
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I completely agree with the 2 above posts (craig and nekoangel's), the problem is very often the pro-life side of the argument is so blinded by its obsession of the right to life of an unborn foetus (that let's not forget is so undeveloped it can't even process pain) that it completely disregards the bigger picture, whether it be the childhood of an unwanted baby or the health and wellbeing of the mother as well. And it should go without saying that a rape victim absolutely should not be denied an abortion where available, there was a story a while back of an extremely young teen rape victim in South America I think it was that had been denied an abortion and had been forced to keep the baby and I found it baffling and cruel, how does it make sense to deny a woman an abortion in such a situation when the baby is so unwanted, it helps neither the mother, probably still traumatised by the whole experience and now having to face bringing up and unplanned and unwanted child which would no doubt have a massive impact on her life, nor the baby being born to a mother who didn't want it or placed into the care system. In a situation like that, how can you say abortion is wrong when not having the choice causes so much damage for all parties?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by supernerdural)
    HAHAHAHAHAHA.

    I love the way your argument went pro-choice = loving murderers to apparently nothing good comes from gay people to yay child abuse and drugs. I'm not sure whether you're linking this to gay people but your argument makes so huge illogical leaps it's just comical.
    No I support gay marriage. And this plus the last post you made explains why you can't make a logical argument for anything.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Anon993)
    And you're basically saying people should be killed due to being handicapped. That's eugenics my dear.
    I do believe in the death penalty.
    A baby is not [...] an animal
    I think it's disgusting people act like killing a baby is no big deal which you basically just admitted to saying.
    You have little to no idea of what you're talking about and seem to be pro-life for no other reason than blind emotion.

    Eugenics is controlled breeding within a population to increase the prevalence of 'desirable' heritable traits in that population; there's no killing involved, unless you're going to pretend, as people who don't know anything about eugenics often do, that the Nazis practised eugenics.

    Your view of the death penalty, taken together with your explanation for why you hold this view, suggests that you've never actually read any of the arguments against your position and are quite misinformed about the supposed advantages that it has over imprisonment as a form of punishment.

    A human baby is an animal, as are all humans.

    Assuming you're talking about abortion in civilised countries in particular, it's quite foolish to suggest that ''killing a baby' is legal anywhere. A zygote, or an embryo, or a foetus are not, in the most common sense of the word, the same as a baby. People might colloquially refer to their unborn child as a baby regardless of the stage of development it's at, but that sort of sloppiness won't do in a serious debate about abortion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dinasaurus)
    Are you religious by any chance OP?

    The flaw in your argument is you class a zygote as a life, I don't agree with late term abortions but in the first few weeks it is hardly something I can sympathise with.
    no I am not.

    But scientifically speaking it is life. You saying it isn't means nothing since you can not prove it. It's a human life. It has a heartbeat and its own dna. YDehumanizing someone who is already human only looks bad on you. It just does.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig1998)
    Yes but it has been shown the child is unlikely to feel pain until the 7th month of pregnancy as the part of the brain that deals with pain does not function until that time. Also, on eugenics, it would be fairer on the child to have no life than to have a life of difficulty and illness, it's just plainly not fair on them or the parent if an abortion could have ended their life early on. With rapists, the woman may not have any desire to have a baby, she may be too old, too young or unfit medically, she may not want to have a baby and there has been shown to be a genetic link between crime and genetics, which could pass criminal genes onto the child, something which the mother would clearly not want.

    The question I'm posing is what do you suggest instead of abortion? Do you want the child to be born into a world where it isn't strictly wanted because the parents wanted to abort it? Surely it would just go into foster care, be left abandoned or even killed. 'Pro-lifers' really need to consider the big picture here as to what would happen if no abortion occured. Female rape victims would have to raise a possibly criminal child, a child may be deformed or have a serious genetic abnormality which requires much more care and need (and will probably be unable to get a good job/settle down), and the parent may die if she does not have a safer abortion.
    When you're under anesthesia you can't feel pain either.

    Yup against I'm going to ask why are you so judgmental of someone's life that you think they deserve to die. Simply because you thought their life wasn't worth living? Seriously that's very psychopathic. So obviously you're not too concerned about criminal traits because you have them yourself. So should your mom have aborted you knowing that you'd have these traits? And on another topic. All you talk about is she she she. You never even take oone thought to think there are TWO lives who deserves rights not just one. I believe in equality. And I don't think one person should have their rights taken just so someone else can benefit. This is exactly what happened with slavery. Black people's rights were taken so white people could benefit. But considering you have said you support eugenics you probably agree with that too don't you?

    I answered all of your questions. And adoption is not foster care. In America our foster care system in some states is highly overcrowded with foreign children. So it's not a problem of abortion it's a problem of borders.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anon993)
    You're upset lol that I destroyed one of your arguments. So you resort to name calling. Which isn't a great way to debate. It proves I'm right thank you.


    I don't care what you think is human life. That is inconsequential. Like I said she doesn't have two hearts it's not her body and it's not her life. A heartbeat is what drs look for signs of life even in embryos. You my dear are not a doctor. You could by your logic support killing the mentally disabled probably easily. And that shows how disgusting your philosophy appears to be as you are trying to support why it is ok to kill a baby.


    The antichoice (your philosophy) does switch due to convenience generally speaking.

    And we all know about how the Nazis compared the jews to the rats. Same thing you are doing. We all know how black Americans were treated during slavery like animals. You are on the their level. That's the same argument just against some other disenfranchised people. You're no different.
    You criticise them for name-calling and then proceed to effectively call her a Nazi, that's a bit hypocritical! Such an bafflingly absurd accusation to accuse someone pro-abortion to the Nazis murdering Jews, so ridiculous I'm having a hard time believing you're not just taking the piss here. There's a big difference you've ignored, the groups you mention there were all developed human beings, capable of experiencing pain, suffering and hardship, whereas here we're talking about living organisms that too undeveloped to experience any of those, that's the key difference here.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    You have little to no idea of what you're talking about and seem to be pro-life for no other reason than blind emotion.

    Eugenics is controlled breeding within a population to increase the prevalence of 'desirable' heritable traits in that population; there's no killing involved, unless you're going to pretend, as people who don't know anything about eugenics often do, that the Nazis practised eugenics.

    Your view of the death penalty, taken together with your explanation for why you hold this view, suggests that you've never actually read any of the arguments against your position and are quite misinformed about the supposed advantages that it has over imprisonment as a form of punishment.

    A human baby is an animal, as are all humans.

    Assuming you're talking about abortion in civilised countries in particular, it's quite foolish to suggest that ''killing a baby' is legal anywhere. A zygote, or an embryo, or a foetus are not, in the most common sense of the word, the same as a baby. People might colloquially refer to their unborn child as a baby regardless of the stage of development it's at, but that sort of sloppiness won't do in a serious debate about abortion.

    No I am prolife due to facts which is the reason your fellow antichoicers have tried to voice their opinion and it fails standing up to actual scientific facts. A life is a life. Whether you want it to be or not. It is what it is. And the definition of baby is a young child a very young child. Which is what I'm talking about.

    Yeah eugenics is actually what I was reffering to when people talking about killing handicap people.


    And about the death penalty. I think the system is too slow and I think we don't need to be spending money on them when we have drug addicts and dealers on our streets. We need less appeals. And we need a fast and easy way to execute.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.