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

Pro choice or pro life? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Pro choice or pro life?
    Pro choice
    127
    76.97%
    Pro life
    41
    24.85%

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    What stops you from going through with anything? This is a very strange argument -- being able to physically go through with something is no reason to do so.



    And what of the physical and emotional impact of and changes brought by a pregnancy? And, as you said, the murky world of care system is another consideration.
    That doesn't answer the reason not to go through with the pregnancy though...
    Here's the thing, I don't have an issue with it being a choice. I just have an issue with the choice.

    What physical/emotional impact? Like post-partum? Why should that start an abortion culture? It's also not very common, and if it is, it's not the common reason people get abortions. People mostly get abortions for the same reason someone gives their child for adoption-no money, no clue, etc. Others are just "scared" to push a kid out.

    Yes child care is a mess but that's the government/bureaucracy's problem. They're not doing their job and they're not budgeting properly to make sure that children are taken care of properly under public care. That doesn't mean kill your kid in the meantime. As the 2nd (I believe) comment on the thread said, there's no excuse for sleeping around.

    If it becomes standard across the nation and globe to be able to abort, there needs to be a stricter bureaucratic procedure before and after so that it becomes less of an errand you run at the clinic on your day off.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by EphemeralLove)
    That doesn't answer the reason not to go through with the pregnancy though...
    Here's the thing, I don't have an issue with it being a choice. I just have an issue with the choice.

    What physical/emotional impact? Like post-partum? Why should that start an abortion culture? It's also not very common, and if it is, it's not the common reason people get abortions. People mostly get abortions for the same reason someone gives their child for adoption-no money, no clue, etc. Others are just "scared" to push a kid out.
    Post-partum would be an emotional impact, yes. That's one of the potential consequences of a pregnancy -- it's not just a 'what've you got to lose' affair, which is what you seemed to imply in your earlier post.

    I'm unsure what you mean by 'abortion culture' -- we don't have abortion on demand in the UK, at least in theory (although one of the conditions under which an abortion is legally permitted is so malleable that it is, in effect, abortion on demand). Even so, the vast majority of people don't use abortion as contraception; to the contrary, they use it when contraceptives have failed, as most of them can. Unless you're advocating abstinence until people are ready to have children, I don't see where this argument leads.

    Yes child care is a mess but that's the government/bureaucracy's problem. They're not doing their job and they're not budgeting properly to make sure that children are taken care of properly under public care.
    No, it's the problem of every kid that has to go through that system (not in the 'responsibility' sense that you mean it). The counter to this point has already been made on a previous page -- why is it that your concern for the 'kid' (I'd strongly dispute that a zygote or foetus can be compared to a conscious, self-aware child) ends after birth? Knowing that the care system is unlikely to improve, why do you dismiss that point as 'the government's problem?'

    That doesn't mean kill your kid in the meantime. As the 2nd (I believe) comment on the thread said, there's no excuse for sleeping around.
    As above, this seems to be a simple case of disagreement over personhood -- you evidently don't see any difference between an abortion and killing a self-aware child, but I do. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, I think.

    If it becomes standard across the nation and globe to be able to abort, there needs to be a stricter bureaucratic procedure before and after so that it becomes less of an errand you run at the clinic on your day off.
    Most civilised countries already regulate abortions. Criminalising it is often a worse way to prevent it and to prevent the mother from coming to harm, than regulating it, in purely quantitative terms.

    Also, an abortion really isn't comparable to 'an errand you run at the clinic on your day off.' It's a difficult, emotional choice for most women that takes some time to recover from, and describing it those terms is trivialising a serious matter.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Post-partum would be an emotional impact, yes. That's one of the potential consequences of a pregnancy -- it's not just a 'what've you got to lose' affair, which is what you seemed to imply in your earlier post.

    I'm unsure what you mean by 'abortion culture' -- we don't have abortion on demand in the UK, at least in theory (although one of the conditions under which an abortion is legally permitted is so malleable that it is, in effect, abortion on demand). Even so, the vast majority of people don't use abortion as contraception; to the contrary, they use it when contraceptives have failed, as most of them can. Unless you're advocating abstinence until people are ready to have children, I don't see where this argument leads.



    No, it's the problem of every kid that has to go through that system (not in the 'responsibility' sense that you mean it). The counter to this point has already been made on a previous page -- why is it that your concern for the 'kid' (I'd strongly dispute that a zygote or foetus can be compared to a conscious, self-aware child) ends after birth? Knowing that the care system is unlikely to improve, why do you dismiss that point as 'the government's problem?'



    As above, this seems to be a simple case of disagreement over personhood -- you evidently don't see any difference between an abortion and killing a self-aware child, but I do. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, I think.



    Most civilised countries already regulate abortions. Criminalising it is often a worse way to prevent it and to prevent the mother from coming to harm, than regulating it, in purely quantitative terms.

    Also, an abortion really isn't comparable to 'an errand you run at the clinic on your day off.' It's a difficult, emotional choice for most women that takes some time to recover from, and describing it those terms is trivialising a serious matter.
    I don't know how to break up the quoting like you did so I'll try to answer as you have quoted:


    I said why should it start an abortion culture. As in, there isn't one now. My issue is, there becoming one when excuses like "the condom broke" are legitimised. I stand by abortions are done for the same reason adoptions are. I never trivialised the emotional impact of being a foster kid. I clearly emphasised the responsibility of the government to protect them. Abortions are definitely done quite casually. It many times is not a difficult nor emotional choice. Even if it is that doesn't exempt them from social or moral responsibility. It also doesn't invalidate pro life advocacy, though sympathising seeks to.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by EphemeralLove)
    I don't know how to break up the quoting like you did so I'll try to answer as you have quoted:
    This might help (see bold text).

    Name:  TSR3.png
Views: 48
Size:  41.1 KB

    I said why should it start an abortion culture. As in, there isn't one now.
    But no change to the current situation is proposed, so why would an abortion culture start if there isn't one now?

    My issue is, there becoming one when excuses like "the condom broke" are legitimised.
    How do you know this is an excuse? Are you suggesting that this is usually a cover for irresponsible, unprotected sex? In any case, this isn't an excuse for which abortions are permitted in the UK.

    I stand by abortions are done for the same reason adoptions are.
    Yet only one of them has the potential to adversely affect the mother.

    I never trivialised the emotional impact of being a foster kid. I clearly emphasised the responsibility of the government to protect them.
    I was referring to your remark about abortions being comparable to an errand run on a day off.

    Abortions are definitely done quite casually. It many times is not a difficult nor emotional choice.
    Is this purely anecdotal or can you back these statements up? :holmes: And you denied the existence of an abortion culture a few sentences back, and these claims suggest that there is one.

    Even if it is that doesn't exempt them from social or moral responsibility. It also doesn't invalidate pro life advocacy, though sympathising seeks to.
    I don't quite understand these points. Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'social and moral responsibility?'

    It doesn't invalidate pro-life advocacy, but it does counter the claims of pro-life advocates that abortion should not be permitted because people don't take it seriously enough when, in most cases, people do.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Pro choice because I think that if someone is considering an abortion, it obviously means that they either arent ready or dont want to care for a child. In this case it would be much kinder (for the foetus) to have an abortion because otherwise they could grow up without getting the care and affection that they need. I know that they can be fostered or adopted but these can still cause issues for some children growing up.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    im pro-life, because i think that it is in the end a sort of killing.
    sorry if i am being blunt or rude.
    i respect ur opinions
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    This might help (see bold text).

    Name:  TSR3.png
Views: 48
Size:  41.1 KB
    Thanks.


    But no change to the current situation is proposed, so why would an abortion culture start if there isn't one now?

    Is this purely anecdotal or can you back these statements up? :holmes: And you denied the existence of an abortion culture a few sentences back, and these claims suggest that there is one.
    An abortion culture would basically mean, it is done more commonly than giving birth and keeping the kid, and/or more than adoptions. This would then be an obvious observation in society as well as statistically proven. So far thankfully it is not as far as I'm aware.

    Also the people who do struggle with abortions before getting them are those afraid of the pain during the operation, afraid of the stigma, and their conflicts with religious values if they were raised under them. I find feminists who support abortion tend to be the opposite type than the ones I listed above. Don't you?


    How do you know this is an excuse? Are you suggesting that this is usually a cover for irresponsible, unprotected sex?
    That's literally what I am saying, but I also mentioned that people abort for the same reasons as adoption in the previous comment I wrote: no money, no clue, just don't like kids. Whether the condom broke or not or whether there was one used in the first place or not.


    In any case, this isn't an excuse for which abortions are permitted in the UK.
    As you said, "Is this purely anecdotal or can you back these statements up?"


    Yet only one of them has the potential to adversely affect the mother.
    Lol adoptions are emotionally painful as well. And physically painful since the woman had to deliver the child.


    I was referring to your remark about abortions being comparable to an errand run on a day off.

    That I know. And I said what I said about foster kids because you mentioned the bit about me callously saying it's "the government's problem" and accused me of neglecting the emotional impact it has on foster children. So I said I emphasised it being the government's responsibility to protect them.

    You also said I was minimising the emotional impact on women who abort, because of the "errand thing" and that gors back to my above statement in this comment about how content pro choice aborters are because they don't care about the religious aspect, or the social stigma. They quite zealously attack both.

    I don't quite understand these points. Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'social and moral responsibility?'
    What needs to be explained?

    It doesn't invalidate pro-life advocacy, but it does counter the claims of pro-life advocates that abortion should not be permitted because people don't take it seriously enough when, in most cases, people do.
    I said it seeks to invalidate it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Pro choice. Why should someone dictate what a woman does with HER body.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carly2289)
    Pro choice because I think that if someone is considering an abortion, it obviously means that they either arent ready or dont want to care for a child. In this case it would be much kinder (for the foetus) to have an abortion because otherwise they could grow up without getting the care and affection that they need. I know that they can be fostered or adopted but these can still cause issues for some children growing up.
    Not to put too fine a point on it, but... Death won't affect the child?

    The original arguments for abortion in 1967 suggested that the 24th week was the hard limit for an abortion because children would not be 'Viable' before that - That is, that this child could not possibly survive if it was born in the 23rd week. This was universally agreed because medical technology had not advanced so far.

    So, as the arguments for abortion in 1967 had the assumption that 24 weeks was a hard limit, my question would be:

    1) Now that children have been born viable prior to this, should the number be changed? and, in relation to this;

    2) As science advances, that number will decrease and eventually hit '0', where the child can be kept alive indefinitely - What then?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HattieRose1)
    Pro choice. Why should someone dictate what a woman does with HER body.
    At what stage would "it" be considered not a part of her body?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    Not to put too fine a point on it, but... Death won't affect the child?

    The original arguments for abortion in 1967 suggested that the 24th week was the hard limit for an abortion because children would not be 'Viable' before that - That is, that this child could not possibly survive if it was born in the 23rd week. This was universally agreed because medical technology had not advanced so far.

    So, as the arguments for abortion in 1967 had the assumption that 24 weeks was a hard limit, my question would be:

    1) Now that children have been born viable prior to this, should the number be changed? and, in relation to this;

    2) As science advances, that number will decrease and eventually hit '0', where the child can be kept alive indefinitely - What then?
    Even if a child could survive at fewer weeks, would it have personhood?

    It is medically agreed that once a person ceases to exhibit signs of brain activity, they are no longer a living human. Foetuses also lack this brain activity in that their cortex is not fully developed until 20-24 weeks of gestation, thus making it impossible for brain waves to even be recorded up until this point.

    If we consider a person to be brain dead when they lack brain activity, why is it justifiable to force women to go through a pregnancy on the grounds that the foetus is a life, when officially it is not 'brain living'?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I think the terms are misleading. Babies are stupid, especially when inside the womb; we slaughter cows which are much more intelligent, and few people kick up a fuss about that. It has the potential to become something, but it isn't something. Killing off a baby is only murder in the way of ending an opportunity, in the same way as not having sex with someone could be ending an opportunity. A baby's "life" isn't worth anything, personally I'd be up for abortion being available for some time post natal.

    I have nothing against a person for upholding the opposite point of view, but I do feel that it is hypocritical if a person that gives preferential treatment to a blob of unintelligent cells is anything but a vegetarian who provides shelter for the homeless, you get the picture.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Pro Evo
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    We don't want to be inflexible but we don't want to lose sight from the fact that it is not all about a woman's body and nothing else. I'm glad I wasn't aborted.

    "Abortion is advocated only by people who have themselves been born"

    Ronald Reagan
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balanced)
    It's not about their life, it's about the child's life.
    Yeah, a child that is growing inside of their body, an unwanted burden for whatever reason they have to carry for 9 months, go through the agony of childbirth and then who knows what sort of hardship and alteration of their life afterwards.

    Why are rights of an unborn foetus, too undeveloped to process anything like pain or possess any form of cognitive function, effectively no more than a collection of cells, more important than the woman's rights? The foetus isn't going to suffer in an abortion, whereas a woman with an unwanted pregnancy very possibly will, why are pro-lifers so obsessed with their idea that the foetus is a human being with a full set of rights that they'd rather see people suffer than be allowed an abortion?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steliata)
    Even if a child could survive at fewer weeks, would it have personhood?
    This is a very good question and I'll try to answer it. I could be disingenuous and say, "Legally? No, but women weren't granted personhood until the 19th/20th century(Depending on where you lived) either." but you are clearly not asking from a legal standpoint but from a practical standpoint.

    (Original post by Steliata)
    When a person ceases to exhibit signs of brain activity, they are no longer a living human. Foetuses also lack this brain activity in that their cortex is not fully developed until 20-24 weeks of gestation, thus making it impossible for brain waves to even be recorded up until this point.

    If we consider a person to be brain dead when they lack brain activity, why is it justifiable to force women to go through a pregnancy on the grounds that the foetus is a life, when officially it is not 'brain living'?
    I'm very uneasy with this question because the simple answer is: I don't know. What makes a person human? Is it intelligence? If so, some developmentally disabled children could be slaughtered at any point in their lives with no more care than you would have for an animal. Is it having opposable thumbs? Industrial accidents could render any of us inhuman any point in our life.


    Is it brain activity? Southampton University's Near Death experience study suggests that may not be a hard limit for experience.

    http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/20...ces-study.page

    (Specifically, note that during a period of no brain activity there was an example where a patient was able to identify an audible that occurred during brain death).

    But just as I don't know - Neither do you. Aside from one person on this thread, we all universally agree that a mother who deliberately throttled their child after it had been delivered but before the umbilical cord had been cut would be guilty of murder. Is the child a child five minutes before that? Five minutes before that? And so on and so forth.

    There are developmental stages, certainly, that occur before and even after birth. At what point is a child unworthy of protection?

    I would rather err on the side of caution than find out fourty years from now that we were part of the worst holocaust in history.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    This is a very good question and I'll try to answer it. I could be disingenuous and say, "Legally? No, but women weren't granted personhood until the 19th/20th century(Depending on where you lived) either." but you are clearly not asking from a legal standpoint but from a practical standpoint.
    Interesting point about women not being granted personhood, I wasn't aware of that. I suppose it's still the case in some countries. Although there is a slight difference between a walking, talking, independent human and a collection of cells (at least, in early pregnancy), I can see where you're coming from.

    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    I'm very uneasy with this question because the simple answer is: I don't know. What makes a person human? Is it intelligence? If so, some developmentally disabled children could be slaughtered at any point in their lives with no more care than you would have for an animal. Is it having opposable thumbs? Industrial accidents could render any of us inhuman any point in our life.
    It is a difficult question and it's essentially the crux of the debate. If we knew then I doubt we'd be having this conversation, and the fact that it's (currently) subjective means it's unlikely that the problem will ever be resolved.

    The problem lies in finding something that is universal to all humans and not present in animals. I've head some argue that the wrinkles in the cortex that make it look like a walnut grant personhood, as it is the wrinkles which allow us to develop such an extraordinarily large brain without being ridiculously disproportionate. Of course, this may not be true across all humans.

    Some would undoubtedly argue that it's that humans have a soul, but again this is subjective. It is also problematic in that Augustine argued that ensoulment doesn't happen for 40 days for a male and 90 for a female. Although this was hundreds of years ago.

    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    Is it brain activity? Southampton University's Near Death experience study suggests that may not be a hard limit for experience.

    http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/20...ces-study.page

    (Specifically, note that during a period of no brain activity there was an example where a patient was able to identify an audible that occurred during brain death).
    I haven't had chance to read the study yet but it certainly sounds interesting, especially that a 'brain dead' person was able to hear. Perhaps it's in a similar way to how foetuses, when exposed to certain sounds in the womb (such as a dog barking) seem to be accustomed to these sounds after birth? You know, the whole play-classical-music-to-your-baby-so-they're-more-intelligent thing. I'm not sure if that's a myth, though.

    Out of interest, if the person was classed as 'brain dead', how did they come back alive? I was under the impression that brain death is absolute. Apologies if that's not the case.

    Thank you for the link, though. I'm doing a research-based essay on abortion and that will be helpful.

    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    But just as I don't know - Neither do you. Aside from one person on this thread, we all universally agree that a mother who deliberately throttled their child after it had been delivered but before the umbilical cord had been cut would be guilty of murder. Is the child a child five minutes before that? Five minutes before that? And so on and so forth.

    There are developmental stages, certainly, that occur before and even after birth. At what point is a child unworthy of protection?

    I would rather err on the side of caution than find out fourty years from now that we were part of the worst holocaust in history.
    Yes, I agree that would be murder. Ultimately, abortion is always killing a living thing with potential to be human, but I believe that an already existing human's rights should be prioritised over those of a being with only the potential to become human. While I am essentially pro-life in that I disagree that foetuses should be aborted willy-nilly, I believe it should still be an option as nobody should be forced to go through with a pregnancy that would harm them.

    Thank you for responding so politely.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    why would you call a disfavouring of abortion "pro-life"? is being in favour of the legality of abortion "pro-death" in that case? it shouldn't be called "pro-life" when foetuses aren't really "alive" in the ordinary sense. if you don't want to cut the weeds in your garden, does that make you "pro-life" for the plants too?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steliata)


    It is a difficult question and it's essentially the crux of the debate. If we knew then I doubt we'd be having this conversation, and the fact that it's (currently) subjective means it's unlikely that the problem will ever be resolved.

    The problem lies in finding something that is universal to all humans and not present in animals. I've head some argue that the wrinkles in the cortex that make it look like a walnut grant personhood, as it is the wrinkles which allow us to develop such an extraordinarily large brain without being ridiculously disproportionate. Of course, this may not be true across all humans.

    (Original post by Steliata)
    Some would undoubtedly argue that it's that humans have a soul, but again this is subjective. It is also problematic in that Augustine argued that ensoulment doesn't happen for 40 days for a male and 90 for a female. Although this was hundreds of years ago.



    I haven't had chance to read the study yet but it certainly sounds interesting, especially that a 'brain dead' person was able to hear. Perhaps it's in a similar way to how foetuses, when exposed to certain sounds in the womb (such as a dog barking) seem to be accustomed to these sounds after birth? You know, the whole play-classical-music-to-your-baby-so-they're-more-intelligent thing. I'm not sure if that's a myth, though.

    Out of interest, if the person was classed as 'brain dead', how did they come back alive? I was under the impression that brain death is absolute. Apologies if that's not the case.
    The study was the largest of its kind in history. Across numerous hospitals' cardiac wards, there were several 'tests'. One test involved was an audible: Five minutes after cardiac arrest, all brain activity ceases(I think it's five minutes. I read the study some time ago). The audible would happen after this five minutes occurred. It would resume when the heart started again like a computer rebooting.

    The study essentially says: More than half of respondents had a near death experience. Fewer were able to clearly remember, some fewer had 'traditional' near death experiences with the 'Go to the light' part we are all so familiar with from pop culture.

    One person was able to identify the audible despite no brain activity when it happened. This study is very recent, however and it hasn't been duplicated so there are numerous reasons this could be - Until the study is done again and again, we can't know for certain.

    We have oceans of data on the brain - More than any other organ out there - Despite this, we have no prevailing theory of mind. Nobody really knows what it is or how sentience actually works or -why- it actually works. We are in an infancy of what is the most important question in our history. There are several TED talks on the brain I'd suggest - They're brilliant for talking about what we don't actually know.

    (Original post by Steliata)

    Thank you for the link, though. I'm doing a research-based essay on abortion and that will be helpful.



    Yes, I agree that would be murder. Ultimately, abortion is always killing a living thing with potential to be human, but I believe that an already existing human's rights should be prioritised over those of a being with only the potential to become human. While I am essentially pro-life in that I disagree that foetuses should be aborted willy-nilly, I believe it should still be an option as nobody should be forced to go through with a pregnancy that would harm them.

    Thank you for responding so politely.
    Thank you for being so polite as well. There is so much passion in this that it's difficult to have a real conversation because the two sides have such vastly different base assumptions.

    The truth is, we are in the dark ages of understanding humanity.

    I would agree that in cases of rape, incest or clear danger to the mother that abortion should be an option. For other cases, we just don't know enough to make an informed decision. It's complicated even more by the fact that the human body self-aborts far more regularly than is commonly discussed.

    This is one of those issues where I just feel essentially helpless and paralyzed by a lack of real knowledge. It -could- be that we are doing no real harm, or it could be that we are the worst monsters in the history of humanity.

    That is the gravity of our choice, and I feel helpless and paralyzed by our lack of real knowledge. I don't judge anybody who has chosen to have an abortion - The abstract, "What is a life?" question could seem very distant when your life would be changed so quickly. I do, however, think we as a society can never become cavalier about any individual case.

    What if we're wrong?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Pro choice, because at the end of the day, it's the woman's body and she has every right to do what she want with it - I know that I certainly wouldn't want people telling me what to do, so why do it to other people?

    Having said that, I find that a lot of people often jump to conclusions without considering the fact. Just because a woman is undergoing an abortion does not mean that they are 'evil' or whatever it is that people accuse them of. We don't know what's going on in their lives, they could be financially unstable, they could not want to bring a child up in an abusive environment, undergoing a pregnancy could result to medical complications etc, so I really don't see why people judge without knowing what's truly going on. Most woman don't just decide spontaneously to have an abortion, its a long thought out emotional process.

    I've seen some people that are anti-abortion whatever the circumstance which is actually kind of disgusting, for all you know, that woman could have been a rape victim!

    Also, I know adoption sounds like a good idea but it may not be in the long run, there are already so many kids waiting to be adopted, if everyone who wanted an abortion gave the babies up for adoption instead, there would be so many kids still looking for parents to love them.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.