Turn on thread page Beta

Abortion watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Should we change the current abortion limit of 24 weeks?
    Abortion should be illegal under all circumstances!
    16
    5.08%
    Abortion should be illegal, except in certain cases such as rape, a threat to the mother's life and etc.
    65
    20.63%
    It should be reduced to 12 weeks
    44
    13.97%
    It should be reduced to 20 weeks
    48
    15.24%
    The current 24 week limit is fine!
    91
    28.89%
    Abortion should be legal should up to 28 weeks!
    20
    6.35%
    Abortion should be legal throughout the entire pregnancy!
    27
    8.57%
    Not sure!
    4
    1.27%

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    You cannot compare McDonalds products to the provision of medical services - that is a complete nonsense...unless McDonalds products cause food poisoning or somesuch, in which case they will be culpable and liable to litigation.

    Any provider of medical attention that is legalised has a responsibility for any necessary after-care for their patient that results from the service they have provided. If a person suffers from any condition (physical or emotional) that was brought about by the operation, then the provider is culpable.

    Makes no difference whether the service is provided by state or private organisation. The mere fact that it was a private provision does not alter the responsibility of providing necessary after-care to their patient.

    NO!

    If a private provider of a service makes it fully known what they offer, and consumers choose to use it, and the private provider fulfils everything they say they do, that's it. Sorry, on your bike love. Y'know, 'freedom' and all that.

    Vague notions of 'responsibility' which you shoehorn into an argument don't cut the mustard. If you think society has an obligation to help those in mental or physical distress, that's why you vote to pay taxes for the NHS. And if you think private abortion clinics should by law HAVE to provide post-abortion counselling, then vote for that. But don't impose obligations on private companies who are successfully providing a service people want.


    My Mcdonald's analogy is totally accurate. Mcdonald's say they will sell me food which is crap, I buy it anyway, I eat the crap. Nobody else can do **** all about it, and they shouldn't be able to.

    Private clinic tells me they will provide me with an abortion - with pre-abortion counselling, an abortion and whatever else. I think 'fair enough' and use it. Again, NOBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS.



    The weird thing is I am in favour of state provided medical care, taxes, and the rest. But honest, legal private transactions should not be interfered with!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ^^

    here here!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kizer)
    NO!

    If a private provider of a service makes it fully known what they offer, and consumers choose to use it, and the private provider fulfils everything they say they do, that's it. Sorry, on your bike love. Y'know, 'freedom' and all that.
    Hit the nail on the head for me. Hear hear!
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by kizer)
    NO!

    If a private provider of a service makes it fully known what they offer, and consumers choose to use it, and the private provider fulfils everything they say they do, that's it. Sorry, on your bike love. Y'know, 'freedom' and all that.

    Vague notions of 'responsibility' which you shoehorn into an argument don't cut the mustard. If you think society has an obligation to help those in mental or physical distress, that's why you vote to pay taxes for the NHS. And if you think private abortion clinics should by law HAVE to provide post-abortion counselling, then vote for that. But don't impose obligations on private companies who are successfully providing a service people want.


    My Mcdonald's analogy is totally accurate. Mcdonald's say they will sell me food which is crap, I buy it anyway, I eat the crap. Nobody else can do **** all about it, and they shouldn't be able to.

    Private clinic tells me they will provide me with an abortion - with pre-abortion counselling, an abortion and whatever else. I think 'fair enough' and use it. Again, NOBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS.



    The weird thing is I am in favour of state provided medical care, taxes, and the rest. But honest, legal private transactions should not be interfered with!
    Regardless of your protestations, litigation is likely to be successful if one sues a provider of a service that results in deleterious effects on the health of the purchaser. And abortion providers do not advise their patients that there is a likelihood of them suffering post-abortion trauma when they offer their services.

    Makes no difference how loudly you protest...the law is on the side of the purchaser, in these cases.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Absinthe)
    How do you know this?
    Statistical evidence compiled prior to the implementation of the Abortion Act. Prior to the Abortion Act mortality from criminal abortion in Britain was very low (approx 20 per year); compared with the 198,000 unborn children who now die annually (figures for 2005). This was because many so-called back street abortions were performed (albeit illegally) by doctors in relatively 'safe' circumstances.

    I also notice you completely missed the part where I asked you if you planned to adopt any unwanted children, or do work to assist in such causes, since you're so pro-life. But no, you just continue to trot out the usual agenda. Okay.
    I didn't miss this part - I chose to ignore it because you are personalising the debate to an unacceptable level. It is sufficient that I informed you I have met many women who are suffering post-abortion trauma...the circumstances in which I have met them are absolultely nothing to do with you. And again, you take refuge in ad hominem asides...this is against the spirit of D&D.



    What sweeping generalisation would that be? Yes, a man is entitled to and capable of feeling empathy. But he cannot, and will not, go through the same as a woman does during pregnancy. My ex-boyfriend stated that if his girlfriend at the time ever became pregnant, he'd just up and leave. Yes, so, he's a nonce, but still...talk about an easy way out.
    You failed to address my question of how my gender is relevant to this debate. The fact that a man will not carry his child does not override the fact that the child is his as much as the mother's...and consequently he has just as much interest in the future well-being of the child as the mother does in her own future well-being.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    NO!

    If a private provider of a service makes it fully known what they offer, and consumers choose to use it, and the private provider fulfils everything they say they do, that's it. Sorry, on your bike love. Y'know, 'freedom' and all that.
    Suppose the service involves blowing up parliamentary buildings and then you hit a problem because your analogy neglects the democratic government's right to impose the law onto its citizens. If abortion turns out to be immoral then the government has every right to interfere, much like it has done in the past. It's banned murder, for example. If scientists eventually discover evidence which the majority would deem to be sufficient to give 24 week foetus' the same rights as a new-born child then the state has every right to ban the service, call it illegal and use the law to convict anyone that does it, for it would be murder under UK law.

    However that's a mighty big if, but I'm merely pointing out the logical incoherence in your argument.
    Offline

    13
    I know that the question of abortion raises emotions in both sides.

    However, if we are to consider the rights and wrongs (all wrongs, imo ) we need to debate in a mature way, not resorting to personal attacks on those views we disagree with, but rather in a mutually respectful appreciation of the entitlement to have an opinion that might differ from one's own.

    In the spirit of civilised and 'grown-up' discussion, if anyone wants to give reasons why they support the killing of human life, I shall do my best to provide alternative reasoning to theirs.

    Remember folks, no ad homs or personal denigration on opposing views.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I wonder if there's one of those cat pictures where they're by an abortion and there is a caption saying 'Im in ur wooomb, killing ur babiez'.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Consie)
    I wonder if there's one of those cat pictures where they're by an abortion and there is a caption saying 'Im in ur wooomb, killing ur babiez'.
    Very mature post, Consie. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TML)
    Suppose the service involves blowing up parliamentary buildings and then you hit a problem because your analogy neglects the democratic government's right to impose the law onto its citizens. If abortion turns out to be immoral then the government has every right to interfere, much like it has done in the past. It's banned murder, for example. If scientists eventually discover evidence which the majority would deem to be sufficient to give 24 week foetus' the same rights as a new-born child then the state has every right to ban the service, call it illegal and use the law to convict anyone that does it, for it would be murder under UK law.

    However that's a mighty big if, but I'm merely pointing out the logical incoherence in your argument.

    So you quote the one paragraph which doesn't mention the law, then ignore the paragraph afterwards which discusses how I feel private companies should indeed have to abide by the law, and implies strongly that if the law was there I would obviously have a problem with private companies breaking the law.

    You also ignore my previous post in this thread, no 162 (look at it yourself), where I say:

    They are private clinics. So long as they are honest about the service they provide, and that service is legal, then they can do whatever the hell they want.
    (emphasis added)



    In other words, I am not logically incoherent if YOU choose to ignore things I say which directly refute your point.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TML)
    If abortion turns out to be immoral then the government has every right to interfere, much like it has done in the past. .

    On a separate point, how can something 'turn out' to be immoral? That phrase doesn't even make sense to me. You can inquire philosophically whether or not you think something is immoral, supported by scientific evidence, but obviously things like this don't 'turn out' to be immoral - people consider them as such.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    what business does the government have in morality? Surely morality is more to do with individuals?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Individuals give democratic power to the government. Murder is immoral therefore the state has a right to deem it unlawful. However the law should never, in reality, be considered a guideline for what is moral and what is immoral. It unfortunately never works like that.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agamemnon)
    I think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, except when the mother's life is in danger, or if the baby is the result of incest.
    but doesn't Christianity teach that all sex is incest? Adam and Eve. We're all brothers and sisters having sex :p:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kizer)
    So you quote the one paragraph which doesn't mention the law, then ignore the paragraph afterwards which discusses how I feel private companies should indeed have to abide by the law, and implies strongly that if the law was there I would obviously have a problem with private companies breaking the law.
    You can't have a discussion on the law which is being debated using the assumption that it is legal. That's circular reasoning.
    On a separate point, how can something 'turn out' to be immoral? That phrase doesn't even make sense to me. You can inquire philosophically whether or not you think something is immoral, supported by scientific evidence, but obviously things like this don't 'turn out' to be immoral - people consider them as such.
    Morality is arguably not objective - in fact, the majority of philosophy students I know don't believe that morality is objective. As new scientific evidence comes to light then we can always readjust our morals. Nothing is ever simply black or white, however the government, which we elect, has the hard job in deciding whether we can allow the act or not.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    what about a yearly limit or over so many yrs?

    i don't have a problem with abortion on the whole.
    but i do think people abuse the system.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kagutsuchi)
    but doesn't Christianity teach that all sex is incest? Adam and Eve. We're all brothers and sisters having sex :p:
    The laws in Exodus were given after the figurative story in Genesis. :p:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by negated enigma)
    what about a yearly limit or over so many yrs?
    i don't have a problem with abortion on the whole.
    but i do think people abuse the system.
    And such a moral perspective should be voiced by your MP, which is my point. You can't just say let the market decide in these sort of issues.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TML)
    You can't have a discussion on the law which is being debated using the assumption that it is legal. That's circular reasoning.
    At the time that I was using the fact that abortion is legal, I was discussing with Yawn what, if any, responsibilities private clinics have to abortion patients post-abortion. It had nothing to do with whether or not abortion should be legal. Don't quote out of context!


    Morality is arguably not objective - in fact, the majority of philosophy students I know don't believe that morality is objective. As new scientific evidence comes to light then we can always readjust our morals. Nothing is ever simply black or white, however the government, which we elect, has the hard job in deciding whether we can allow the act or not.
    The fact remains that things do not 'turn out' to be immoral. For example, a perfectly rational viewpoint philosophically is amorality - not having morals. This view is notoriously difficult to argue against, but the point is that no one has ever shown conclusively that ANYTHING definitely is or isn't 'moral'. The concept just doesn't work like that. It's like saying, 'do you think this shade of green is nicer than that shade of green?' You may have excellent reasons to prefer one shade - it may complement your eyes - but to saying conclusively, 'that shade is nicer' is nonsense. Apart from anything else there is no moral viewpoint I know of that doesn't have exceptions, which should tell you something.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kizer)
    The fact remains that things do not 'turn out' to be immoral. For example, a perfectly rational viewpoint philosophically is amorality - not having morals. This view is notoriously difficult to argue against, but the point is that no one has ever shown conclusively that ANYTHING definitely is or isn't 'moral'.
    The "amorality" argument is ridiculous. Humans clearly have morals, whether they were formed by evolution or not. Poeple know, for instance, that murder is immoral. However the "subjective morals" argument, which is very similar, is a much more popular perspective. Things do "turn out" to be immoral, evident by the fact that many people change their opinions on whether "fur coats" are unethical, for instance. Morals are arguably not absolute. As you gain more knowledge on something then you obviously have a greater amount of information on which to base your ethical judgements on something. If the majority of a country deems abortion to be immoral, then the democratic government has the right to ban it. Permitting one abortion woud be like permitting one murder.

    Remember, UK laws are ever-changing. Indeed, before it was legal to have abortions much later on, and now the limit is steadily being reduced. The government [technically] views abortion to be illegal, but acceptable in circumstances when a doctor agrees to it.
    The concept just doesn't work like that. It's like saying, 'do you think this shade of green is nicer than that shade of green?' You may have excellent reasons to prefer one shade - it may complement your eyes - but to saying conclusively, 'that shade is nicer' is nonsense.
    Do you believe murder is immoral? Do you believe that murder is a punishable offence? It offends society, much like, according to UK law, an abortion of a 25 week old baby offends society. Morality is subjective and the government should take into account society's (and scientist's) opinions on what is moral.

    That said, I'm indifferent to the subject of abortion; unlike in the past.

    The abortion questions essentially relies on when we give a "person" self-ownership.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
Useful resources

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

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