Abortion Watch

Poll: 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%
This discussion is closed.
*Stargirl*
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#221
Report 11 years ago
#221
Yawn at my work experience with a GP i was sitting in on a consultation and a lady, who had already had a termination of pregnancy, was worried that she was pregnant again and wanted the morning after pill. And she terminated the pregnancy for social reasons. we just have to put up with these people really...there is nothing else we can do.
0
Curious_Yellow
Badges: 0
#222
Report 11 years ago
#222
I am a strong advocate of abortion. Especially now we live in such an over-crowded society. After all, those women most likely to use abortion (though we all wish they'd employ it always) are in the underclass. The last thing we need is more council estate benefit-cheats polluting our society like a cancerous lump that must be excised. Such people such as Kate Moss should be positively encouraged to abort any offspring they acquire. This is where state intervention can have a very real benefit. Like in China.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#223
Report 11 years ago
#223
(Original post by *Stargirl*)
Yawn at my work experience with a GP i was sitting in on a consultation and a lady, who had already had a termination of pregnancy, was worried that she was pregnant again and wanted the morning after pill. And she terminated the pregnancy for social reasons. we just have to put up with these people really...there is nothing else we can do.
The floodgates were opened to the abuse once the Act was legislated for. You allow abortion, you demean human life...and eventually you get attitudes such as the one you mention.

You hear it continually is such statements as "it's only a bunch of cells". Well, we are all "only a bunch of cells" if you put it that way!

You see; if you dehumanise human life, it is much easier psychologically to dismiss it whenever it suits your causes.

We can already see how much human life is deemed disposable since this insidious Act of 1967.

Now, those who are judged mentally incapacitated can be euthanised if their lives are not considered to have 'quality' according to a subjective decision of another.

Shudder....how long before people can be 'put down' because they are an economic drain on society? :mad:
yawn
Badges: 13
#224
Report 11 years ago
#224
(Original post by Curious_Yellow)
I am a strong advocate of abortion. Especially now we live in such an over-crowded society.
The current birth rate in the UK is less than what is needed to maintain our population level.

The dramatic decline in our birth rate will have a disturbing economic effect on the UK and already there are fears being expressed that there will not be enough wage earners/tax payers to support the elderly in retirement. Maybe we'll need to add an amendment which will allow us to kill off the elderly if they are going to be dependent on tax payers.

Overpopulation is frequently blamed for problems with other causes. If there is a population problem that threatens our standard of living, the solution is not to kill off part of the population.

After all, those women most likely to use abortion (though we all wish they'd employ it always) are in the underclass. The last thing we need is more council estate benefit-cheats polluting our society like a cancerous lump that must be excised. Such people such as Kate Moss should be positively encouraged to abort any offspring they acquire. This is where state intervention can have a very real benefit. Like in China.
You corroborate exactly, my expressed concerns over attitudes to human life because of the ramifications of the Abortion Act which incidentally, were all vocalised before it was passed, and were dismissed as 'hysterical scare-mongering.'
GregoryJL
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#225
Report 11 years ago
#225
Or he might be trolling.
0
username33685
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#226
Report 11 years ago
#226
btw, yawn, after studying this in economics, the solution to the aging poulation problem is not simply 'increasing the birth rate' (or encouraging immigration etc) to increase the amount of taxpayers, this just increases the problems we will encounter in future and these people will then need pensions too. the better way is to reform the pension system so that people directly fund their own pensions, in essence forced savings, rather than paying their social security now and then being entitled to benefits later on in life to be paid for by future generations
0
Zoecb
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#227
Report 11 years ago
#227
(Original post by yawn)
Not since the day of time, Zoe - rather since David Steele proposed the Abortion Act of 1967
Not really, abortions have been happening for 1000s of years and I'm sure people have had opinions about it for all that time too.

How can a human life be semantically reduced to "a cluster of cells" when that is patently incorrect?
That's bloody what it is!!! In fact when it's fertilised (which is when you argue it's a life), it is just the ONE cell. You know, like an ameoba. Only not so advanced.

I repeat "semantics affect perceptions, but they do not change realities; a baby is a baby no matter what we call her."
Yeah well it's interesting how you're trying to affect my perception of the reality with your use of the female pronoun :rolleyes: but I don't see the need to assign a gender to a formless squishy blob.

Now, how easy is it to justify killing a human life when it is not in self-defence because of imminent danger to the life of the person doing the killing?
And basically with that statement you make everything you say pointless because you've completely ignored my point: as far as we're concerned, it's not a human life.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#228
Report 11 years ago
#228
(Original post by Zoecb)
That's bloody what it is!!! In fact when it's fertilised (which is when you argue it's a life), it is just the ONE cell. You know, like an ameoba. Only not so advanced.
As I said, we are all 'a bunch of cells' using your interpretation of human life.

Yeah well it's interesting how you're trying to affect my perception of the reality with your use of the female pronoun :rolleyes: but I don't see the need to assign a gender to a formless squishy blob.
Please desist from using sarcasm as it does your credibility no favours - everyone else who has contributed recently has done so in an inoffensive manner, so I'm sure you can follow their example.

(Original post by yawn)
Remember, a child is a child regardless of the circumstances of his conception
I have also used the male pronoun as you will see, when referring to the unborn baby...there is no attempt at manipulation of anyone's perception in this way, at least ways, not by me. Maybe you have, when you chose to refer to a human life as a bunch of cells, yes?


And basically with that statement you make everything you say pointless because you've completely ignored my point: as far as we're concerned, it's not a human life.

You don't speak for everyone else on this thread, Zoe. What you mean is that as far as you're concerned, the baby is not a human life (maybe because it's hidden from view, I don't know). But it's irrelevant what you think, since science does agree that from the moment of conception it is a 'human life'.
yawn
Badges: 13
#229
Report 11 years ago
#229
(Original post by rich2606)
btw, yawn, after studying this in economics, the solution to the aging poulation problem is not simply 'increasing the birth rate' (or encouraging immigration etc) to increase the amount of taxpayers, this just increases the problems we will encounter in future and these people will then need pensions too. the better way is to reform the pension system so that people directly fund their own pensions, in essence forced savings, rather than paying their social security now and then being entitled to benefits later on in life to be paid for by future generations
I know that rich, but thanks for mentioning it anyway.

Unfortunately, the self-provision of a pension does not negate the need for a bigger supply of tax payers to fund for the requirements resulting from increased life spans...the most obvious example being health care provision.

And of course, not everyone is in a position financially to save enough during their working lives to keep themselves financially independent in old age, particularly as the population is living longer.
Oswy
Badges: 13
#230
Report 11 years ago
#230
But it's irrelevant what you think, since science does agree that from the moment of conception it is a 'human life'. yawn.
maybe, but it's all about context. We could say that it's a biological fact that we are dying from the day we are born, but not many of us understand this to be very meaningful - yet it is a biological fact. I think science would generally agree with me that a foetus in the womb is not an independent entity and that, from a strict physiological perspective, it is actually indistinct from the woman who carries it.
yawn
Badges: 13
#231
Report 11 years ago
#231
Dr. Mark Porter (a 'celebrity' doctor) penned a relevant item in the London Evening Standard this week:

He was emphasising the need for teenagers to take precautions against unintentional pregnancies. He observes that if going through the emotional and physical traumas of an abortion doesn't focus their minds on the need to practice safe sex, what chance have compaigns based on improved access, school talks, TV ads and leaflets?

He provided statistics which revealed that across the whole country, the proportion of women for who this wasn't the first time they had decided to end a pregnancy was startling.

One in four were on their second abortion, one in 17 their third and one in 80, their fourth. In general, health education campaigns work on the principle that if you thrown enough much at the wall, some of it will eventually stick, but when it comes to sexual health there appears to be a significant minority who still don't understand the risks of unprotected sex.

Or perhaps some people simply don't care. Why else would more than a third of women seeking to terminate a pregnancy this year be coming back for at least their second abortion - and in some case their fifth or sixth?
Oswy
Badges: 13
#232
Report 11 years ago
#232
(Original post by yawn)
Dr. Mark Porter (a 'celebrity' doctor) penned a relevant item in the London Evening Standard this week:

He was emphasising the need for teenagers to take precautions against unintentional pregnancies. He observes that if going through the emotional and physical traumas of an abortion doesn't focus their minds on the need to practice safe sex, what chance have compaigns based on improved access, school talks, TV ads and leaflets?

He provided statistics which revealed that across the whole country, the proportion of women for who this wasn't the first time they had decided to end a pregnancy was startling.
Well, I agree that young people need to be better educated about sex and its potential consequences. How about a compulsory visit to an abortion for classes of 12 year-olds? Maybe that's a bit extreme, but the virtues of condoms, or indeed any medically proven block to conception, should be rammed home (no pun intended).
yawn
Badges: 13
#233
Report 11 years ago
#233
(Original post by Oswy)
I think science would generally agree with me that a foetus in the womb is not an independent entity and that, from a strict physiological perspective, it is actually indistinct from the woman who carries it.
No, science would not agree with you because, from a strictly physiological perspective the child in the womb is distinct from it's mother.

A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of its body; the unborn's genetic code differs from his mother's. He has a very different chromosome structure with a separate circulatory system, and often a different blood group.

The unborn child also takes an active role in his own development, controlling the course of the pregnancy and the time of birth.

Being inside something is not the same as being part of something.
yawn
Badges: 13
#234
Report 11 years ago
#234
(Original post by Oswy)
Well, I agree that young people need to be better educated about sex and its potential consequences. How about a compulsory visit to an abortion for classes of 12 year-olds? Maybe that's a bit extreme,
Why so? Nothing could be more relevant to the discussion of something than that which shows what it really is.

but the virtues of condoms, or indeed any medically proven block to conception, should be rammed home (no pun intended).
The 'ramming home' is not working. Maybe we should also be dealing with the culture of binge drinking at the same time, since there might be a correlation between that culture and repeated abortions?
Zoecb
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#235
Report 11 years ago
#235
(Original post by yawn)
As I said, we are all 'a bunch of cells' using your interpretation of human life.
Not at all, since the word 'bunch' implies a small number - single, maybe double figures. 4 cells, 12 cells. Not the millions that make up an *actual* human life and is the reason that it is so complex and intelligent and has consciousness and rights etc.

Please desist from using sarcasm as it does your credibility no favours
am not being sarcastic or offensive. I have seen pictures of early embryos and my description is perfectly accurate.

You don't speak for everyone else on this thread, Zoe. What you mean is that as far as you're concerned, the baby is not a human life
I speak for the pro-choicers.

You think, since science does agree that from the moment of conception it is a 'human life'.
And YOU speak for pro-lifers, certainly not for science.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#236
Report 11 years ago
#236
(Original post by me)
You think, since science does agree that from the moment of conception it is a 'human life'...
(Original post by you)
And YOU speak for pro-lifers, certainly not for science.
In the matter of what constitutes human life, science speaks for those who are pro-life.

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/ar...yoquotes2.html
Consie
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#237
Report 11 years ago
#237
Even before the unborn is obviously human in appearance, she is what she is - a human being.

How can a human life be semantically reduced to "a cluster of cells" when that is patently incorrect?

I repeat "semantics affect perceptions, but they do not change realities; a baby is a baby no matter what we call her."

Now, how easy is it to justify killing a human life when it is not in self-defence because of imminent danger to the life of the person doing the killing?

I'll leave you to ponder on that question.

She is not a human being. If I set out on the road to get to Manchester from Liverpool, I don’t treat it like I’m already there do I? Just because something has the potential to become a human doesn’t mean you absolutely have to let it become one and if you don’t it’s like murdering a human, its not if the cells aren’t ‘human’ yet.

You’re the one changing perceptions with semantics calling everything from a piece of sperm to a few cells clustering together a baby. A baby isn’t a baby no matter what we call her.

Since when has self defence ever mattered in regard to killing people? It’s only recently that civilians haven’t been viable targets in war. In WWII half the battle was trying to bomb the British enough to break our morale. This is what I’m trying to get at; what constitutes murder is context sensitive, its not this absolute line of logic where in every single situation that a person dies at the hands of another person it’s an act of crime and is called murder, its simply not like that. Were we committing crime when fighting Germans who were trying to secure air supremacy over the Channel? Some left wing *******s might say we were, but be blatantly weren’t because the whole concept of murder is context sensitive. We even have different degrees of murder with different levels of punishment for god’s sake. If anything, that proves murder isn’t the same in all circumstances.

I never actually spent much time pondering that question, I just came across it now whilst skimming through. Though you almost got one over on me, did you? :P
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#238
Report 11 years ago
#238
Consie,

The fact remains that it is accepted in science that human life begins at the moment of conception. No one can deny that...what they can deny is that they do not think that human 'personhood' begins at the same time. This is the debate that proceeded the Act and the victors were those who won the 'war of semantics' in much the same way an extremely gifted barrister would in a court. The question of 'personhood' then is one that is dependent on one's view whether killing of human life can be justified or not.

However, if abortion continues to be abused in the way it is, public opinion will change, arguments will be re-visited and the victors in the 'war of semantics' might be opponents to abortion next time.

Regarding killing in self-defence during War: Killing in self-defence because one's life is at risk can be a pre-emptive action as witnessed by various means of warfare. It's either a question of kill or in all probability, be killed.

There is no comparison between self-defence killing in war and killing through abortion.

I really didn't consider whether I had got 'one over you' or not, Consie. That sort of attitude is not part of my psyche.
kizer
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#239
Report 11 years ago
#239
(Original post by yawn)
Consie,

The fact remains that it is accepted in science that human life begins at the moment of conception. No one can deny that...what they can deny is that they do not think that human 'personhood' begins at the same time. This is the debate that proceeded the Act and the victors were those who won the 'war of semantics' in much the same way an extremely gifted barrister would in a court. The question of 'personhood' then is one that is dependent on one's view whether killing of human life can be justified or not.

I'm very happy you said that yawn, I'll give rep for that, because it was almost exactly what I was going to say to the pro-choicers in this thread who are arguing for the right cause (IMHO) but in the wrong way. It is stupid to deny an embryo, or cluster of cells that will become a fetus, is a 'human life' - it is human and alive.

The better way to argue is to examine more carefully the pro-life (talk about semantics, eh yawn - 'pro-life' is rather propaganist don't you think?) argument and think more carefully what exactly you disagree with. AS far as I can tell, it runs like this:

1) It is always wrong to kill a human which is alive without its consent

(NB I know some pro-lifers would not need the 'without its consent' part, but that would make the claim stronger, not weaker and is not really relevant to the argument)

2) After fertilisation, the resulting cells - and all its future manisfestations after divisions - is a human life.

3) A fetus, nor any stage of development prior to being a fetus, cannot give consent to be killed.

THEREFORE

4) It is wrong to kill a fetus or any of its manifestations prior to being a fetus.





Spotted the weak point? It isn't 2), which as yawn correctly points out is obvious to anyone who isn't being deliberately obtuse. It's 1).

Now, the problem is that attacking 1) leave you very vulnerable to damaging soundbytes. "OMG, kizer advocates MURDER!" But this is neither true nor particularly interesting.

The reason I was so impressed by yawn's post was it actually correctly identified the word I wanted to bring in - PERSON. What matters is that we do not kill PEOPLE without their consent. However I've got to run now so others can argue what a person is, I'll be back tomorrow
0
Zoecb
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#240
Report 11 years ago
#240
(Original post by yawn)
The fact remains that it is accepted in science that human life begins at the moment of conception. No one can deny that...what they can deny is that they do not think that human 'personhood' begins at the same time.
By life I meant personhood.
Of course there's LIFE in an embryo, it's advanced enough to leech nutrients from its surroundings in an effort to get bigger. In the same way there's life in a shrub or a tapeworm or e-coli. But they don't have rights, they don't have a nervous system to feel pain with. And nor does an early embryo.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (246)
27.27%
No (656)
72.73%

Watched Threads

View All